Re: bsd license question

[Jens Ropers <ropers@ropersonline.com>]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, eric wrote:

> Doesn't this stuff belong on openbsd-advocacy@

Eric has a point -- I'm already posting this mail to advocacy@. |f 
people agree that we should relocate there, I'd be happy to go along.

On 1 Mar 2005, at 09:45, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:

>> curl -O http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
>> vi LICENSE-2.0.txt
>> /3
>> d}
>> :wq
>
> Which is taken as a serious and contructive proposal. As this is a 
> worry
> which is widely shared.
>
> 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.
>
> 	If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
> 	cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a
> 	Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
> 	contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to 
> You
> 	under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such
> 	litigation is filed.
>
> But is it just the last paragraphwhich is the issue - or the whole of
> clause 3 as a whole ? Because with just the first paragraph the 
> submarine
> issue is addressed to some extend.

I think we're looking at different versions.
In http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt, the above are ONE 
paragraph.

Yes, admittedly, with just the second bit removed, it does look a lot 
better to me -- but that's at first sight. I probably would _prefer_ 
for the entire paragraph to go, but I don't currently see any mayor 
issues with leaving in the first part of said paragraph. I guess "the 
jury's still out on that one"; what do others think?

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
----
www.ropersonline.com