3 ms·

Does anyone know if there is a software license that bans software patents? So for example if a large majority of open source projects adopted it on sites like

Does anyone know if there is a software license that bans software patents? So for example if a large majority of open source projects adopted it on sites like GitHub, especially at the OS level, it would begin to squeeze out patented software. Maybe a clause for the ban could be added to the next version of the most commonly used software licenses. My personal feeling on software patents is that nearly all algorithms have an optimal solution and that nearly everyone will arrive at those solutions with a little elbow grease. So software patents stifle innovation rather than encourage it. The worst part is that anyone, anywhere, can be put out of business or tied up in court indefinitely by software patents (so they represent an infinite risk to any business). The same is true for all information technologies like genetics and pharmaceuticals. In fact I would go as far as to say that the number one danger facing machine learning and artificial intelligence (and work towards a general solution to the problems facing humanity) is software patents. I don't expect large corporations to make much progress in banning software patents, even when their failure to do so hurts their bottom lines like in this case with Apple and Qualcomm. The most we could hope for is a giant like Google to get such a large patent arsenal that they could act like a shield for member developers (via the threat of mutually assured destruction), or to reduce patent durations to something reasonable like 2-5 years. I don't want to start a flame war, but what are the holes in my logic above? Is this something that can be hacked or will it require years of political and legal battles? Do globalization and multinational issues make the situation hopeless?

aey 8y ago
Apache 2.0 is pretty good. If the licensee sues for any patent infringement they loose all Apache 2.0 licenses in that product. But it is hard to defend against trolls that are not shipping any code themselves.
- zackmorris 8y ago
  Thanks I didn't know that. For those interested, here are the top 5 results I found from searching "apache 2 license software patent" on duckduckgo.com: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-patent-license https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-... https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-what-does-the-apache-2-0-patent-clause-protect https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-... http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences... https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html Edit: looks like Apache 2 is compatible with GPLv3 but only in one direction. So if an Apache 2 work is derived from a GPLv3 work then it must be distributed under GPLv3 as well. Personally I've always preferred the MIT license over the GPL because I feel that the emergent effects of the spread of free software are more important than any incentive to create free software, but I might switch to Apache 2 now. I wonder if there is any precedent from other cases where a company sued a competitor but the case was thrown out because the plaintiff was ruled to not really be a competitor (because it never sold anything).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Nomentatus 8y ago
You're going to get a lot of answers that say "yes" but don't answer your question: because there are a lot of licenses that require (or imply) free licensing of all relevant patents BOTH hardware and software patents. However these licenses have led to countless billions being spent recreating such GPLish software as open software under a more liberal license.

aey 8y ago

Apache 2.0 is pretty good. If the licensee sues for any patent infringement they loose all Apache 2.0 licenses in that product. But it is hard to defend against trolls that are not shipping any code themselves.

zackmorris 8y ago
Thanks I didn't know that. For those interested, here are the top 5 results I found from searching "apache 2 license software patent" on duckduckgo.com: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-patent-license https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-... https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-what-does-the-apache-2-0-patent-clause-protect https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-... http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences... https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html Edit: looks like Apache 2 is compatible with GPLv3 but only in one direction. So if an Apache 2 work is derived from a GPLv3 work then it must be distributed under GPLv3 as well. Personally I've always preferred the MIT license over the GPL because I feel that the emergent effects of the spread of free software are more important than any incentive to create free software, but I might switch to Apache 2 now. I wonder if there is any precedent from other cases where a company sued a competitor but the case was thrown out because the plaintiff was ruled to not really be a competitor (because it never sold anything).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Nomentatus 8y ago

You're going to get a lot of answers that say "yes" but don't answer your question: because there are a lot of licenses that require (or imply) free licensing of all relevant patents BOTH hardware and software patents. However these licenses have led to countless billions being spent recreating such GPLish software as open software under a more liberal license.