Admitedly, the Apache 2.0 does have a patent retaliation clause. It's just subtely different :-)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sam Halliday <sam.halli...@gmail.com> writes: > [ text/plain ] > Jason Felice writes: >> This same verbiage appears in the Apache license and the Artistic license > > This is false. What I quoted is the EPL patent retaliation clause and > Apache 2.0 has no such clause. Perhaps you are thinking about the Apache > 2.0's Grant of Patent clause, which is similar to EPL's Grant of Right > clause. > > I refer you to Apache 2.0 to confirm for yourself > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > >> Sam Halliday wrote: >>> It's got nothing to do with contributing to Clojure (the Grant of Right >>> is standard in all modern free software licences). The problem is the >>> patent retaliation clause, which I quote from Section 7 of the >>> [EPL](http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html) >>> >>> "If Recipient institutes patent litigation against any entity >>> (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that >>> the Program itself (excluding combinations of the Program with other >>> software or hardware) infringes such Recipient's patent(s), then such >>> Recipient's rights granted under Section 2(b) shall terminate as of >>> the date such litigation is filed." >>> >>> In other words, if you ever have a legal dispute with anybady about a >>> patent violation in clojure (which somebody else could have contributed >>> without your permission), then you lose your right to use clojure. As >>> in, turn off your production systems, now. >>> >>> This could be persued by anybody (corporate or individual, including the >>> person who you are suing for implementing your patents) who has ever >>> contributed to Clojure. Rich Hickey is in a privileged position where he >>> can grant ad hoc / tailored licences to corporate customers, granting >>> immunity to the patent retaliation clause. > > -- > Best regards, > Sam -- Best regards, Sam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
