Re: Patent license question

[Hen <ba...@apache.org>]

Noting that that’s not what Roy said - there is an official position, it’s
the text of the license. Any conversation is to seek to help someone
understand that text.

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 19:18 Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, if there's no official position (and I wasn't offering
> one), what's another layperson perspective that's more correct?
> It sounds like you are saying (unofficially?) that the ASF license would
> require patent license for stuff not related to the Contribution. That
> indeed seems at odds with the license's text.
>
> The license says what it says and it's up to people to interpret with
> their lawyers in particular situations of course.
> But we can talk about what it says, no?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:32 AM Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 2024, at 8:42 AM, Shrut Kirti <je...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> I appreciate your thoughts. Does the Apache foundation have an official
>> position on this issue?
>>
>>
>> Sean's layperson reading is incorrect. The ASF's official position is the
>> text of the license.
>> It is self-descriptive.
>>
>> There's a reason why we don't individually reinterpret the license in
>> email.
>> Our license is specifically worded to be acceptable to our entire
>> community (and their lawyers).
>>
>> ....Roy
>>
>