Hello
I had an idea about a patent license some time ago, but I didn't have the time to express it in a meaningful way.
I'll make an attempt here. My idea starts with the question: is it possible to "copyleft" a patent? (I know copyleft is derived from copyright != patent system) But still, I view copyleft as a philosophy so ...
Can someone license the use of a patent to others as long they don't try to enforce their own patents ?
"zBog BIV" bogdanb.frie0606@spambob.net wrote:
Can someone license the use of a patent to others as long they don't try to enforce their own patents ?
I think one can, as long as one makes it conditional only on not attempting to enforce their patents *against that software*. Otherwise, it is contaminating other software (and maybe hardware and actions too!) which is more clearly a problem when using the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but I think it may be a problem for the Free Software Definition's consequences. At best, it's a practical pain in the bum.
Also, I really dislike "Intellectual Property" licences that attempt to use copyright to enforce patent clauses - only the patent licences should terminate against patents, to avoid exporting software patent harm to places which would otherwise be free from them. I think GPLv3 may be such an Intellectual Property licence, but I haven't reminded myself about it today. I don't think that necessarily stops it being a free software licence, but combined Intellectual Property licensing seems a surprising, dangerous path to be walking.
Hope that helps,
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 14:06 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
"zBog BIV" bogdanb.frie0606@spambob.net wrote:
Can someone license the use of a patent to others as long they don't try to enforce their own patents ?
I think one can, as long as one makes it conditional only on not attempting to enforce their patents *against that software*. Otherwise, it is contaminating other software (and maybe hardware and actions too!) which is more clearly a problem when using the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but I think it may be a problem for the Free Software Definition's consequences. At best, it's a practical pain in the bum.
Patents on software are a pain, period! We all know that. But we need damage control, or risk higher damages.
Also, I really dislike "Intellectual Property" licences that attempt to use copyright to enforce patent clauses
This is technically non-sense, I know what you mean, but you cannot "use copyright law to enforce patent claims". These kind of licenses are just combined copyright+patent licenses.
- only the patent licences
should terminate against patents, to avoid exporting software patent harm to places which would otherwise be free from them. I think GPLv3 may be such an Intellectual Property licence, but I haven't reminded myself about it today. I don't think that necessarily stops it being a free software licence, but combined Intellectual Property licensing seems a surprising, dangerous path to be walking.
Head under sand does not help either.
Simo.