www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Error in Apache 2.0 License
Date Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:37:27 GMT
Sorry - email client didn't bring in the three other replies. Apologies for
repeating what others had already said.

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> To the other points though, they state that 'use' is a patent term (at
> least in the US). So if there's no patent, why do you need to permit 'use'?
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho <
> rec@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message