headers
Simon Josefsson | 3 Apr 2008 15:44
Favicon
Gravatar

Acceptable patent license for free software?

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 3 Apr 2008 16:04
Gravatar

Re: Acceptable patent license for free software?

Simon Josefsson <simon@...> 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.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 3 Apr 2008 16:53
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Acceptable patent license for free software?

MJ Ray <mjr-uWYXIsyQkeEe6eUIopPxIg@...> writes:

> Simon Josefsson <simon-RTwAkxXyIg6Ei8DpZVb4nw@...> 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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Alex Hudson | 3 Apr 2008 17:40

Re: Acceptable patent license for free software?

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:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
simo | 3 Apr 2008 17:59
Picon

Re: Acceptable patent license for free software?


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.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Matthias-Christian Ott | 3 Apr 2008 20:30
Picon

Re: Acceptable patent license for free software?

Simon Josefsson <simon@...> 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.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Wiebe van der Worp | 3 Apr 2008 22:08

Re: Acceptable patent license for free software?

Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <simon@...> 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).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ben Finney | 3 Apr 2008 23:52
Picon

Enforcement of patents (was: Acceptable patent license for free software?)

Simon Josefsson <simon@...> 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.

--

-- 
 \         "I'm beginning to think that life is just one long Yoko Ono |
  `\   album; no rhyme or reason, just a lot of incoherent shrieks and |
_o__)                                   then it's over."  -- Ian Wolff |
Ben Finney
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
zBog BIV | 4 Apr 2008 11:54

Acceptable patent license for free software?

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 ?




--
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html

<div><p>Hello<br><br>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.<br><br>I'll make an attempt here. <br>My idea starts with the question: is it possible to "copyleft" a patent?<br>
(I know copyleft is derived from copyright != patent system) But still, I view copyleft as a philosophy so ...<br><br>Can someone license the use of a patent to others as long they don't try to enforce their own patents ?<br><br><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: <a href="http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html">http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html</a></p></div>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
zBog BIV | 4 Apr 2008 14:08

reciprocal patent license

Hello,

Sorry, I didn't finish reading all messages posted, therefore repeating others' words.

In my opinion this reciprocal license should stop its' availability once someone starts to enforce it against non-litigators (non-trolls). But enforcing a patent on a (proven) troll should not end the patent license, thus allowing its possessor to defend herself/himself. Surely a troll uses software too...

Why should it be otherwise?

Have fun,
Bogdan




Today's Topics:

  1. Acceptable patent license for free software? (zBog BIV)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "zBog BIV" <bogdanb.frie0606-y53shk5YLULR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
To: discussion-BSDwwRMYa8fNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:54:13 +0300
Subject: Acceptable patent license for free software?
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 ?




--
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion-BSDwwRMYa8fNLxjTenLetw@public.gmane.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion




--
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html 
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Hello,<br><br>Sorry, I didn't finish reading all messages posted, therefore repeating others' words.<br><br>In my opinion this reciprocal license should stop its' availability once someone starts to enforce it against non-litigators (non-trolls). But enforcing a patent on a (proven) troll should not end the patent license, thus allowing its possessor to defend herself/himself. Surely a troll uses software too...<br><br>Why should it be otherwise?<br><br>Have fun,<br>Bogdan<br><br><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br>
 &nbsp; 1. Acceptable patent license for free software? (zBog BIV)<br><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From:&nbsp;"zBog BIV" &lt;<a href="mailto:bogdanb.frie0606@...">bogdanb.frie0606@...</a>&gt;<br>To:&nbsp;<a href="mailto:discussion@...">discussion@...</a><br>
Date:&nbsp;Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:54:13 +0300<br>Subject:&nbsp;Acceptable patent license for free software?<br>Hello<br><br>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.<br><br>I'll make an attempt here. <br>My idea starts with the question: is it possible to "copyleft" a patent?<br>
(I know copyleft is derived from copyright != patent system) But still, I view copyleft as a philosophy so ...<br><br>Can someone license the use of a patent to others as long they don't try to enforce their own patents ?<br><br><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: <a href="http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html" target="_blank">http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html</a>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Discussion@...">Discussion@...</a><br><a href="https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion" target="_blank">https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a><br><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>"The best way to predict the future is to invent it.", 1971, Alan Kay: <a href="http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html">http://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html</a>
</div>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane