On Mar 29, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Geir Magnusson wrote:<snip>The Apache License says in section 3 "Grant of Patent License" :I read this to mean that if I make a derivative work, I have no reason to believe that the patent license granted by the contributor to the original work applies to me and my derivative work.
I read it the same way. Not only that, but I read the patent grants in all
other open source licenses the same way. A copyright license to create
derivative works doesn't mean you get a patent license for whatever
derivative works strike your fancy.
Reading carefully again, I'm still confused. I realize that there is a nuance noted in another message on this thread because the Apache License uses the term "patent claims" and I don't grok the subtly. Is that a term of art for what non-lawyers would call "patents"? I didn't realize that there were sub-licensable parts to a patent.
But if we can put that aside for the moment I believe that the last sentence means
"The copyright license to create derivative works of a work with a patent license doesn't mean you get that same patent license for your derivative works".
or
"The patent license granted as part of the Apache License to a Work doesn't apply to derivative works"
Yes?
The natural question about patches and enhancements to the work in the project was I thought answered by Jeffrey, in that continued development of the Work continues to be the Work to which the patent license was granted.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
