Hi! I'm writing guidelines for IETF document authors on how to achieve free software compatible copyright and patent licenses [1]. The copyright area is rather well understood, I think; pick any liberal license that is compatible with all (reasonable) free software licenses and you are done.
However, the patent license area seems less clear to me.
Does anyone have some references to any patent license that have been deemed acceptable to some free software projects?
Going further, is there some kind of patent license that free software would _prefer_ (as opposed to just _accept_)?
To give a concrete example of what I'm thinking of:
There is one patent license in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This patent license is a reciprocal license, but is fairly limited in scope.
Would that be acceptable to free software projects?
/Simon
[1] http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto.html
Simon Josefsson simon@josefsson.org wrote:
Hi! I'm writing guidelines for IETF document authors on how to achieve free software compatible copyright and patent licenses [1]. [...] [1] http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto.html Does anyone have some references to any patent license that have been deemed acceptable to some free software projects?
Going further, is there some kind of patent license that free software would _prefer_ (as opposed to just _accept_)?
Thank you for writing guidelines. I cannot answer the above two questions. I am mostly ignorant of software patent licensing because I believe pure software is a sequence of mathematical expressions which cannot be invented, only discovered.
To give a concrete example of what I'm thinking of:
There is one patent license in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This patent license is a reciprocal license, but is fairly limited in scope.
Would that be acceptable to free software projects?
No, I think - to call it free software, I would want to be able to use the patent-covered software "for any purpose" and not just "implementation of this specification" like in the above. Compare with http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
Hope that explains,
MJ Ray mjr-uWYXIsyQkeEe6eUIopPxIg@public.gmane.org writes:
Simon Josefsson simon-RTwAkxXyIg6Ei8DpZVb4nw@public.gmane.org wrote:
Hi! I'm writing guidelines for IETF document authors on how to achieve free software compatible copyright and patent licenses [1]. [...] [1] http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto.html Does anyone have some references to any patent license that have been deemed acceptable to some free software projects?
Going further, is there some kind of patent license that free software would _prefer_ (as opposed to just _accept_)?
Thank you for writing guidelines. I cannot answer the above two questions. I am mostly ignorant of software patent licensing because I believe pure software is a sequence of mathematical expressions which cannot be invented, only discovered.
I tend to agree with you, which would argue for changing the (software) patent system. Meanwhile, it may be useful to work within the system to be able to arrive at ideas which are the second best thing.
To give a concrete example of what I'm thinking of:
There is one patent license in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This patent license is a reciprocal license, but is fairly limited in scope.
Would that be acceptable to free software projects?
No, I think - to call it free software, I would want to be able to use the patent-covered software "for any purpose" and not just "implementation of this specification" like in the above. Compare with http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html
I agree that it would be better if the license said "for any purpose".
I wonder if that is compatible with the current patent system. Isn't there some requirement that you need to protect infringement on your patent somehow? Or is that FUD, and that it is possible to license away rights to implement techniques under a patent "for any purpose" to anyone?
In particular, what I'd like to understand is whether a patent reciprocal license is in general incompatible with free software. Would a license like this like this be unacceptable?
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, X hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exlusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license on patent X to be used for any purpose. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging either direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
There is a problem in writing guidelines if nobody sets an example by using some (to be determined) free software friendly patent license. If we can't find an example that has been used in the industry, the document should say that. The document could include an illustrative example of a free software compatible patent license (such as the one above, if that is OK) in the hope that someone will use it in the future.
My hope is that the state of affairs is more evolved than I am aware of, and that there actually are free software compatible patent licenses in use somewhere.
I've read RedHat's patent license, and it seems restricted to OSI approved licensed implementations only. That seems like another restriction that would violate FSF's freedom 3? I may be wrong though.
/Simon
Simon Josefsson simon@josefsson.org writes:
I agree that it would be better if the license said "for any purpose".
I wonder if that is compatible with the current patent system. Isn't there some requirement that you need to protect infringement on your patent somehow?
Not true. For example, see any "submarine patent" where the holder keeps a granted patent quiet for many years and then surfaces only when some implementation of it is widely accepted.
You may be thinking, instead, of trademark monopolies, which *do* decay if not enforced by the holder.
* Simon Josefsson:
I wonder if that is compatible with the current patent system. Isn't there some requirement that you need to protect infringement on your patent somehow?
No, you're confusing this with trademarks, which may turn into generic names if not enforced (like using "to google" for searching using Live).
Or is that FUD, and that it is possible to license away rights to implement techniques under a patent "for any purpose" to anyone?
It is possible, but who is going to do that? Do we need it? Is it acceptable if builders of closed boxes that happen to run GPL software (among other things) get a free ride?
In particular, what I'd like to understand is whether a patent reciprocal license is in general incompatible with free software. Would a license like this like this be unacceptable?
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, X hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exlusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license on patent X to be used for any purpose. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging either direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
I think it's DFSG-free, but it fails some of the more obscure freeness tests that have been proposed.
There is a problem in writing guidelines if nobody sets an example by using some (to be determined) free software friendly patent license.
What about the Ericsson license grant? IIRC, it's GPL-specific, though, which will drive some people nuts.
MJ Ray wrote:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This patent license is a reciprocal license, but is fairly limited in scope.
Would that be acceptable to free software projects?
No, I think - to call it free software, I would want to be able to use the patent-covered software "for any purpose" and not just "implementation of this specification" like in the above.
I think you might be misreading that slightly. The "patents necessarily infringed" bit is identifying those patents the license grant applies to - by being non-specific, you're covered by those patents they haven't yet gained. I don't see how that is saying "you can only get this license if the software you are using is implementing the specification", though I have seen licenses like that, such as Microsoft's Open Specification Promise:
"Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (“Covered Implementation”)"
That, to me, is a totally different clause. Whether or not it is a restriction on use, I'm not sure - I don't think I agree with that - but I think that's the kind of clause you were talking about?
Generally, a catch-all clause like the above is preferable to enumerating the actual patents involved if the license is royalty free and worldwide, because it covers you completely. Patent enumeration is only better when you want to/have to avoid implementing the method.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 15:44 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi! I'm writing guidelines for IETF document authors on how to achieve free software compatible copyright and patent licenses [1]. The copyright area is rather well understood, I think; pick any liberal license that is compatible with all (reasonable) free software licenses and you are done.
However, the patent license area seems less clear to me.
Does anyone have some references to any patent license that have been deemed acceptable to some free software projects?
The GPLv3 now embeds a patent license grant so that's one. IIRC Apache and Eclipse license also have patent provisions.
This is the RedHat promise on software patents: http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
Not sure you can call it a license technically, but it is what Red Hat uses to let free software projects use his patents.
Simo.
Simon Josefsson simon@josefsson.org wrote:
Hi! I'm writing guidelines for IETF document authors on how to achieve free software compatible copyright and patent licenses [1]. The copyright area is rather well understood, I think; pick any liberal license that is compatible with all (reasonable) free software licenses and you are done.
However, the patent license area seems less clear to me.
Does anyone have some references to any patent license that have been deemed acceptable to some free software projects?
Going further, is there some kind of patent license that free software would _prefer_ (as opposed to just _accept_)?
To give a concrete example of what I'm thinking of:
There is one patent license in https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
This patent license is a reciprocal license, but is fairly limited in scope.
Would that be acceptable to free software projects?
In my opinion you should ask an expert lawyer, because copyright and patent right may be different in different countries. Or are you just writing for the USA?
Regards Matthias-Christian
Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Simon Josefsson simon@josefsson.org wrote:
Hi! I'm writing guidelines for IETF document authors on how to achieve free software compatible copyright and patent licenses [1]. The copyright area is rather well understood, I think; pick any liberal license that is compatible with all (reasonable) free software licenses and you are done.
...
In my opinion you should ask an expert lawyer, because copyright and patent right may be different in different countries. Or are you just writing for the USA?
You may want to contact Reinier Bakels (reinier a t vrijschrift d o t org).