5 ms·

--edit-- see below comments.. this may not be so simple. No. The Apache License 2.0 does not work that way. You are allowed to copy and use everything in the S

--edit-- see below comments.. this may not be so simple. No. The Apache License 2.0 does not work that way. You are allowed to copy and use everything in the Swift language to your own liking in a similar manner to the MIT and BSD permissive licenses. However if you then try and begin a lawsuit against Apple for anything in what you copied, your rights are terminated, therefore invalidating your suit. The Apache License also gives you access to the patents in the language. It's a bit of a hack like GPL is, except that you are allowed to do just about anything with the code except sue. The license, at least the way I see it, is a signal that Apple isn't in the business of patenting language features. In fact, in a way, Apple is using their resources to gobble up space that patent trolls can never again exploit. Once a patented feature is released under Apache 2.0, I know of no way that it can be undone.

riskable 8y ago
The patent hasn't been granted to the world via the Apache license. The Apache license only covers the code in the Swift language. So if you implement the claims of the patent in something that isn't derived from the Swift code you are not covered under The Apache license.
- thekingofh 8y ago
  I believe there is a flaw in the Apache License 2.0 here. If the patent grant only covers the code in question. If this is true, then it not only reinforces software patents, but reinforces implementations too.
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    My understanding is, that the point is to make sure the users of the code don't have to care about patents. It's a license for the code, not for the patents.
- dwaite 8y ago
  Yes, but this is also the case for say features in Swift that IBM contributes to the code base. It is a purposeful limitation of the Apache 2.0 license that the "patent pool" effect is limited to the project.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    So, to make it clear - since that's a question that was unanswered in the linked discussion. If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Or does AL prevent this?
    - reboog711 8y ago
      Speaking as a PMC of Apache Flex, but not as a lawyer... > If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Yes, Apple can sue you for making use of their patents w/o a formal license in place! > Or does AL prevent this? No! The Apache License protects users who use code from the project in question, but does not allow you to use those patents for other purposes. To give a parallel example: I license a photograph of two kids in overalls to put it on a poster and sell it. That does not give me permission to use that image on playing cards, porcelain dolls, or other avenues. https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-famous-poster/512071.html https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-fa...
    - dwaite 8y ago
      Apple could try, sure, and you wouldn't have something like the Apache 2 license to point to in order to attempt to resolve things quicker. Any number of people could try to sue you for any number of things. Thats unfortunately how lawsuits work. You could also attempt to get another license from Apple for your work. They might not be willing to do this unless you somehow could guarantee all patent licensees for your version of Swift would be unmotivated (by some legal clause or agreement) to sue them as well. I doubt Apple would go through the work of getting a patent for something that they already openly give out licenses for people to use (via Apache 2) unless it was meant purely for defensive purposes. So I'd be shocked if they went after a from-scratch Swift implementation except for trademark purposes (aka, you can't call name it Swift if it is a partial implementation)
pmontra 8y ago
How about Apple switching to a different patent holder friendly license for a future version of Swift? Older versions would be safe, but they could ask money to use the new ones. And maybe they decide who to go after first.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
This sounds like defensive patenting, which is what Microsoft used to do: patenting things to keep them out of the hands of the patent trolls, but not to restrict people from actually using the idea against them. This is not, by itself, a bad thing. In fact, it's good. However, is there any way Apple could change their minds in the future and start wielding the patent against others? To me, that is the danger of granting patents even to people who appear to be acting as a good guy.

riskable 8y ago

The patent hasn't been granted to the world via the Apache license. The Apache license only covers the code in the Swift language. So if you implement the claims of the patent in something that isn't derived from the Swift code you are not covered under The Apache license.

thekingofh 8y ago
I believe there is a flaw in the Apache License 2.0 here. If the patent grant only covers the code in question. If this is true, then it not only reinforces software patents, but reinforces implementations too.
- Semaphor 8y ago
  My understanding is, that the point is to make sure the users of the code don't have to care about patents. It's a license for the code, not for the patents.
dwaite 8y ago
Yes, but this is also the case for say features in Swift that IBM contributes to the code base. It is a purposeful limitation of the Apache 2.0 license that the "patent pool" effect is limited to the project.
- int_19h 8y ago
  So, to make it clear - since that's a question that was unanswered in the linked discussion. If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Or does AL prevent this?
  - reboog711 8y ago
    Speaking as a PMC of Apache Flex, but not as a lawyer... > If someone makes a from-scratch implementation of Swift, or any other language with similar features, can Apple then sue them over these patents? Yes, Apple can sue you for making use of their patents w/o a formal license in place! > Or does AL prevent this? No! The Apache License protects users who use code from the project in question, but does not allow you to use those patents for other purposes. To give a parallel example: I license a photograph of two kids in overalls to put it on a poster and sell it. That does not give me permission to use that image on playing cards, porcelain dolls, or other avenues. https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-famous-poster/512071.html https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-story-behind-the-fa...
  - dwaite 8y ago
    Apple could try, sure, and you wouldn't have something like the Apache 2 license to point to in order to attempt to resolve things quicker. Any number of people could try to sue you for any number of things. Thats unfortunately how lawsuits work. You could also attempt to get another license from Apple for your work. They might not be willing to do this unless you somehow could guarantee all patent licensees for your version of Swift would be unmotivated (by some legal clause or agreement) to sue them as well. I doubt Apple would go through the work of getting a patent for something that they already openly give out licenses for people to use (via Apache 2) unless it was meant purely for defensive purposes. So I'd be shocked if they went after a from-scratch Swift implementation except for trademark purposes (aka, you can't call name it Swift if it is a partial implementation)

pmontra 8y ago

How about Apple switching to a different patent holder friendly license for a future version of Swift? Older versions would be safe, but they could ask money to use the new ones. And maybe they decide who to go after first.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

This sounds like defensive patenting, which is what Microsoft used to do: patenting things to keep them out of the hands of the patent trolls, but not to restrict people from actually using the idea against them. This is not, by itself, a bad thing. In fact, it's good. However, is there any way Apple could change their minds in the future and start wielding the patent against others? To me, that is the danger of granting patents even to people who appear to be acting as a good guy.