You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> on 2008/04/11 05:38:33 UTC
Open Source vs Open Software
I just became aware of Larry's OSL (yes, I'm always last to the party).
http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm
My concern about the Apache License is this :
Section 2 grants the right under copyright law to make derivative
works, and I argue that Section 3 constrains the patent grant to the
covered Work. Period. You can make a derivative work due to Section 2
and you are safe for any claims of copyright infringement, but you're
on your own with respect to patents. I see no language that would
hint to me that I can separate the patent license from the covered
Work and use with a DERIVATIVE WORK (or any other work) which isn't
the covered Work.
That's open source.
I suggested a change to the AL - instead of scoping the patent grant
to just the covered Work, why not extend the scope to include
derivative works? Problem solved?
Well, Larry already did this. Here's his patent grant :
2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor grants You a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, under
patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are
embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor,
for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for
sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative
Works.
Maybe we need to stop hoping that we can bend open source to the model
we wish we had, and just move forward to the model we want to have :
"open source" - copyright freedom
"open software" - copyright and patent freedom
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Open Source vs Open Software
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 11, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2008, at 5:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> My concern about the Apache License is this :
>>
>> Section 2 grants the right under copyright law to make derivative
>> works, and I argue that Section 3 constrains the patent grant to
>> the covered Work. Period. You can make a derivative work due to
>> Section 2 and you are safe for any claims of copyright
>> infringement, but you're on your own with respect to patents. I
>> see no language that would hint to me that I can separate the
>> patent license from the covered Work and use with a DERIVATIVE WORK
>> (or any other work) which isn't the covered Work.
>
> For the record, since this is a public list, the above does not
> match the
> opinion of the ASF or the intent of the license author or the
> history of
> how the license has been described or the intent of Contributors when
> they make a contribution. Geir is merely exploring theoretical
> limitations
> that he personally perceives might be implied by a license if it is
> being
> read by a software professional who intends to game the system in a
> way that
> is probably impossible under patent law and cannot be determined
> short of
> a prolonged and very expensive lawsuit. Don't try this at home.
I'm certainly trying to understand how to interpret the license, but
not from the POV on how one might game the system, but rather to get
an easy understanding of the issues at hand for normal contributions
and usage of code contributed and received under the Apache License.
This thread comes from the discussion in 'Open Source, Patents and
"Patent Exhaustion"', but since it introduced elements from another
license, was put in a new thread as to not cloud or confuse the other,
which is wholly about the Apache License.
I think it would be helpful if you answered the questions in the other
thread 'Open Source, Patents and "Patent Exhaustion"', as that might
help me understand where I'm getting it wrong.
Thanks
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Open Source vs Open Software
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 11, 2008, at 5:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> My concern about the Apache License is this :
>
> Section 2 grants the right under copyright law to make derivative
> works, and I argue that Section 3 constrains the patent grant to
> the covered Work. Period. You can make a derivative work due to
> Section 2 and you are safe for any claims of copyright
> infringement, but you're on your own with respect to patents. I
> see no language that would hint to me that I can separate the
> patent license from the covered Work and use with a DERIVATIVE WORK
> (or any other work) which isn't the covered Work.
For the record, since this is a public list, the above does not match
the
opinion of the ASF or the intent of the license author or the history of
how the license has been described or the intent of Contributors when
they make a contribution. Geir is merely exploring theoretical
limitations
that he personally perceives might be implied by a license if it is
being
read by a software professional who intends to game the system in a
way that
is probably impossible under patent law and cannot be determined
short of
a prolonged and very expensive lawsuit. Don't try this at home.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Open Source vs Open Software
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Thanks Geir,
I'll mostly listen to what others have to say here about Geir's patent
issue. But first, you really should be looking at the companion license to
OSL 3.0, the Academic Free License (AFL 3.0), if you want to understand an
equivalent to the Apache License:
www.rosenlaw.com/AFL3.0.htm
This differs from OSL 3.0 in the same way that AL differs from GPL: No
copyright reciprocity. But its patent provisions are identical.
You can read an explanation of both of these licenses, including their
patent provisions, at:
www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:39 PM
> To: Legal Discuss
> Subject: Open Source vs Open Software
>
> I just became aware of Larry's OSL (yes, I'm always last to the party).
>
> http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm
>
> My concern about the Apache License is this :
>
> Section 2 grants the right under copyright law to make derivative
> works, and I argue that Section 3 constrains the patent grant to the
> covered Work. Period. You can make a derivative work due to Section 2
> and you are safe for any claims of copyright infringement, but you're
> on your own with respect to patents. I see no language that would
> hint to me that I can separate the patent license from the covered
> Work and use with a DERIVATIVE WORK (or any other work) which isn't
> the covered Work.
>
> That's open source.
>
> I suggested a change to the AL - instead of scoping the patent grant
> to just the covered Work, why not extend the scope to include
> derivative works? Problem solved?
>
> Well, Larry already did this. Here's his patent grant :
>
> 2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor grants You a worldwide,
> royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, under
> patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are
> embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor,
> for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for
> sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative
> Works.
>
>
> Maybe we need to stop hoping that we can bend open source to the model
> we wish we had, and just move forward to the model we want to have :
>
> "open source" - copyright freedom
>
> "open software" - copyright and patent freedom
>
>
> geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Open Source vs Open Software
Posted by Gilles Scokart <gs...@gmail.com>.
On 11/04/2008, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I just became aware of Larry's OSL (yes, I'm always last to the party).
>
> http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm
>
> My concern about the Apache License is this :
>
> Section 2 grants the right under copyright law to make derivative works,
> and I argue that Section 3 constrains the patent grant to the covered Work.
> Period. You can make a derivative work due to Section 2 and you are safe for
> any claims of copyright infringement, but you're on your own with respect to
> patents. I see no language that would hint to me that I can separate the
> patent license from the covered Work and use with a DERIVATIVE WORK (or any
> other work) which isn't the covered Work.
>
> That's open source.
>
> I suggested a change to the AL - instead of scoping the patent grant to
> just the covered Work, why not extend the scope to include derivative works?
> Problem solved?
>
> Well, Larry already did this. Here's his patent grant :
>
> 2) Grant of Patent License. Licensor grants You a worldwide,
> royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, under
> patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are
> embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor,
> for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for
> sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative Works.
>
>
> Maybe we need to stop hoping that we can bend open source to the model we
> wish we had, and just move forward to the model we want to have :
>
> "open source" - copyright freedom
>
> "open software" - copyright and patent freedom
>
>
Don't forget that the ASF is distributing sources, and every source
file contains this sentence :
"The ASF licenses this file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0".
Which is I think what we want.
In your previous discussion, the WORK considered was the Harmony
software. But the WORK we distribute can also be the
WonderfullSort.java source file subject to a patent.
> geir
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Gilles Scokart
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org