www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Error in Apache 2.0 License
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:10:56 GMT
McCoy Smith wrote:
> [I say that as a US lawyer;  some jurisdictions include additional rights
under copyright but AFAIK no jurisdiction includes "use" under copyrights;
my non-US colleagues are free to correct me].


What about 17 USC 117. /Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, McCoy [mailto:mccoy.smith@intel.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 8:18 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Madeleine Doan
Subject: RE: Error in Apache 2.0 License

"Use" is an enumerated right in patent law;  as Greg Stein already pointed
out (referencing Wikipedia) it is not an enumerated right in copyright law.
See, e.g., 17 USC 106.  Apache 2.0, like most well-written licenses, tracks
identically the enumerated rights for each individual intellectual property
right that is granted, using the verbs set forth in the respective statutes.

[I say that as a US lawyer;  some jurisdictions include additional rights
under copyright but AFAIK no jurisdiction includes "use" under copyrights;
my non-US colleagues are free to correct me].

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Eckart de Castilho [mailto:rec@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:37 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Madeleine Doan
Subject: Re: Error in Apache 2.0 License

If I understand Madeleine's blog entry correctly, she claims that the "Grant
of a Patent License" can only be made for sections of the work the are
in-fact formally patented. She believes that would not cover most of the
Apache work, since (presumably) no patents have been filed for most of it.
Her conclusion is, that there is no express permission given to use the
non-patented parts of the work. 

I guess the question is whether a "Grant of Patent License" can be issued on
non-patented work.

-- Richard

On 10.04.2015, at 01:52, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith@intel.com> wrote:

> In fact, Apache 2.0 includes an express patent license to use, as there is
to all the enumerated patent rights under 35 USC 271(a):
> 
> 
> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in
this section) patent license to make, have made, *use,* offer to sell, sell,
import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to
those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily
infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a
Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory
patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this
License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is
filed.
>  
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 2:23 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: Madeleine Doan
> Subject: Re: Error in Apache 2.0 License
>  
>  
> I am typically quite hesitant to contradict Greg on anything, but there is
a patent grant section in the Apache license.
>  
> What Greg says is literally correct however, in that the Apache Software
License as an agreement between Apache Software Foundation and the user only
grants a copyright.
>  
> But section 3 notifies the user that there is a patent grant from all of
the contributors to Apache software.  This is one of the most important
aspects of the Apache license.  As Madeleine correctly intimated and Greg
amplified you need both a right to copy and a right to use to have open
software.  The Apache license grants the right to copy and tells you about
the right to use that you already have received by virtue of contributors
contributing software under their contributor agreement.
>  
> So the Apache licensing scheme does cover both  right to copy and right to
use.
>  
>  
>  
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> [ moving to legal-discuss@apache; bcc: original list ]
>  
> Madeleine: the Apache License is a *copyright* license. That only deals
with making copies, derivations, and several other rights, under US
copyright law[1]. These laws do not impinge on your *use* of the software,
once you've obtained a copy of the software under the provided license.
>  
> *Use* of the software can only be limited via contract law. (though I 
> can imagine a scenario where people attempt to limit use under the 
> "public performance" and "public display" rights given by copyright 
> law; I believe the AGPL is trying this, but the Apache License 
> certainly does not)
>  
> I have redirected your query to the legal-discuss@apache.org mailing list.
The people here can correct my first-response, and provide answers to any
further questions you may have.
>  
> Cheers,
> -g
>  
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States
>  
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Madeleine Doan
<madeleinedoan144@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>  
> I noticed when reading the Apache 2.0 License Agreement that in Section 2
it read:
>  
> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide,
non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform,
sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or
Object form."
>  
> I noticed that unlike Section 3 (which gives permissions to use the
patented parts of the software), Section 2 gives the permissions for just
about everything but the actual use of the software under the copyright
license grant. This could cause trouble for the actual end user of the
software.
>  
> Could someone please fix this mistake?
>  
> Here is the link to the License:
>  
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>  
> I've elaborated more upon the subject here on my personal blog:
>  
> http://madeleinedsblogs.wix.com/productivewastedtime#!possible-mishap-
> in-apaches-2-license/cu6f
>  
> My email address is madeleinedoan144@gmail.com Thank you and have a 
> nice day, Madeleine
>  
> *Disclaimer:
> Madeleine Doan does NOT make any warranties, does not ensure the accuracy
of information, and disclaims all liabilities arising from (but is not
limited to) her writings, suggestions, recommendations, information and
accuracy. This is for informational purposesONLY and is NOT meant to be
legal advice in any way.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message