On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:19, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > it is our belief that this new licence is just as osi-compliant > as the 1.1 version, and is more clearly compatible with the gpl > to boot.
Is the patent grant section GPL compatible? >From the Apache License, Version 2.0: | If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a | cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a | Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or | contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to | You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date | such litigation is filed. >From the GPLv2: | For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free | redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly | or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it | and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the | Program. To me it looks like the patent grant is an additional restriction beyond the bare GPL when a program licensed under the Apache License Version 2.0 is then distributed under the GPL. Imagine this situation: Three programs are created as follows: -------------------------------------- Person A creates Program_A, and licenses it under the Apache License, Version 2.0. Person_B then takes that work, makes some changes/editions/edits, and comes up with the derived work Program_B, which he distributes under GPLv2. Person_C then makes further changes to Program_B, and distributes those changes as Program_C under the GPLv2. As a side issue: ---------------- Person_Z creates Program_Z, not derived from anything, and distributes it under the GPLv2. Person_C uses and further distributes Program_Z. All these programs also incorporate patents: -------------------------------------------- Person_A owns Patent_A. Patent_A is incorporated into Program_[ABC] Person_B owns Patent_B. Patent_B is incorporated into Program_[BC] Person_C owns Patent_C1. Patent_C1 is incorporated into Program_[ABC] Person_C owns Patent_C2. Patent_C2 is incorporated into Program_Z. For the GPL-only case: ---------------------- Now assume that Person_C only wants his patents made/used/sold/distributed in GPL'd code. Then he won't sue Person_Z for infringing Patent_C2 in Program_Z, as it's distributed only under the GPL, (and by redistributing it that way himself, he's given them a license to distribute Patent_C2 in GPL'd code anyway.) That's normal GPL stuff. For the Apache v2 -> GPLv2 case: -------------------------------- Were Person_B to receive Program_B, distributed *only* under the GPL, he would presumably have the right to use any incorporated patents, including Patent_A and Patent_B, as well, within any GPL'd code and without further restrictions than what the GPL says. However, Program_B has further strings attached.. If Person_C notices that Person_A is using his Patent_C1 in a non-GPL'd manner, and initiates a patent infringement lawsuit against Person_A, according to the Patent License of the Apache License Version 2.0, his patent license for Patent_A is revoked. So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL, but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have been revoked. Person_B is also stuck--he can't distribute Program_B under the GPL anymore to anyone, because he's not allowed to distribute it to Person_C due to a lack of a patent license for Patent_A. In fact, looking at this from before Person_C starts a lawsuit, you can think of things from the point of view that in order for Person_[BC] to (continue to) have GPL-rights to Program_[ABC], Person_C is required to refrain from suing Person_A for patent infringement. So would the requirement-not-to-sue be an additional requirement that would be counter to the GPL in the first place? -- Mark Shewmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3