Difference between revisions of "Defensive Patent License"
(→External links: By Florian Mueller:) |
m (fixed spelling) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{dud}} | |
| − | The '''Defensive Patent License''' ('''DPL''') is a project being worked on by Jason Schultz and Jennifer Urban, two law professors at UC Berkeley. It was first publicly discussed at a conference on May | + | The '''Defensive Patent License''' ('''DPL''') is a proposed form of [[patent non-aggression pact]]. |
| + | |||
| + | The project is being worked on by Jason Schultz and Jennifer Urban, two law professors at UC Berkeley. It was first publicly discussed at a conference on 7 May 2010 and version 1.0 was released in 2012 or 2013. | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
# Members give all other members an irrevocable licence to freely use their patents. | # Members give all other members an irrevocable licence to freely use their patents. | ||
# Members can leave, but this would not cancel the licences already granted during their membership. | # Members can leave, but this would not cancel the licences already granted during their membership. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Still permits aggression against "clones"== | ||
| + | |||
| + | As [[Richard Stallman]] pointed out in January 2014: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | The "defensive patent license" ought to be called the "still offensive patent license", because of the exclusion of anything it calls a "clone" — which is itself dishonest, since it the way they define it, it includes a lot more than clones. It includes any similar functionality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Apple could license its patents this way and still use them against free software smart phones.<ref>http://www.stallman.org/archives/2013-nov-feb.html#06_January_2014_%28The_defensive_patent_license%29</ref> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 28: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| + | * [http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ DPL home page] | ||
| + | ** [http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/content/defensive-patent-license Version 1.0] | ||
* [http://lwn.net/Articles/385600/ LWN.net article, discusses the DPL from the 9th paragraph onward], 30 Apr 2010 | * [http://lwn.net/Articles/385600/ LWN.net article, discusses the DPL from the 9th paragraph onward], 30 Apr 2010 | ||
* [http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/defensive-patent-license-makes-patents-less-e The Defensive Patent License makes patents less evil for open source], 7 May 2010 | * [http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/defensive-patent-license-makes-patents-less-e The Defensive Patent License makes patents less evil for open source], 7 May 2010 | ||
| Line 23: | Line 37: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| − | + | {{reflist}} | |
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:05, 14 February 2014
What this entry documents is not a solution.
This practice may be ineffective or useless in the long term.
ESP's position is that abolition of software patents is the only solution.
The Defensive Patent License (DPL) is a proposed form of patent non-aggression pact.
The project is being worked on by Jason Schultz and Jennifer Urban, two law professors at UC Berkeley. It was first publicly discussed at a conference on 7 May 2010 and version 1.0 was released in 2012 or 2013.
Contents
Overview
None of the details are finalised, but points being discussed include:[1]
- Member companies would have to commit all their patents. Not just a chosen set, not just the patents of one department/affiliate of the company. (This aspect is still the subject of a lot of discussion)
- Members give all other members an irrevocable licence to freely use their patents.
- Members can leave, but this would not cancel the licences already granted during their membership.
Still permits aggression against "clones"
As Richard Stallman pointed out in January 2014:
The "defensive patent license" ought to be called the "still offensive patent license", because of the exclusion of anything it calls a "clone" — which is itself dishonest, since it the way they define it, it includes a lot more than clones. It includes any similar functionality.
Apple could license its patents this way and still use them against free software smart phones.[2]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
External links
- DPL home page
- LWN.net article, discusses the DPL from the 9th paragraph onward, 30 Apr 2010
- The Defensive Patent License makes patents less evil for open source, 7 May 2010
- By Florian Mueller:
References
