4 ms·
> Also, open source license doesn't cover patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Pate
by jsmthrowaway 9y ago
> Also, open source license doesn't cover patents
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...
The patent assignment and retaliation clause, in Apache 2.0 §3, is one of the key reasons to use it. Your hypothetical would not happen.
> however it's very rare for abandoned or mishandled OSS projects to gain new life by forking.
Given the counterexamples that have sprung to life from Oracle's behavior in the past (MariaDB, Jenkins), I find this a very odd observation in this thread.
- Illniyar 9y agodidn't realize apache had a patent clause. That's awesome.
- cyphar 9y agoThe Apache-2.0 patent clause inspired the GPLv3 patent clause (previously Apache-2.0 was incompatible with GPLv2 because GPLv2 didn't have a patent clause).
- steveklabnik 9y agoThis is why MIT/Apache2 dual licensed is popular; Apache2 contains a patent clause, but isn't GPL compatible, so you can use the Apache2 variant if you don't use anything GPL, but use the MIT variant if you have to have compatibility.