Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
version to license@apache.org on November 13. You can read it at
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24
Correction: Jennifer Machovec is not drafting the license. She is an
attorney at IBM who submitted comment
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > (And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
> > > *hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. T
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 +
> Resent-From: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>
> Scrip
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
Brian T. Sniffen said:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
>> version to license@apache.org on November 13. You can read it at
>>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=24>
> Thanks. I think the new S5 l
I'm not cc'ing the apache license list, as I suspect tempers will stay
cooler if debian-legal reaches a consensus, then contacts Apache.
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> I believe Arnoud Engelfriet mentioned that this clause (#5) has been
>> removed from the
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I believe Arnoud Engelfriet mentioned that this clause (#5) has been
> removed from the draft. I havn't checked. If so, that's good; this
> is clearly the most problematic clause.
Jennifer Machovec, who's drafting the license, posted a new
version to license@apache.org on
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:46:11PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing.
>
> I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there seemed other problems,
> did any OSL-
On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 + Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing.
I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there seemed other problems,
did any OSL-covered software get into main yet?
Reading past discussions, I se
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
>> practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
>> system, it's much, much cheaper to counter
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:17:23PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> What's currently there attempts to use the usefulness of Apache to buy
> non-enforcement of software patents elsewhere, which I believe is
> inappropriate for Free Software.
If that's all it did, I'd be fine with it. However, I d
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
We did this one a few months back, but nobody raised the
patent/reciprocity thing at that time. Here's the offending clause:
10) Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate
automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the ri
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > (And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
> > *hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. To
> > gain a software patent, you merely have to des
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
> directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> (And this still applies just as much to software licenses. It is
> *hard* to gain a copyright license; you have to create the work. To
> gain a software patent, you merely have to describe the general method
> by which you could create it. I find it hig
[debian-legal folks, please cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks.]
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 12:15, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 14:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > >
> > > > The act of
Added license@apache.org to this subthread, since my final question is
directed to them. Please CC debian-legal on replies.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it isn't
> Debian's fight, or Apache's, and this is
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>5. Reciprocity. If You institute patent litigation against a
> Contributor with respect to a patent applicable to software
> (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any
> patent licenses granted by that Contributor to You under thi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:36:10AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
> practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
> system, it's much, much cheaper to countersue and work out a quick
> settlement -- even i
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is
>> > requiring.
>> > As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
>> > for any of your soft
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:19:01AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Here's a bit from a hypothetical software license:
>>In addition, by using this software, you grant to the Original Author a
>> non-exclusive right to use, modify, and/or distribute any wo
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is requiring.
> > As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
> > for any of your software patents, for as long as you continue to use Apac
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:19:01AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Here's a bit from a hypothetical software license:
>In addition, by using this software, you grant to the Original Author a
> non-exclusive right to use, modify, and/or distribute any work of which you
> own copyright, for as long as
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:02:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
>> copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
>> of your own patents. That's non-free however y
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:02:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
> copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
> of your own patents. That's non-free however you look at it.
Your own patents are only affect
Andrew Suffield said:
> Finally, it is totally unacceptable to tie this into a software
> copyright license, such that accepting the license affects the status
> of your own patents. That's non-free however you look at it.
This made me think of an analogy:
Here's a bit from a hypothetical softwar
On Nov 16, 2003, at 16:23, Sam Hartman wrote:
Anthony> I missed that one. You have a good point there... I don't
Anthony> know how to answer that one, or why it is done
Anthony> differently than 2(b).
Here is how the FSF explains it. If you disagree with the following,
please cite
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:02:12AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> gain a software patent, you merely have to describe the general method
> by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
> lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)
While I agree with your general
I wonder if there are any legal issues if I took the description
of the api and implemented my only library, which would be for
my purposes a sufficient replacement.
"Clean room" reimplementation is legally safe (in most countries,
anyway). For instance, if you take a free program designed to
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:19:35AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > The argument proposed was attempting to say "No company is ever going
> > to grant free patent licenses"; I pointed out the argument applies
> > equally to software
>
> And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their
30 matches
Mail list logo
