Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BC3A177F6 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 8018 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2015 20:36:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 7857 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2015 20:36:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 7847 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2015 20:36:46 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:36:46 +0000 Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 987171A0113 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkgx75 with SMTP id x75so94364374qkg.1 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.20.89 with SMTP id e86mr15182021qkh.74.1428784605836; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.186.130 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2D52F7EE739F8542A700CAB96276B5192811E757@FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:36:45 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Error in Apache 2.0 License From: Henri Yandell To: ASF Legal Discuss Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fec2ce4781e051378d619 --001a113fec2ce4781e051378d619 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 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 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 > > --001a113fec2ce4781e051378d619 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To the other points though, they state that 'use&= #39; is a patent term (at least in the US). So if there's no patent, wh= y 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 on= ly 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) n= o 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 b= e 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 ther= e is to all the enumerated patent rights under 35 USC 271(a):
>
>
> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of thi= s License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, no= n-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this= section) patent license to make, have made, *use,* offer to sell, sell, im= port, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to t= hose patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infr= inged by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contributio= n(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You inst= itute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or coun= terclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporate= d within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, t= hen any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work sha= ll 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.o= rg
> Cc: Madeleine Doan
> Subject: Re: Error in Apache 2.0 License
>
>
> I am typically quite hesitant to contradict Greg on anything, but ther= e is a patent grant section in the Apache license.
>
> What Greg says is literally correct however, in that the Apache Softwa= re 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.=C2=A0 This is one of the most impor= tant aspects of the Apache license.=C2=A0 As Madeleine correctly intimated = and Greg amplified you need both a right to copy and a right to use to have= open software.=C2=A0 The Apache license grants the right to copy and tells= you about the right to use that you already have received by virtue of con= tributors contributing software under their contributor agreement.
>
> So the Apache licensing scheme does cover both=C2=A0 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 deal= s with making copies, derivations, and several other rights, under US copyr= ight 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 "pu= blic performance" and "public display" rights given by copyr= ight law; I believe the AGPL is trying this, but the Apache License certain= ly does not)
>
> I have redirected your query to the legal-discuss@apache.org mailing list. The people here can co= rrect my first-response, and provide answers to any further questions you m= ay have.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_t= he_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 Sectio= n 2 it read:
>
> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditio= ns of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worl= dwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright licens= e to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly per= form, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Sour= ce or Object form."
>
> I noticed that unlike Section 3 (which gives permissions to use the pa= tented parts of the software), Section 2 gives the permissions for just abo= ut everything but the actual use of the software under the copyright licens= e grant. This could cause trouble for the actual end user of the software.<= br> >
> 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://madeleinedsb= logs.wix.com/productivewastedtime#!possible-mishap-in-apaches-2-license/cu6= f
>
> My email address is made= leinedoan144@gmail.com
> Thank you and have a nice day,
> Madeleine
>
> *Disclaimer:
> Madeleine Doan does NOT make any warranties, does not ensu= re the accuracy of information, and disclaims all liabilities arising from = (but is not limited to) her writings, suggestions, recommendations, informa= tion 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


--001a113fec2ce4781e051378d619--