4 ms·

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 clai

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)

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)