Re: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
Hello Will, Note: I am not a lawyer. I am simply a user with a good understanding of copyright law and open source licenses. 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? As a developer, I like the idea and I would be willing to release use and incorporate code released under a GPL-like license that had that condition. Personally I think that software patents are a huge problem and I would be happy if they all just went away. An agreement like this one would, imho, be a positive step. Having said that, some people might feel happier if you replaced the word patent above by software patent. I am not one of those people. Suppose you accepted such an arrangement as an open source developer. 1 -- Would this comport with the GPL and open source licenses generally? It would, as far as I know, not comport to the GPL, since it has a clause that says that you are not allowed to add additional restrictions. Most open source licenses don't have this clause though. The only licenses that do are the GPL and LGPL. But these are the most important licenses since they cover most of Free/Libre Open Source Software. Now... this does not mean that the idea is not feasible. You *might* be able to write a license that is not the GPL but is compatible with the GPL. I am not sure how such a license would look like. The license would have to permit re-distribution of the code without any restriction in addition to those of the GPL. We'd need to think about this. 2 -- Would you take such a deal, assuming the contract was properly drafted and you believed Company X was acting in good faith? Yes. Notice your clause : you believed Company X was acting in good faith. It does depend somewhat on the history of the company. If Microsoft did that I would not trust them. But for most companies, assuming that the contract is properly crafted, yes I would. I'll think some more about (1). If I come up with anything useful I'll let you know. Cheers, Daniel. On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:22:41PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 -- Daniel Carrera | Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say... PhD student. | Math Dept. UMD | 19. hey, what does mkfs do? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? This type of broad non-assert clause is popping up more and more often in (proposed) open source licenses. The new Apache Software License (http://www.apache.org/licenses/proposed/) also has such a clause (section 5). In a message from its general counsel, the FSF noted that this clause is incompatible with the GPL and is not appropriate for free software licenses: For this and other reasons, FSF believes that broad automatic termination provisions like that contained in the first sentence of section 5 are fraught with potentially serious unintended consequences, and are not an appropriate vehicle for protecting the freedom of free software against the serious threat posed by software patent litigation. We would urge that the first sentence of section 5 be removed. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=1127301 Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
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
RE: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
Larry wrote: 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. Evidently. Perhaps the larger question is how others read the licenses, and what their understanding of them is . At least one well known developer I spoke with took a very negative view of this approach, and two others who thought it was completely new. Then again, these folks lack the in-depth understanding that you have. thanks much, Will -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: non-aggression pacts for patents and the GPL
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. This is not a troll or a hostile person. Will called me (and others) about the idea of adding some sort of reciprocal non-assertion pact to the licensing language for some previously proprietary code a company that is a member of his trade group is talking about releasing as open source. I told Will he should submit the idea here and see what other interested parties thought of it. I rather like it myself, since it might encourage more companies to open their code -- and might even prevent some future SCO-type incidents. But that's just me, and I'm an observer rather than an expert. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller Editor Reporter, NewsForge, Slashdot, etc. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
