On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:34:01AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'd sure like to know what Eben Moglen thinks about this issue.
>
> He submitted comments on behalf of the FSF on November 14. See:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1127301
Ken Arromdee said on Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:20:27PM -0800,:
> > > > by which you could create it. I find it highly unlikely that patent
> > > > lawyers cost appreciably more than software developers)
(snip)
> But that's not cheap. Going to law school costs a lot of money. Becoming a
> s
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>> > There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
>> > release will still be entirely free software, and Debian h
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
>> cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
>> strategy.
>
> *shrug* That's not our pr
Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'd sure like to know what Eben Moglen thinks about this issue.
He submitted comments on behalf of the FSF on November 14. See:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=1127301
Quote: "FSF believes that broad automatic termination provisions like
that c
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
> > release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
> > bitten by this before. So why not move
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:16:43AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 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
>
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:45:04PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
> cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
> strategy.
*shrug* That's not our problem.
President Bush considers a "missile defense sh
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 02:46:37AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think you must look at the entire picture --- not just the copyright
> one --- to determine if software is free. I don't think its free if the
> copyright holder decides to use patents, instead of copyright, to limit
> your fre
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 07:43:01PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> There is also no way to be sure that the next minor upstream Emacs
> release will still be entirely free software, and Debian has been
> bitten by this before. So why not move everything to non-free which
> is not under a "GPL, ve
On Nov 17, 2003, at 13:35, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:15:40AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
I'm a software developer. So the services of one may, under some
circumstances, cost me nothing at all (except my spare time). I
don't think
patent lawyers can get cheaper than
On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:16, John Goerzen wrote:
This is only useful if you do not have a valid defense for the problem
already. In other words, it is only useful as a strong-arm tactic to
let
your own company effectively ignore patents of others. After all, if
the
lawsuit filed against you
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 11:24, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> The patent prevents you from solving the covered problem, no matter
> how you come to that solution. So the unlawfullness of integrating
> the patented method into the parsing of your favorite text editor has
> nothing to do with the web serv
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> >> >
> >> >> And, as it happens, companies do gran
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>> >
>> >> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
>> >> common practice when work
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> There's the difference that it takes explicit action and quite a bit
> of money to acquire and keep holding a patent. Going through that
> trouble just to grant the public a perpetual, non-exclusive,
> worldwide, fully paid-up and r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> >
> >> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
> >> common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
> >>
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, but a patent could not be part of such a portfolio if if were
> > licensed freely to the general public.
> But it could be part of such a portfolio if it were licensed for use
> in otherwise-free software only,
OK,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> > In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
>> > cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
>> > strategy.
>>
>> Yes, but a patent co
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
>> > at all, it must be because they intend to restrict people from using
>> > it (or at least keep a
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:58:39AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In the current patent-litigation context, a large stable of patents to
> > cross-license is considered a vitally important corporate defense
> > strategy.
>
> Yes, but a patent could not be part of such a portfolio if if were
> l
Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And I point out that it doesn't. If the company patent their invention
> > at all, it must be because they intend to restrict people from using
> > it (or at least keep an option open for using the patent to restrict
> > w
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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 invention
> at all, it
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
>
>> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
>> common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
>> standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
> And, as it happens, companies do grant free patent licenses: it's
> common practice when working on a standard which must be approved by a
> standards body with a RF policy: typically, the patent is licensed for
> any use which implements that standa
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > On the other hand, copyright springs into being automatically. It
> > makes sense for somebody who have accidentally become bestowed with a
> > copyright to explicitly license it to
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 (it's the same one that proprietary software
> advocates have been making for about 20 year
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:12:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
>
> > > No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> > > fully paid-up and royalty free paten
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
> > No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> > fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence without a reciprocity
> > clause.
> No sane company will ever gr
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:55:56PM +1300, Adam Warner wrote:
> No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> fully paid-up and royalty free patent licence without a reciprocity
> clause.
No sane company will ever grant a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
fully paid-up
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 14:39, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:22:39PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
> >
> > > I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
> >
> > Will you please clarify why??
>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 03:22:39PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
>
> > I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
>
> Will you please clarify why??
I'm assuming you meant the copyright assignment statement, and
cert
Brian M. Carlson said on Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:39:29AM +,:
> I'm not sure that this is even legal, at least in the US.
Will you please clarify why??
--
+~+
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
'NA
On Nov 8, 2003, at 05:03, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
SUMMARY: Non-free for all three licenses.
=
== DO NOT PANIC! This is a draft for discussion purposes only.
==
How can you not panic? It's 48K of text!
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003, Adam Warner wrote:
> So you want companies to grant perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide,
> fully paid-up and royalty free patent licenses that are completely
> irrevocable even when another company is using their software and
> suing them for software patent infringement?
What
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 01:25, Don Armstrong 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
How Apache went from a rather decent 5 clause license to the proposed
11 clause license is a mystery to me. I strongly suggest the license
be gone over with a fine toothed comb and searched for areas where it
can be made more general and less specific.
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
BIG NOTICE: None of these licenses are official. They are all drafts.
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:03:55AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
> comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
> not.
>
>3.
I am including the licenses inline. I will immediately follow up with
comments, so that it is apparent which comments are mine and which are
not.
=
== DO NOT PANIC! This is a draft for discussion purposes only. ==
==
- Forwarded message from "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:17 -0800
To: announce@apache.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
The Apache Software Foundation is
64 matches
Mail list logo
