Interestingly tho the FB clause only licenses patents from FB, not from other contributors. So it's *more* restrictive on FB.
Apache protects the OSS software from patent infringement suits and applies to all IP incorporated in it.
-
-
in other words, and this is important: Apache is about protecting the open source project from suits. PATENTS is about protecting Facebook.
-
So, now I'm genuinely confused. You've convinced me that a license that applies to all contributors equally would be more morally correct 1/
-
The thing that confuses me is that patents' default is that they are protected. The licenses in question (FB, Apache) *tear down* those 2/
-
protections (subject to revocation under certain circumstances). So it's more like FB is a blanket *hole* in the wall for 1 contributor 3/
-
whereas Apache is a blanket hole in the wall for all contributors. I feel like I probably am misunderstanding your argument, tho. 4/4
-
1: The point of Apache is to protect users of the OSS from lawsuits by other users by making *all* patents incorporated into the OSSpic.twitter.com/C3lTIwwt0t
-
2: subject to revocation if a user sues *anyone* using the OSS for patent infringement. It is important that it covers all of the patents,
-
3: because its goal is to protect *users*. In contrast, the Facebook license is about protecting *Facebook*, so it protects
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.