Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Review of proposed Apache License, version > 2.0] > To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Date: 17 Nov 2003 23:01:38 +0000 > Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) > >> 5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against any >> entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) >> alleging that a Contribution and/or the Work, without >> modification (other than modifications that are >> Contribution(s)), constitutes direct or contributory patent >> infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this >> License for that Contribution or such Work shall terminate as of >> the date such litigation is filed. > >> That's certainly better. It still has a problem in the following >> scenario: >> 1. I start using Apache. >> 2. I develop a new process -- let's say an encryption algorithm, like >> RSA -- and patent it. >> 3. Somebody contributes an implementation of my algorithm to Apache. >> This somebody has patents on critical parts of Apache. >> Now I'm screwed: I can't sue Apache for illegally using my work >> without my permission, or I'll lose my license to their code. > > I don't see that. If is only the grants "under this License *for* that > Contribution or such Work" that terminate. If you does not use the > version of Apache with your work in it, then your license to the > version you do use does not self-destruct as a consequence of your suit. > > You may be screwed if you only discover the violation after you > yourself have converted your website to use an Apache version that > itself contains the violation. In that case you will need to backport > the new features you need to an older Apache that does not contain > your patent (and which thus has a license that will not self-destruct).
Whoah. You're right, I missed that. OK, that might actually be Free. I'm not sure, and I'll need to think about it hard. It also seems to be a fine enough point that it invites situations akin to Pine: a malicious or just confused copyright^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H patent holder might interpret it differently. -Brian
