Hi Will, I'm not sure why you mentioned paragraph 7 of the GPL, but not the fact that many other open source licenses ALREADY have even more effective provisions to prevent patent litigation -- with precisely the result you seek. It may be that Company X doesn't realize this.
I suggest you look at the following license provisions on the OSI website: Mozilla Public License � 8.2 and 8.3. Common Public License � 7 Open Software License and Academic Free License � 10 These are just examples. Many open source licenses do this. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 2:23 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL > > > All -- > > I'm Will Rodger, and I'm director of public policy at the > Open Source and Industry Alliance. We're a project of the > Computer & Communications Industry Association here in Washington DC. > > I have a question for y'all. > > Paragraph 7 of the GPL talks about patents and their effects > on GPL'ed code. Among other things, it says that one should > cease distribution if patent litigation becomes an issue: > > ----------------- > "7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of > patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to > patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by > court order, agreement or > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, > they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. > If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your > obligations under this License and any other pertinent > obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the > Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not > permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all > those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, > then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License > would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." > ----------- > > That said, what would any of you make of what lawyers call > reciprocal non-assertion pacts? That is, would it be a good > thing if Company X let anyone use its patented, open-source > technology on a royalty-free basis _as long as_ that person > or group agreed not to sue Company X for patent infringement? > > At first blush, this seems a pragmatic approach to the issue > of patents. If open source projects do not themselves amass > patent portfolios, then non-assertion agreements would seem > to hold them harmless from the patent litigators of Company X. > > Suppose you accepted such an arrangement as an open source developer. > > 1 -- Would this comport with the GPL and open source licenses > generally? > > 2 -- Would you take such a deal, assuming the contract was > properly drafted and you believed Company X was acting in good faith? > > 3 -- For both questions, if not, why not? > > > thanks, > > Will Rodger > Director Public Policy > Open Source and Industry Alliance > > > > > > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
