ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Patent clauses in software licenses"

m ({{dud}})
(Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100204170037353 Packaging Open Source], a paper which looks briefly at the patent clauses of various free software lic)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
* [[Duds and non-solutions]]
 
* [[Duds and non-solutions]]
 
* [[Free software]] - practically all discussion of such clauses is in relation to free software licences
 
* [[Free software]] - practically all discussion of such clauses is in relation to free software licences
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100204170037353 Packaging Open Source], a paper which looks briefly at the patent clauses of various free software licences, by [[Mark Webbink]], December 2009
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 07:28, 8 February 2010

Red alert.png 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.

Some software licences contain clauses which place requirements on patent holders who participate in distributing that software. These can be useful, but only in some narrow cases.

Limits to effectiveness

  1. These clauses only apply to patent holders who distribute the software which uses this licence.
  2. The stronger the clause, the less likely it is that dangerous patent holders will distribute software that uses the licence.

GNU GPL v2

See section 6 and section 7.

Dan Ravicher argues that GPLv2 includes an implicit patent grant.[1][2]

GNU GPL v3

Section 10:

"you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it."

Also, section 12, which is very similar to GPLv2's section 7.

Related discussions

LGPL 2.1

Apache License

Section 3:

"If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."

Mozilla Public License

Section 8:

(excerpt) "...if You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is referred to as "Participant") alleging that..."

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References