Patents, MSPL, and the Apache 2.0 License
,----[ Quote ]
| The Patent Poison Pill
|
| What happens if you file a claim regarding a patent implemented in the
| work? The MSPL section 3B says:
|
| That is, if you initiate legal action against any contributor to the work
| regarding a patent which the work may infringe, your right to the patents
| of that contributor (under this agreement) go away.
|
| [...]
|
| With a patent protection clause as anemic as MSPL 3B, I wonder why
| even bother adding it to the license. Though I don't really believe
| it's this useless as part of some sinister master plan, I think it
| demonstrates that Microsoft still doesn't understand that there's
| no distinction, in terms of our licenses, in the FOSS world between
| users, contributors, and companies.
`----
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/05/patents_mspl_and_the_apache_20.html
Discussing Patents: Two Approaches
,----[ Quote ]
| In the wake of Microsoft's deplorable patent commentary, I've had
| the opportunity to speak with a couple of vendors on the subject of
| software patents.
|
| [...]
|
| All things considered, of course, I?d prefer that software vendors
| take a stance that's cognizant of the fundmental cracks in the
| foundation of our patent system. But if for whatever the reason,
| that's not viable, I'd recommend they do the next best thing:
| don't say anything at all. It seems to work fairly well for Big Blue.
`----
http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/05/30/discussing_patents/
Related:
Apple failing to understand open source
,----[ Quote ]
| There is a cost for not being a good Open Source citizen and that
| cost is loss of goodwill in the community. That loss is more
| expensive in the long run than Apple realizes.
`----
http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2007/03/apple_failing_to_understand_op.html
|
|
