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 2008/04/03 17:06:55 UTC
Fwd: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
I asked this earlier today on legal-internal, but Sam suggested I ask
here instead.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
> Date: April 3, 2008 7:01:20 AM EDT
> To: legal-internal@apache.org
> Subject: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
> Reply-To: legal-internal@apache.org
>
> I always shed bitter tears of frustration and rage when I think
> about this :) and I'm sorry to bring it up again.
>
> Can someone point me to a clear statement of the ASF's position
> regarding the rights a user of a derivative work of an Apache
> project has with respect to the patent licenses granted to the
> original project by the contributors to the project?
>
> I am of the apparently mistaken opinion that there are limits - that
> one can't take an Apache codebase, make arbitrary modifications, and
> assert a license the same patent rights from contributors to the
> original Work that users of the original Work can.
>
> When I read http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
> I get confused. I see :
>
> "... Once a patent claim is subject to Apache's Grant of Patent
> License,
> it is licensed under the terms of that Grant to the ASF and to
> recipients
> of any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
> product
> whatsoever."
>
> I'll note that we say
>
> "... and to recipients of any software distributed by the ASF
> for any Apache software product whatsoever."
>
> which to me is radically different from
>
> ".. and to recipients for any derivative work the recipients may
> choose to make and distribute whatsoever."
>
> I hope you can see my confusion on this matter.
>
> Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this? I was trying to
> read back through the [years of] discussion that resulted in this
> statement, but don't grok it as it seems to hinge on the hope that
> the Contribution was made by someone who signed the CLA, for a few
> reasons. First, the CLA broadly defines "Work" as
>
> "any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the
> "Work")"
>
> whereas the Apache License defines it another, and to me, very
> different (and admittedly unclear) way :
>
> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
> Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
> copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
> (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
>
> Further, I interpret the Copyright and Patent Grants in the Apache
> License as between the Contributor and "You" (the recipient) :
>
> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and
> conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You..."
>
> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You...
> where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
> by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
> Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
> with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted."
>
> whereas the CLA's language has :
>
> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and
> conditions of
> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
>
> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
>
> where I read the AL version of the patent license as being to the
> Work specifically, whereas the CLA broadens to "software distributed
> by the Foundation".
>
> Finally, I note that in both cases (AL and ICLA), the Grant of
> Copyright license is explicit in it's grant of rights to make,
> perform, distribute Derivative Works, and the Grant of Patent
> License omits of any such language.
>
> I'm ready to be told I'm a moron and it's obvious (I've been assured
> that this is a settled question). If so, can we just put that up on
> the FAQ? it will give me something to refer to :)
>
> Thanks
>
> geir
>
>
>
Re: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I'm confused for a bunch of reasons, including the apparent
> difference between the CLA's patent grant and the AL's patent grant
> with respect to the ASF as a named recipient of the grant. The CLA
> has the ASF as a recipient of the patent grant, but the AL
> doesn't. So if the contributor hasn't signed the CLA, how can it
> be that the "ASF has a patent license"?
They contributed to the ASF. The ASF is therefore the recipient of
the AL
covered work.
> Putting that aside, my question isn't about the ASF - I'm
> comfortable with the notion that the project to which the
> contribution was contributed to benefits from the patent grant as
> there's clarity regarding the notion of Work inherent in the
> license, and if the contribution was made by someone that signed
> the CLA, that any project of the foundation benefits from the
> patent grant.
>
> My question is what can a third party - say my brother making
> sequential derivative works - depend on as to the patent license
> for whatever derivative work they make from the original Work.
>
> Imagine a non-CLA-signing Contributor that owns patent P makes a
> contribution to Apache Foo such that the new Apache Foo reads on
> P. Because of the Apache License, users of Apache Foo don't have
> to worry about patent litigation related to P by Contributor for
> using Apache Foo.
There are many other possibilities. Because the ASF is an open
source foundation,
and the contributor knows that, they are knowingly giving up
exclusive control
over the patents. That is relevant to any subsequent lawsuits.
> Now, my bother takes Apache Foo and starts a google code project
> based on it called "Bar". Do users of Bar have to worry about
> patent litigation related to P by Contributor for using Bar which
> is a derivative work of Apache Foo?
Everyone has to worry about patent litigation, even if they have a
signed
document in hand. That's why all open source projects should be
incorporated
or part of a corporation like ISOC.
> If that's the case, then why do we constrain http://www.apache.org/
> foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope the last sentence of the
> answer to Q3 to
>
> "....any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
> product whatsoever."
>
> rather than something more open and broad such as
>
> "... any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
> product and any derivative work thereof, whatsoever"
Because "derivative work" is irrelevant to the topic.
....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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:14 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> At the risk of getting my head bitten off, I'm going to keep going
>> as this is really helping.
>
> It isn't helping my keynote on Friday.
You're a stud :) Where is it?
[SNIP]
>
>
>> - o -
>>
>> I'm still think that there are limitations on the use of the
>> covered Work wrt the patent license. Why? There appear to be two
>> extrema :
>>
>> (a) With the covered Work, I have a license that covers doing
>> whatever I want like making, selling, distributing.
>>
>> (b) There exists software that infringes on the same patent claims
>> that I have no license for, as the AL says its for the covered Work.
>>
>> If I start with (a) - with a covered Work that has a license via
>> the AL - and through a sequence of transformations produce the
>> software (b) that has no license, I must have lost that license
>> along the way at some point?
>
> Licenses are given to people/entities, not software products. They
> might be
> limited to a certain product, but such limitations are usually
> pretty clear
> in the license (and are only determined by litigation). Otherwise,
> you hold
> a driver's license to all cars, not the specific model of car that you
> happened to be driving when you were 16. It isn't that hard to
> understand
> once you rip the parts of copyright law out of your brain that have
> nothing
> whatsoever to do with patent law.
I thought I was careful lately, as I'm trying to forget about the
concept of "derivative work" when thinking about this.
I assumed that the patent license that accompanies a Contribution
*was* limited to a certain product, unless the contributor signed the
CLA, in which case it was limited to the set of products of the ASF.
(And I don't think I'm the only one given the answer to Q3 of the
patent question in the licensing FAQ)
Either way, that is a limitation, and I suspect I'll reach clarity
when I understand what is and what isn't a "product" from the
perspective of the limitations of the patent license.
Thanks again.
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> At the risk of getting my head bitten off, I'm going to keep going
> as this is really helping.
It isn't helping my keynote on Friday.
> To say in my own words -
>
> On one hand, the AL provides me with a comprehensive license that
> covers things like making and selling covered Works to others. On
> the other hand, even by accepting the license for a covered Work, i
> don't have unfettered rights for "non covered Work" software that
> infringes the same patent claims.
We don't know the answer to that question. We can't give away (AL)
more than
we know that we have received, but that doesn't limit what we have
received (CLA).
This is not a concern.
>>> Do users of the Apache Harmony project have a license to patent
>>> claims that happen to also infringed by the OpenJDK project as
>>> that's under the GPL?
>>
>> Is it? I don't think so. In any case, GPLv2 has no patent
>> licensing other
>> than implied patents, and Sun doesn't break the GPLv2 if it sues
>> on the
>> basis of "give us your money *or* distribute as GPLv2". That's
>> because GPLv2
>> is not an open license (it is a limited license).
>
> Right. I didn't think so either, but you did say
>
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> ... contributing patented
>> algorithms/methods to an open source project causes said patent
>> claims
>> to be openly licensed to everyone, royalty-free, on reciprocal terms.
>> End of story.
>
> which I was guessing was a bit of hyperbole and was intended to be
> read in the context of the Apache License, but I had to check.
No, you don't understand. The reciprocal terms in AL are limited to
patent
litigation. The reciprocal terms in GPLv2 are about redistribution
as GPLv2.
> - o -
>
> I'm still think that there are limitations on the use of the
> covered Work wrt the patent license. Why? There appear to be two
> extrema :
>
> (a) With the covered Work, I have a license that covers doing
> whatever I want like making, selling, distributing.
>
> (b) There exists software that infringes on the same patent claims
> that I have no license for, as the AL says its for the covered Work.
>
> If I start with (a) - with a covered Work that has a license via
> the AL - and through a sequence of transformations produce the
> software (b) that has no license, I must have lost that license
> along the way at some point?
Licenses are given to people/entities, not software products. They
might be
limited to a certain product, but such limitations are usually pretty
clear
in the license (and are only determined by litigation). Otherwise,
you hold
a driver's license to all cars, not the specific model of car that you
happened to be driving when you were 16. It isn't that hard to
understand
once you rip the parts of copyright law out of your brain that have
nothing
whatsoever to do with patent law.
....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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>> However, I still can't see how I'm free to make different
>>>> software that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim that
>>>> the license granted to users of the Work via the Apache License
>>>> apply to my users as well. It feels analogous to "making and
>>>> selling copies" in the physical world. (I realize how I feel is
>>>> irrelevant...)
>>>
>>> Are you a user? Then you have the license. It is a comprehensive
>>> license
>>> that covers all patent monopolizing activities, including making
>>> and selling
>>> covered Works to others.
>>
>> Why do you use the phrase "covered Works"? Why wouldn't you say
>> "any software that infringes on the patent claims"?
>
> Because that's not what the AL says and you are asking about a non-CLA
> situation.
At the risk of getting my head bitten off, I'm going to keep going as
this is really helping.
To say in my own words -
On one hand, the AL provides me with a comprehensive license that
covers things like making and selling covered Works to others. On the
other hand, even by accepting the license for a covered Work, i don't
have unfettered rights for "non covered Work" software that infringes
the same patent claims.
>> Do users of the Apache Harmony project have a license to patent
>> claims that happen to also infringed by the OpenJDK project as
>> that's under the GPL?
>
> Is it? I don't think so. In any case, GPLv2 has no patent
> licensing other
> than implied patents, and Sun doesn't break the GPLv2 if it sues on
> the
> basis of "give us your money *or* distribute as GPLv2". That's
> because GPLv2
> is not an open license (it is a limited license).
Right. I didn't think so either, but you did say
On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ... contributing patented
> algorithms/methods to an open source project causes said patent claims
> to be openly licensed to everyone, royalty-free, on reciprocal terms.
> End of story.
which I was guessing was a bit of hyperbole and was intended to be
read in the context of the Apache License, but I had to check.
- o -
I'm still think that there are limitations on the use of the covered
Work wrt the patent license. Why? There appear to be two extrema :
(a) With the covered Work, I have a license that covers doing
whatever I want like making, selling, distributing.
(b) There exists software that infringes on the same patent claims
that I have no license for, as the AL says its for the covered Work.
If I start with (a) - with a covered Work that has a license via the
AL - and through a sequence of transformations produce the software
(b) that has no license, I must have lost that license along the way
at some point?
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> However, I still can't see how I'm free to make different
>>> software that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim that
>>> the license granted to users of the Work via the Apache License
>>> apply to my users as well. It feels analogous to "making and
>>> selling copies" in the physical world. (I realize how I feel is
>>> irrelevant...)
>>
>> Are you a user? Then you have the license. It is a comprehensive
>> license
>> that covers all patent monopolizing activities, including making
>> and selling
>> covered Works to others.
>
> Why do you use the phrase "covered Works"? Why wouldn't you say
> "any software that infringes on the patent claims"?
Because that's not what the AL says and you are asking about a non-CLA
situation.
> Do users of the Apache Harmony project have a license to patent
> claims that happen to also infringed by the OpenJDK project as
> that's under the GPL?
Is it? I don't think so. In any case, GPLv2 has no patent licensing
other
than implied patents, and Sun doesn't break the GPLv2 if it sues on the
basis of "give us your money *or* distribute as GPLv2". That's
because GPLv2
is not an open license (it is a limited license).
> In that case, since users receive those licenses by means of a
> mechanism independent of the licensing of Apache Harmony - if I
> understand you correctly, they are available as a direct
> consequence of Sun placing the RI under the GPL - is it even
> possible for Apache or Sun to now place constraints on the licenses
> to those patent claims?
Only the patent owner can place constraints (not us) and I refuse to
guess
what Sun will do next.
....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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
[...]
> The point is that contributing patented
> > algorithms/methods to an open source project
> causes said patent claims
> > to be openly licensed to everyone, royalty-free,
> on reciprocal terms.
>
> Do users of the Apache Harmony project have a
> license to patent claims
> that happen to also infringed by the OpenJDK project
> as that's under
> the GPL?
If so, the license is the GPL. I don't see how
that helps Harmony any.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> However, I still can't see how I'm free to make different software
>> that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim that the license
>> granted to users of the Work via the Apache License apply to my
>> users as well. It feels analogous to "making and selling copies"
>> in the physical world. (I realize how I feel is irrelevant...)
>
> Are you a user? Then you have the license. It is a comprehensive
> license
> that covers all patent monopolizing activities, including making and
> selling
> covered Works to others.
Why do you use the phrase "covered Works"? Why wouldn't you say "any
software that infringes on the patent claims"?
>
>
>> It just doesn't make sense to me, as this seems like contributing
>> via the Apache License is tantamount to unlimited, royalty-free
>> patent licensing (for the limited set of claims infringed by the
>> original Work that was contributed to), and if that's really the
>> case, why don't we just say that in the FAQ?
>
> Because it would unnecessarily upset some legal counsels who are
> better
> left out of the discussion. The point is that contributing patented
> algorithms/methods to an open source project causes said patent claims
> to be openly licensed to everyone, royalty-free, on reciprocal terms.
Do users of the Apache Harmony project have a license to patent claims
that happen to also infringed by the OpenJDK project as that's under
the GPL?
In that case, since users receive those licenses by means of a
mechanism independent of the licensing of Apache Harmony - if I
understand you correctly, they are available as a direct consequence
of Sun placing the RI under the GPL - is it even possible for Apache
or Sun to now place constraints on the licenses to those patent claims?
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> However, I still can't see how I'm free to make different software
> that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim that the license
> granted to users of the Work via the Apache License apply to my
> users as well. It feels analogous to "making and selling copies"
> in the physical world. (I realize how I feel is irrelevant...)
Are you a user? Then you have the license. It is a comprehensive
license
that covers all patent monopolizing activities, including making and
selling
covered Works to others.
> It just doesn't make sense to me, as this seems like contributing
> via the Apache License is tantamount to unlimited, royalty-free
> patent licensing (for the limited set of claims infringed by the
> original Work that was contributed to), and if that's really the
> case, why don't we just say that in the FAQ?
Because it would unnecessarily upset some legal counsels who are better
left out of the discussion. The point is that contributing patented
algorithms/methods to an open source project causes said patent claims
to be openly licensed to everyone, royalty-free, on reciprocal terms.
End of story. If you want guarantees that the wording we have will work
in practice, then you will have to sue someone in each district and see
the outcome.
....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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> The AL says (dropping the litigation piece) :
>>
>> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
>> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
>> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
>> (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have
>> made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the
>> Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims
>> licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by
>> their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution
>> (s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
>>
>> My simple understanding of this says :
>>
>> I get a patent license from each contributor to do a bunch of
>> things with the Work for any patent claims the Contributor can
>> license that are necessarily infringed by their contribution,
>> or the combination of the contribution and the work.
> For the sake of discussion :
>
> Why can't I separate the license from the set of claims infringed
> by the Work?
>
> IOW, can I create new software that infringes on the same set of
> patent claims as the Contribution or the combination of the
> Contribution and the Work, and assert that I have a license for
> those claims since I once simply downloaded the Work?
Maybe. You would have to test that in court.
> I believe the answer is "no", because the patent license is
> actually constrained by section 3 to apply to a set of actions
> done with the Work in question, and not some other work, related or
> not.
So include the Work with whatever it is that you created.
> Thus, given that "making new software that infringes on the claims"
> reasonably falls within "doing pretty much doing as I wish" with
> the license for those claims, I don't believe it's the case that i
> can do "pretty much as I wish".
It depends on what other licenses you may already have. Like the CLA.
....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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr.
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>
> >> According to the Apache License 2.0, they get a
> patent
> >> license to do with pretty much as they wish.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for being patient with me :) I'm starting
> to feel really
> > stupid since everyone gets this but me.
> >
> > The AL says (dropping the litigation piece) :
> >
> > 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms
> and conditions of
> > this License, each Contributor hereby grants to
> You a perpetual,
> > worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable
> > (except as stated in this section) patent license
> to make, have
> > made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
> otherwise transfer the
> > Work, where such license applies only to those
> patent claims
> > licensable by such Contributor that are
> necessarily infringed by
> > their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of
> their
> > Contribution(s) with the Work to which such
> Contribution(s) was
> > submitted.
> >
> > My simple understanding of this says :
> >
> > I get a patent license from each contributor to
> do a bunch of
> > things with the Work for any patent claims the
> Contributor can
> > license that are necessarily infringed by their
> contribution,
> > or the combination of the contribution and the
> work.
>
> For the sake of discussion :
>
> Why can't I separate the license from the set of
> claims infringed by
> the Work?
>
> IOW, can I create new software that infringes on the
> same set of
> patent claims as the Contribution or the combination
> of the
> Contribution and the Work, and assert that I have a
> license for those
> claims since I once simply downloaded the Work?
>
> I believe the answer is "no", because the patent
> license is actually
> constrained by section 3 to apply to a set of
> actions done with the
> Work in question, and not some other work, related
> or not.
Agreed. FWIW, that (section 3) is what I was referring
to, along with making modifications to the work
itself,
because of what I read about exhaustion.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> According to the Apache License 2.0, they get a patent
>> license to do with pretty much as they wish.
>>
>
> Thanks for being patient with me :) I'm starting to feel really
> stupid since everyone gets this but me.
>
> The AL says (dropping the litigation piece) :
>
> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
> (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have
> made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the
> Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims
> licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by
> their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
> Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was
> submitted.
>
> My simple understanding of this says :
>
> I get a patent license from each contributor to do a bunch of
> things with the Work for any patent claims the Contributor can
> license that are necessarily infringed by their contribution,
> or the combination of the contribution and the work.
For the sake of discussion :
Why can't I separate the license from the set of claims infringed by
the Work?
IOW, can I create new software that infringes on the same set of
patent claims as the Contribution or the combination of the
Contribution and the Work, and assert that I have a license for those
claims since I once simply downloaded the Work?
I believe the answer is "no", because the patent license is actually
constrained by section 3 to apply to a set of actions done with the
Work in question, and not some other work, related or not.
Thus, given that "making new software that infringes on the claims"
reasonably falls within "doing pretty much doing as I wish" with the
license for those claims, I don't believe it's the case that i can do
"pretty much as I wish".
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> If no, wouldn't the following [IMO unreasonable] addition to the
>> FAQ be reasonable ?
>> Q : I understand that my contribution via the Apache License
>> results in a license grant to any of my patent claims
>> infringed by my
>> contribution. Are there any limitations on the use that
>> license?
>> A : No, except for the termination condition in section 3 of
>> the license.
>
> The license says what it says, I've repeatedly insisted that we quit
> diluting the waters by constraining the interpretation of the Apache
> License
> with Q & A language unless it's clearly necessary.
Well, if you read the conversation, you'll hopefully see I was trying
to figure out why we are using constraining language in a Q&A.
>
> Please remember 1. this is a publicly accessible list, and 2. this
> navel
> gazing is neither substantive legal opinion nor official
> clarification.
1) that's the point of having it here
2) I couldn't imagine anyone thinking otherwise
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> However, if you want to formulate Q & A's, those don't belong here,
> they belong in front of the ASF's lawyers as matters of privileged
> advise, to be considered and decided and then published.
That would depend on the Q & A. Matters of legal interpretation
should have legal review, and ASF lawyers can, and have, responded on
more private venues.
Matters of policy, however...
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > --- "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Please remember 1. this is a publicly accessible
> >> list, and 2. this navel
> >> gazing is neither substantive legal opinion nor
> >> official clarification.
> >
> > Sigh. Every post here includes a big fat
> disclaimer
> > to that effect. I really wish the board would get
> > over itself and make the sausage where others can
> > see how it's made. I don't see anything wrong
> with
> > Geir being a bit confused and asking some
> questions.
>
> In hindsight (having read Roy's responses) you are
> right, he's
> done a very good job of indicating to Geir how
> abstract some of
> the questions are and how many answers are really
> indeterminate.
>
> However, if you want to formulate Q & A's, those
> don't belong here,
> they belong in front of the ASF's lawyers as matters
> of privileged
> advise, to be considered and decided and then
> published.
>
> I'm not all over myself as a board member Joe, I'm a
> member of the
> legal committee, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm very
> sensitive to when
> public posts might be construed as some public
> policy statement or
> legal opinion. My board responsibilities had zero
> to do with this
> post you replied to.
Ok, sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification
Bill.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> --- "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Please remember 1. this is a publicly accessible
>> list, and 2. this navel
>> gazing is neither substantive legal opinion nor
>> official clarification.
>
> Sigh. Every post here includes a big fat disclaimer
> to that effect. I really wish the board would get
> over itself and make the sausage where others can
> see how it's made. I don't see anything wrong with
> Geir being a bit confused and asking some questions.
In hindsight (having read Roy's responses) you are right, he's
done a very good job of indicating to Geir how abstract some of
the questions are and how many answers are really indeterminate.
However, if you want to formulate Q & A's, those don't belong here,
they belong in front of the ASF's lawyers as matters of privileged
advise, to be considered and decided and then published.
I'm not all over myself as a board member Joe, I'm a member of the
legal committee, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm very sensitive to when
public posts might be construed as some public policy statement or
legal opinion. My board responsibilities had zero to do with this
post you replied to.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
> Please remember 1. this is a publicly accessible
> list, and 2. this navel
> gazing is neither substantive legal opinion nor
> official clarification.
Sigh. Every post here includes a big fat disclaimer
to that effect. I really wish the board would get
over itself and make the sausage where others can
see how it's made. I don't see anything wrong with
Geir being a bit confused and asking some questions.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> If no, wouldn't the following [IMO unreasonable] addition to the FAQ be
> reasonable ?
>
> Q : I understand that my contribution via the Apache License results
> in a license grant to any of my patent claims infringed by my
> contribution. Are there any limitations on the use that license?
>
> A : No, except for the termination condition in section 3 of the
> license.
The license says what it says, I've repeatedly insisted that we quit
diluting the waters by constraining the interpretation of the Apache License
with Q & A language unless it's clearly necessary.
Please remember 1. this is a publicly accessible list, and 2. this navel
gazing is neither substantive legal opinion nor official clarification.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >
> > --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It just doesn't make sense to me, as this seems
> like
> >> contributing via
> >> the Apache License is tantamount to unlimited,
> >> royalty-free patent
> >> licensing (for the limited set of claims
> infringed
> >> by the original
> >> Work that was contributed to), and if that's
> really
> >> the case, why
> >> don't we just say that in the FAQ?
> >
> > Because it isn't unlimited, there is a termination
> > clause in the license. All we're doing is passing
> > along the same terms we have received from the
> patent
> > owner.
> >
>
>
> But we're passing them along through the mechanism
> of accepting the
> Apache License for a specific Work - isn't the
> patent license granted
> within the context of the specific Work?
Seems to be, yep.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> It just doesn't make sense to me, as this seems like
>> contributing via
>> the Apache License is tantamount to unlimited,
>> royalty-free patent
>> licensing (for the limited set of claims infringed
>> by the original
>> Work that was contributed to), and if that's really
>> the case, why
>> don't we just say that in the FAQ?
>
> Because it isn't unlimited, there is a termination
> clause in the license. All we're doing is passing
> along the same terms we have received from the patent
> owner.
>
But we're passing them along through the mechanism of accepting the
Apache License for a specific Work - isn't the patent license granted
within the context of the specific Work?
If no, wouldn't the following [IMO unreasonable] addition to the FAQ
be reasonable ?
Q : I understand that my contribution via the Apache License
results in a
license grant to any of my patent claims infringed by my
contribution.
Are there any limitations on the use that license?
A : No, except for the termination condition in section 3 of the
license.
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >
> > --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Putting that aside, my question isn't about the
> ASF
> >> - I'm comfortable
> >> with the notion that the project to which the
> >> contribution was
> >> contributed to benefits from the patent grant as
> >> there's clarity
> >> regarding the notion of Work inherent in the
> >> license, and if the
> >> contribution was made by someone that signed the
> >> CLA, that any project
> >> of the foundation benefits from the patent grant.
> >>
> >> My question is what can a third party - say
> Oracle
> >> or my brother or
> >> both making sequential derivative works - depend
> on
> >> as to the patent license for whatever
> >> derivative work they make from the original Work.
> >
> > According to the Apache License 2.0, they get a
> patent
> > license to do with pretty much as they wish.
> >
>
> Thanks for being patient with me :) I'm starting to
> feel really
> stupid since everyone gets this but me.
Nah, patents suck. I have a hard time understanding
it myself, but I did spend a few hours today looking
over some literature on exhaustion.
>
> The AL says (dropping the litigation piece) :
>
> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and
> conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You
> a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
> irrevocable (except
> as stated in this section) patent license to make,
> have made, use,
> offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer
> the Work, where
> such license applies only to those patent claims
> licensable by such
> Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
> Contribution(s)
> alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
> with the Work to
> which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
>
> My simple understanding of this says :
>
> I get a patent license from each contributor to
> do a bunch of
> things with the Work for any patent claims the
> Contributor can
> license that are necessarily infringed by their
> contribution,
> or the combination of the contribution and the
> work.
>
> and the gap in my understanding is the definition of
> "bunch of
> things". You interpret this to mean "pretty much as
> they wish", and I
> somehow find that hard to believe as we clearly just
> went through a
> year of discussion about this item on the FAQ and
> wound up with
> language constraining freedom of action to the
> Apache projects rather
> than unfettered use by downstream users.
That language regarded the scope of the contribution
itself I think. Namely whether or not the patent
grant applied to things besides the actual
contribution it was intended to cover.
> So, what can't I do?
>
> >> Imagine a non-CLA-signing Contributor that owns
> >> patent P makes a
> >> contribution to Apache Foo such that the new
> Apache
> >> Foo reads on P.
> >
> > The contributor has then submitted the
> contribution
> > under the terms and conditions of Apache License
> 2.0.
> > We therefore have from them the requisite patent
> > license to redistribute their contribution.
>
> Yes we do. That's clear.
>
> >
> >
> >> Because of the Apache License, users of Apache
> Foo
> >> don't have to worry about patent litigation
> related
> >> to P by Contributor for using Apache Foo.
> >
> > Ack.
> >
> >
> >> Now, my bother takes Apache Foo and starts a
> google
> >> code project based
> >> on it called "Bar". Do users of Bar have to
> worry
> >> about patent
> >> litigation related to P by Contributor for using
> Bar
> >> which is a
> >> derivative work of Apache Foo?
> >
> > No, because we distributed the work with the
> requisite
> > patent license, and patent exahustion therefore
> > applies
> > even if the Apache 2.0 license does not.
>
> Why? I think I understand the concept of exhaustion
> in the physical
> world, where if I have a patent on a widget, and
> sell a widget, I have
> exhausted my right to collect further royalties for
> my patent on that
> single instance of the widget if that widget is
> transferred to another
> party (be it a sale or otherwise).
AIUI, users also have the right to make
modifications to the widget and sell that thingy,
without needing to get an additional license from the
patent owner.
> Of course, you
> can't look at my
> widget and make and sell copies.
Hm, hadn't thought about how exhaustion applies to
"selling copies".
> How this works in our case isn't clear to me,
> because while exhaustion
> is clear for redistribution of "the Work" - users
> take the Work and do
> things with it w/o any need to worry about patent
> infringement hassle
> from contributors.
>
> However, I still can't see how I'm free to make
> different software
> that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim
> that the license
> granted to users of the Work via the Apache License
> apply to my users
> as well. It feels analogous to "making and selling
> copies" in the
> physical world. (I realize how I feel is
> irrelevant...)
>
> It just doesn't make sense to me, as this seems like
> contributing via
> the Apache License is tantamount to unlimited,
> royalty-free patent
> licensing (for the limited set of claims infringed
> by the original
> Work that was contributed to), and if that's really
> the case, why
> don't we just say that in the FAQ?
Because it isn't unlimited, there is a termination
clause in the license. All we're doing is passing
along the same terms we have received from the patent
owner.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Putting that aside, my question isn't about the ASF
>> - I'm comfortable
>> with the notion that the project to which the
>> contribution was
>> contributed to benefits from the patent grant as
>> there's clarity
>> regarding the notion of Work inherent in the
>> license, and if the
>> contribution was made by someone that signed the
>> CLA, that any project
>> of the foundation benefits from the patent grant.
>>
>> My question is what can a third party - say Oracle
>> or my brother or
>> both making sequential derivative works - depend on
>> as to the patent license for whatever
>> derivative work they make from the original Work.
>
> According to the Apache License 2.0, they get a patent
> license to do with pretty much as they wish.
>
Thanks for being patient with me :) I'm starting to feel really
stupid since everyone gets this but me.
The AL says (dropping the litigation piece) :
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use,
offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where
such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to
which such Contribution(s) was submitted.
My simple understanding of this says :
I get a patent license from each contributor to do a bunch of
things with the Work for any patent claims the Contributor can
license that are necessarily infringed by their contribution,
or the combination of the contribution and the work.
and the gap in my understanding is the definition of "bunch of
things". You interpret this to mean "pretty much as they wish", and I
somehow find that hard to believe as we clearly just went through a
year of discussion about this item on the FAQ and wound up with
language constraining freedom of action to the Apache projects rather
than unfettered use by downstream users.
So, what can't I do?
>> Imagine a non-CLA-signing Contributor that owns
>> patent P makes a
>> contribution to Apache Foo such that the new Apache
>> Foo reads on P.
>
> The contributor has then submitted the contribution
> under the terms and conditions of Apache License 2.0.
> We therefore have from them the requisite patent
> license to redistribute their contribution.
Yes we do. That's clear.
>
>
>> Because of the Apache License, users of Apache Foo
>> don't have to worry about patent litigation related
>> to P by Contributor for using Apache Foo.
>
> Ack.
>
>
>> Now, my bother takes Apache Foo and starts a google
>> code project based
>> on it called "Bar". Do users of Bar have to worry
>> about patent
>> litigation related to P by Contributor for using Bar
>> which is a
>> derivative work of Apache Foo?
>
> No, because we distributed the work with the requisite
> patent license, and patent exahustion therefore
> applies
> even if the Apache 2.0 license does not.
Why? I think I understand the concept of exhaustion in the physical
world, where if I have a patent on a widget, and sell a widget, I have
exhausted my right to collect further royalties for my patent on that
single instance of the widget if that widget is transferred to another
party (be it a sale or otherwise). Of course, you can't look at my
widget and make and sell copies.
How this works in our case isn't clear to me, because while exhaustion
is clear for redistribution of "the Work" - users take the Work and do
things with it w/o any need to worry about patent infringement hassle
from contributors.
However, I still can't see how I'm free to make different software
that includes some remnant of the Work, and claim that the license
granted to users of the Work via the Apache License apply to my users
as well. It feels analogous to "making and selling copies" in the
physical world. (I realize how I feel is irrelevant...)
It just doesn't make sense to me, as this seems like contributing via
the Apache License is tantamount to unlimited, royalty-free patent
licensing (for the limited set of claims infringed by the original
Work that was contributed to), and if that's really the case, why
don't we just say that in the FAQ?
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Putting that aside, my question isn't about the ASF
> - I'm comfortable
> with the notion that the project to which the
> contribution was
> contributed to benefits from the patent grant as
> there's clarity
> regarding the notion of Work inherent in the
> license, and if the
> contribution was made by someone that signed the
> CLA, that any project
> of the foundation benefits from the patent grant.
>
> My question is what can a third party - say Oracle
> or my brother or
> both making sequential derivative works - depend on
> as to the patent license for whatever
> derivative work they make from the original Work.
According to the Apache License 2.0, they get a patent
license to do with pretty much as they wish.
> Imagine a non-CLA-signing Contributor that owns
> patent P makes a
> contribution to Apache Foo such that the new Apache
> Foo reads on P.
The contributor has then submitted the contribution
under the terms and conditions of Apache License 2.0.
We therefore have from them the requisite patent
license to redistribute their contribution.
> Because of the Apache License, users of Apache Foo
> don't have to worry about patent litigation related
> to P by Contributor for using Apache Foo.
Ack.
> Now, my bother takes Apache Foo and starts a google
> code project based
> on it called "Bar". Do users of Bar have to worry
> about patent
> litigation related to P by Contributor for using Bar
> which is a
> derivative work of Apache Foo?
No, because we distributed the work with the requisite
patent license, and patent exahustion therefore
applies
even if the Apache 2.0 license does not.
> Now Oracle buys Bar and includes it in "Oracle DB
> Server v578.2".
> Can Oracle comfortably indemnify users of "Oracle DB
> Server v578.2"
> from patent litigation related to P by Contributor
> by reason of the
> original patent grant to Apache Foo ?
Sure, as long as Oracle doesn't trigger the patent
termination clause.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
On Apr 3, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> --- Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> That doesn't jive with the concept of Patent
>>>> Exhaustion. AIUI, once the ASF has a patent
>>>> license which enables it to distribute code that
>>>> exercises the patent, users are no longer subject
>>>> to any claims of infringement of it by the patent
>>>> owner. They are allowed to make derivative works
>>>> and distribute them as they see fit, so long as
>>> the
>>>> distribution is in line with what our license
>>> allows.
>>>
>>> That freedom to make and distribute derivative works
>>> is because of our CLA
>>> and our Apache license, not because of patent
>>> exhaustion. In fact, patent
>>> exhaustion alone doesn't permit the making and
>>> distribution of derivative
>>> works. This confusion is one reason I suggested we
>>> not dwell on the patent
>>> exhaustion doctrine for any explanation on our FAQs.
>>
>> Well sure, because derivative works are a concept
>> of copyright law. But the issue Geir is asking about
>> concerns the different wording between the patent
>> grants in the CLA and in the Apache License 2.0.
>> I don't think those differences are particularly
>> important when viewed in the context of the doctrine
>> of patent exhaustion. I think that's what Sam
>> was getting at, but I could be mistaken.
>
> That is certainly why I am not concerned about the differences, but
> before we consider putting anything on a FAQ page it would be helpful
> to know if Geir still thinks that doing so would be helpful.
I do think it needs clarification (or at least I do).
I'm confused for a bunch of reasons, including the apparent difference
between the CLA's patent grant and the AL's patent grant with respect
to the ASF as a named recipient of the grant. The CLA has the ASF as a
recipient of the patent grant, but the AL doesn't. So if the
contributor hasn't signed the CLA, how can it be that the "ASF has a
patent license"?
Putting that aside, my question isn't about the ASF - I'm comfortable
with the notion that the project to which the contribution was
contributed to benefits from the patent grant as there's clarity
regarding the notion of Work inherent in the license, and if the
contribution was made by someone that signed the CLA, that any project
of the foundation benefits from the patent grant.
My question is what can a third party - say Oracle or my brother or
both making sequential derivative works - depend on as to the patent
license for whatever derivative work they make from the original Work.
Imagine a non-CLA-signing Contributor that owns patent P makes a
contribution to Apache Foo such that the new Apache Foo reads on P.
Because of the Apache License, users of Apache Foo don't have to
worry about patent litigation related to P by Contributor for using
Apache Foo.
Now, my bother takes Apache Foo and starts a google code project based
on it called "Bar". Do users of Bar have to worry about patent
litigation related to P by Contributor for using Bar which is a
derivative work of Apache Foo?
Now Oracle buys Bar and includes it in "Oracle DB Server v578.2".
Can Oracle comfortably indemnify users of "Oracle DB Server v578.2"
from patent litigation related to P by Contributor by reason of the
original patent grant to Apache Foo ?
If that's the case, then why do we constrain http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
the last sentence of the answer to Q3 to
"....any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
product whatsoever."
rather than something more open and broad such as
"... any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
product and any derivative work thereof, whatsoever"
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> > > That doesn't jive with the concept of Patent
> > > Exhaustion. AIUI, once the ASF has a patent
> > > license which enables it to distribute code that
> > > exercises the patent, users are no longer subject
> > > to any claims of infringement of it by the patent
> > > owner. They are allowed to make derivative works
> > > and distribute them as they see fit, so long as
> > the
> > > distribution is in line with what our license
> > allows.
> >
> > That freedom to make and distribute derivative works
> > is because of our CLA
> > and our Apache license, not because of patent
> > exhaustion. In fact, patent
> > exhaustion alone doesn't permit the making and
> > distribution of derivative
> > works. This confusion is one reason I suggested we
> > not dwell on the patent
> > exhaustion doctrine for any explanation on our FAQs.
>
> Well sure, because derivative works are a concept
> of copyright law. But the issue Geir is asking about
> concerns the different wording between the patent
> grants in the CLA and in the Apache License 2.0.
> I don't think those differences are particularly
> important when viewed in the context of the doctrine
> of patent exhaustion. I think that's what Sam
> was getting at, but I could be mistaken.
That is certainly why I am not concerned about the differences, but
before we consider putting anything on a FAQ page it would be helpful
to know if Geir still thinks that doing so would be helpful.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > That doesn't jive with the concept of Patent
> > Exhaustion. AIUI, once the ASF has a patent
> > license which enables it to distribute code that
> > exercises the patent, users are no longer subject
> > to any claims of infringement of it by the patent
> > owner. They are allowed to make derivative works
> > and distribute them as they see fit, so long as
> the
> > distribution is in line with what our license
> allows.
>
> That freedom to make and distribute derivative works
> is because of our CLA
> and our Apache license, not because of patent
> exhaustion. In fact, patent
> exhaustion alone doesn't permit the making and
> distribution of derivative
> works. This confusion is one reason I suggested we
> not dwell on the patent
> exhaustion doctrine for any explanation on our FAQs.
Well sure, because derivative works are a concept
of copyright law. But the issue Geir is asking about
concerns the different wording between the patent
grants in the CLA and in the Apache License 2.0.
I don't think those differences are particularly
important when viewed in the context of the doctrine
of patent exhaustion. I think that's what Sam
was getting at, but I could be mistaken.
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
sRE: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
> That doesn't jive with the concept of Patent
> Exhaustion. AIUI, once the ASF has a patent
> license which enables it to distribute code that
> exercises the patent, users are no longer subject
> to any claims of infringement of it by the patent
> owner. They are allowed to make derivative works
> and distribute them as they see fit, so long as the
> distribution is in line with what our license allows.
That freedom to make and distribute derivative works is because of our CLA
and our Apache license, not because of patent exhaustion. In fact, patent
exhaustion alone doesn't permit the making and distribution of derivative
works. This confusion is one reason I suggested we not dwell on the patent
exhaustion doctrine for any explanation on our FAQs.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:05 PM
> To: Geir Magnusson Jr.; Sam Ruby
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
>
>
> --- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Any chance someone can answer the question asked?
>
> [...]
>
> > >> I am of the apparently mistaken opinion that
> > >> there are limits -
> > >> that one
> > >> can't take an Apache codebase, make arbitrary
> > >> modifications, and
> > >> assert a
> > >> license the same patent rights from contributors
> > >> to the original
> > >> Work that
> > >> users of the original Work can.
>
> That doesn't jive with the concept of Patent
> Exhaustion. AIUI, once the ASF has a patent
> license which enables it to distribute code that
> exercises the patent, users are no longer subject
> to any claims of infringement of it by the patent
> owner. They are allowed to make derivative works
> and distribute them as they see fit, so long as the
> distribution is in line with what our license allows.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> When I read
> >
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
> >
> > >> I
> > >> get confused. I see :
> > >>
> > >> "... Once a patent claim is subject to
> > Apache's Grant of Patent
> > >> License,
> > >> it is licensed under the terms of that Grant
> > to the ASF and to
> > >> recipients
> > >> of any software distributed by the ASF for
> > any Apache software
> > >> product
> > >> whatsoever."
> > >>
> > >> I'll note that we say
> > >>
> > >> "... and to recipients of any software
> > distributed by the ASF
> > >> for any Apache software product whatsoever."
> > >>
> > >> which to me is radically different from
> > >>
> > >> ".. and to recipients for any derivative work
> > the recipients may
> > >> choose
> > >> to make and distribute whatsoever."
> > >>
> > >> I hope you can see my confusion on this matter.
> > >>
> > >> Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this?
> > I was trying to
> > >> read back
> > >> through the [years of] discussion that resulted
> > in this statement,
> > >> but don't
> > >> grok it as it seems to hinge on the hope that the
> > Contribution was
> > >> made by
> > >> someone who signed the CLA, for a few reasons.
> > First, the CLA
> > >> broadly
> > >> defines "Work" as
> > >>
> > >> "any of the products owned or managed by the
> > Foundation (the
> > >> "Work")"
> > >>
> > >> whereas the Apache License defines it another,
> > and to me, very
> > >> different
> > >> (and admittedly unclear) way :
> > >>
> > >> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship,
> > whether in Source or
> > >> Object form, made available under the
> > License, as indicated by a
> > >> copyright notice that is included in or
> > attached to the work
> > >> (an example is provided in the Appendix
> > below).
> > >>
> > >> Further, I interpret the Copyright and Patent
> > Grants in the Apache
> > >> License
> > >> as between the Contributor and "You" (the
> > recipient) :
> > >>
> > >> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the
> > terms and
> > >> conditions of
> > >> this License, each Contributor hereby grants
> > to You..."
> > >>
> > >> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the
> > terms and conditions
> > >> of
> > >> this License, each Contributor hereby grants
> > to You...
> > >> where such license applies only to those
> > patent claims
> > >> licensable
> > >> by such Contributor that are necessarily
> > infringed by their
> > >> Contribution(s) alone or by combination of
> > their Contribution(s)
> > >> with the Work to which such Contribution(s)
> > was submitted."
> > >>
> > >> whereas the CLA's language has :
> > >>
> > >> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the
> > terms and
> > >> conditions of
> > >> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the
> > Foundation and to
> > >> recipients of software distributed by the
> > Foundation..."
> > >>
> > >> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the
> > terms and conditions of
> > >> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the
> > Foundation and to
> > >> recipients of software distributed by the
> > Foundation..."
> > >>
> > >> where I read the AL version of the patent license
> > as being to the
> > >> Work
> > >> specifically, whereas the CLA broadens to
> > "software distributed by
> > >> the
> > >> Foundation".
> > >>
> > >> Finally, I note that in both cases (AL and ICLA),
> > the Grant of
> > >> Copyright
> > >> license is explicit in it's grant of rights to
> > make, perform,
> > >> distribute
> > >> Derivative Works, and the Grant of Patent License
> > omits of any such
> > >> language.
> > >>
> > >> I'm ready to be told I'm a moron and it's obvious
> > (I've been
> > >> assured that
> > >> this is a settled question). If so, can we just
> > put that up on the
> > >> FAQ? it
> > >> will give me something to refer to :)
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> __________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr.
> <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Any chance someone can answer the question asked?
>
> I may have missed one, but I see three questions.
>
> Q: Can someone point me to a clear statement of the
> ASF's position
> regarding the rights a user of a derivative work of
> an Apache project
> has with respect to the patent licenses granted to
> the original
> project by the contributors to the project?
>
> A: Apparently not. Perhaps a FAQ might be in order.
>
> Q: Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this?
>
> A: Copyrights apply to each act of copying. Patents
> are subject to
> Patent Exhaustion. Since this seems to keep coming
> up, perhaps the
> latter should be mentioned in a FAQ.
>
> Q: can we just put that up on the FAQ?
>
> A: Good idea! How does this sound: [[[ Q: As a
> policy, does the ASF
> permit projects to accompany distributions with
> notices that attempt
> to limit the scope of Patent Exhaustion? A: No. ]]]
> ?
A link to an url explaining what Patent Exhaustion
means might also be useful, since it seems to be a
construction of the courts, not of patent law itself.
Here's what google returns for links on EFF's site:
http://www.google.com/search?q=patent+exhaustion+site:www.eff.org&start=0&sa=N
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Any chance someone can answer the question asked?
I may have missed one, but I see three questions.
Q: Can someone point me to a clear statement of the ASF's position
regarding the rights a user of a derivative work of an Apache project
has with respect to the patent licenses granted to the original
project by the contributors to the project?
A: Apparently not. Perhaps a FAQ might be in order.
Q: Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this?
A: Copyrights apply to each act of copying. Patents are subject to
Patent Exhaustion. Since this seems to keep coming up, perhaps the
latter should be mentioned in a FAQ.
Q: can we just put that up on the FAQ?
A: Good idea! How does this sound: [[[ Q: As a policy, does the ASF
permit projects to accompany distributions with notices that attempt
to limit the scope of Patent Exhaustion? A: No. ]]] ?
- Sam Ruby
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:16 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I asked this earlier today on legal-internal, but Sam suggested I ask
> here
> > > instead.
> > >
> >
> > Would this work as an addition to the FAQ?
> >
> > Q: As a policy, does the ASF permit projects to accompany
> > distributions with notices that attempt to limit the scope of Patent
> > Exhaustion?
> >
> > A: No.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
> > > Date: April 3, 2008 7:01:20 AM EDT
> > > To: legal-internal@apache.org
> > > Subject: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
> > > Reply-To: legal-internal@apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I always shed bitter tears of frustration and rage when I think about
> this
> > > :) and I'm sorry to bring it up again.
> > >
> > > Can someone point me to a clear statement of the ASF's position
> regarding
> > > the rights a user of a derivative work of an Apache project has with
> respect
> > > to the patent licenses granted to the original project by the
> contributors
> > > to the project?
> > >
> > > I am of the apparently mistaken opinion that there are limits - that one
> > > can't take an Apache codebase, make arbitrary modifications, and assert
> a
> > > license the same patent rights from contributors to the original Work
> that
> > > users of the original Work can.
> > >
> > > When I read
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope I
> > > get confused. I see :
> > >
> > > "... Once a patent claim is subject to Apache's Grant of Patent
> > > License,
> > > it is licensed under the terms of that Grant to the ASF and to
> > > recipients
> > > of any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
> product
> > > whatsoever."
> > >
> > > I'll note that we say
> > >
> > > "... and to recipients of any software distributed by the ASF
> > > for any Apache software product whatsoever."
> > >
> > > which to me is radically different from
> > >
> > > ".. and to recipients for any derivative work the recipients may choose
> > > to make and distribute whatsoever."
> > >
> > > I hope you can see my confusion on this matter.
> > >
> > > Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this? I was trying to read
> back
> > > through the [years of] discussion that resulted in this statement, but
> don't
> > > grok it as it seems to hinge on the hope that the Contribution was made
> by
> > > someone who signed the CLA, for a few reasons. First, the CLA broadly
> > > defines "Work" as
> > >
> > > "any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the "Work")"
> > >
> > > whereas the Apache License defines it another, and to me, very
> different
> > > (and admittedly unclear) way :
> > >
> > > "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
> > > Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
> > > copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
> > > (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
> > >
> > > Further, I interpret the Copyright and Patent Grants in the Apache
> License
> > > as between the Contributor and "You" (the recipient) :
> > >
> > > "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> > > this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You..."
> > >
> > > "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> > > this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You...
> > > where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
> > > by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
> > > Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
> > > with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted."
> > >
> > > whereas the CLA's language has :
> > >
> > > "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> > > this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> > > recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
> > >
> > > "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> > > this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> > > recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
> > >
> > > where I read the AL version of the patent license as being to the Work
> > > specifically, whereas the CLA broadens to "software distributed by the
> > > Foundation".
> > >
> > > Finally, I note that in both cases (AL and ICLA), the Grant of Copyright
> > > license is explicit in it's grant of rights to make, perform, distribute
> > > Derivative Works, and the Grant of Patent License omits of any such
> > > language.
> > >
> > > I'm ready to be told I'm a moron and it's obvious (I've been assured
> that
> > > this is a settled question). If so, can we just put that up on the FAQ?
> it
> > > will give me something to refer to :)
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
--- "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Any chance someone can answer the question asked?
[...]
> >> I am of the apparently mistaken opinion that
> >> there are limits -
> >> that one
> >> can't take an Apache codebase, make arbitrary
> >> modifications, and
> >> assert a
> >> license the same patent rights from contributors
> >> to the original
> >> Work that
> >> users of the original Work can.
That doesn't jive with the concept of Patent
Exhaustion. AIUI, once the ASF has a patent
license which enables it to distribute code that
exercises the patent, users are no longer subject
to any claims of infringement of it by the patent
owner. They are allowed to make derivative works
and distribute them as they see fit, so long as the
distribution is in line with what our license allows.
> >> When I read
>
http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
>
> >> I
> >> get confused. I see :
> >>
> >> "... Once a patent claim is subject to
> Apache's Grant of Patent
> >> License,
> >> it is licensed under the terms of that Grant
> to the ASF and to
> >> recipients
> >> of any software distributed by the ASF for
> any Apache software
> >> product
> >> whatsoever."
> >>
> >> I'll note that we say
> >>
> >> "... and to recipients of any software
> distributed by the ASF
> >> for any Apache software product whatsoever."
> >>
> >> which to me is radically different from
> >>
> >> ".. and to recipients for any derivative work
> the recipients may
> >> choose
> >> to make and distribute whatsoever."
> >>
> >> I hope you can see my confusion on this matter.
> >>
> >> Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this?
> I was trying to
> >> read back
> >> through the [years of] discussion that resulted
> in this statement,
> >> but don't
> >> grok it as it seems to hinge on the hope that the
> Contribution was
> >> made by
> >> someone who signed the CLA, for a few reasons.
> First, the CLA
> >> broadly
> >> defines "Work" as
> >>
> >> "any of the products owned or managed by the
> Foundation (the
> >> "Work")"
> >>
> >> whereas the Apache License defines it another,
> and to me, very
> >> different
> >> (and admittedly unclear) way :
> >>
> >> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship,
> whether in Source or
> >> Object form, made available under the
> License, as indicated by a
> >> copyright notice that is included in or
> attached to the work
> >> (an example is provided in the Appendix
> below).
> >>
> >> Further, I interpret the Copyright and Patent
> Grants in the Apache
> >> License
> >> as between the Contributor and "You" (the
> recipient) :
> >>
> >> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the
> terms and
> >> conditions of
> >> this License, each Contributor hereby grants
> to You..."
> >>
> >> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the
> terms and conditions
> >> of
> >> this License, each Contributor hereby grants
> to You...
> >> where such license applies only to those
> patent claims
> >> licensable
> >> by such Contributor that are necessarily
> infringed by their
> >> Contribution(s) alone or by combination of
> their Contribution(s)
> >> with the Work to which such Contribution(s)
> was submitted."
> >>
> >> whereas the CLA's language has :
> >>
> >> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the
> terms and
> >> conditions of
> >> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the
> Foundation and to
> >> recipients of software distributed by the
> Foundation..."
> >>
> >> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the
> terms and conditions of
> >> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the
> Foundation and to
> >> recipients of software distributed by the
> Foundation..."
> >>
> >> where I read the AL version of the patent license
> as being to the
> >> Work
> >> specifically, whereas the CLA broadens to
> "software distributed by
> >> the
> >> Foundation".
> >>
> >> Finally, I note that in both cases (AL and ICLA),
> the Grant of
> >> Copyright
> >> license is explicit in it's grant of rights to
> make, perform,
> >> distribute
> >> Derivative Works, and the Grant of Patent License
> omits of any such
> >> language.
> >>
> >> I'm ready to be told I'm a moron and it's obvious
> (I've been
> >> assured that
> >> this is a settled question). If so, can we just
> put that up on the
> >> FAQ? it
> >> will give me something to refer to :)
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Any chance someone can answer the question asked?
On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:16 AM, "Sam Ruby" <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>> I asked this earlier today on legal-internal, but Sam suggested I
>> ask here
>> instead.
>
> Would this work as an addition to the FAQ?
>
> Q: As a policy, does the ASF permit projects to accompany
> distributions with notices that attempt to limit the scope of Patent
> Exhaustion?
>
> A: No.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
>> Date: April 3, 2008 7:01:20 AM EDT
>> To: legal-internal@apache.org
>> Subject: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
>> Reply-To: legal-internal@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> I always shed bitter tears of frustration and rage when I think
>> about this
>> :) and I'm sorry to bring it up again.
>>
>> Can someone point me to a clear statement of the ASF's position
>> regarding
>> the rights a user of a derivative work of an Apache project has
>> with respect
>> to the patent licenses granted to the original project by the
>> contributors
>> to the project?
>>
>> I am of the apparently mistaken opinion that there are limits -
>> that one
>> can't take an Apache codebase, make arbitrary modifications, and
>> assert a
>> license the same patent rights from contributors to the original
>> Work that
>> users of the original Work can.
>>
>> When I read http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope
>> I
>> get confused. I see :
>>
>> "... Once a patent claim is subject to Apache's Grant of Patent
>> License,
>> it is licensed under the terms of that Grant to the ASF and to
>> recipients
>> of any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software
>> product
>> whatsoever."
>>
>> I'll note that we say
>>
>> "... and to recipients of any software distributed by the ASF
>> for any Apache software product whatsoever."
>>
>> which to me is radically different from
>>
>> ".. and to recipients for any derivative work the recipients may
>> choose
>> to make and distribute whatsoever."
>>
>> I hope you can see my confusion on this matter.
>>
>> Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this? I was trying to
>> read back
>> through the [years of] discussion that resulted in this statement,
>> but don't
>> grok it as it seems to hinge on the hope that the Contribution was
>> made by
>> someone who signed the CLA, for a few reasons. First, the CLA
>> broadly
>> defines "Work" as
>>
>> "any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the
>> "Work")"
>>
>> whereas the Apache License defines it another, and to me, very
>> different
>> (and admittedly unclear) way :
>>
>> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
>> Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
>> copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
>> (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
>>
>> Further, I interpret the Copyright and Patent Grants in the Apache
>> License
>> as between the Contributor and "You" (the recipient) :
>>
>> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and
>> conditions of
>> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You..."
>>
>> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions
>> of
>> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You...
>> where such license applies only to those patent claims
>> licensable
>> by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
>> Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
>> with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted."
>>
>> whereas the CLA's language has :
>>
>> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and
>> conditions of
>> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
>>
>> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
>> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
>>
>> where I read the AL version of the patent license as being to the
>> Work
>> specifically, whereas the CLA broadens to "software distributed by
>> the
>> Foundation".
>>
>> Finally, I note that in both cases (AL and ICLA), the Grant of
>> Copyright
>> license is explicit in it's grant of rights to make, perform,
>> distribute
>> Derivative Works, and the Grant of Patent License omits of any such
>> language.
>>
>> I'm ready to be told I'm a moron and it's obvious (I've been
>> assured that
>> this is a settled question). If so, can we just put that up on the
>> FAQ? it
>> will give me something to refer to :)
>>
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I asked this earlier today on legal-internal, but Sam suggested I ask here
> instead.
Would this work as an addition to the FAQ?
Q: As a policy, does the ASF permit projects to accompany
distributions with notices that attempt to limit the scope of Patent
Exhaustion?
A: No.
- Sam Ruby
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
> Date: April 3, 2008 7:01:20 AM EDT
> To: legal-internal@apache.org
> Subject: AL's patent license in the context of derivative works
> Reply-To: legal-internal@apache.org
>
>
>
> I always shed bitter tears of frustration and rage when I think about this
> :) and I'm sorry to bring it up again.
>
> Can someone point me to a clear statement of the ASF's position regarding
> the rights a user of a derivative work of an Apache project has with respect
> to the patent licenses granted to the original project by the contributors
> to the project?
>
> I am of the apparently mistaken opinion that there are limits - that one
> can't take an Apache codebase, make arbitrary modifications, and assert a
> license the same patent rights from contributors to the original Work that
> users of the original Work can.
>
> When I read http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#PatentScope I
> get confused. I see :
>
> "... Once a patent claim is subject to Apache's Grant of Patent
> License,
> it is licensed under the terms of that Grant to the ASF and to
> recipients
> of any software distributed by the ASF for any Apache software product
> whatsoever."
>
> I'll note that we say
>
> "... and to recipients of any software distributed by the ASF
> for any Apache software product whatsoever."
>
> which to me is radically different from
>
> ".. and to recipients for any derivative work the recipients may choose
> to make and distribute whatsoever."
>
> I hope you can see my confusion on this matter.
>
> Can someone encapsulate the theory behind this? I was trying to read back
> through the [years of] discussion that resulted in this statement, but don't
> grok it as it seems to hinge on the hope that the Contribution was made by
> someone who signed the CLA, for a few reasons. First, the CLA broadly
> defines "Work" as
>
> "any of the products owned or managed by the Foundation (the "Work")"
>
> whereas the Apache License defines it another, and to me, very different
> (and admittedly unclear) way :
>
> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
> Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
> copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
> (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
>
> Further, I interpret the Copyright and Patent Grants in the Apache License
> as between the Contributor and "You" (the recipient) :
>
> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You..."
>
> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You...
> where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
> by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
> Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
> with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted."
>
> whereas the CLA's language has :
>
> "2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
>
> "3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
> this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation..."
>
> where I read the AL version of the patent license as being to the Work
> specifically, whereas the CLA broadens to "software distributed by the
> Foundation".
>
> Finally, I note that in both cases (AL and ICLA), the Grant of Copyright
> license is explicit in it's grant of rights to make, perform, distribute
> Derivative Works, and the Grant of Patent License omits of any such
> language.
>
> I'm ready to be told I'm a moron and it's obvious (I've been assured that
> this is a settled question). If so, can we just put that up on the FAQ? it
> will give me something to refer to :)
>
> 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