5 ms·

Would it be possible to design an open source license that disallows the use of the software by corporations holding software patents..? Or something that woul

Would it be possible to design an open source license that disallows the use of the software by corporations holding software patents..? Or something that would make holding software patents crippling?

vog 15y ago
The current GPL (GPLv3) does implement this goal, but in a different way. It has a very clever paragraph that basically says: If you distribute the software you give basically every user a free licence of your patent. More information: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#stronger-protection-against-patent-threats http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#stronger-...
- rmc 15y ago
  It's a shame that the GPLv3 isn't more commonly used. The GPLv2 has some language & sections that would mean you cannot sue people with patent claims, however, due to how patents and copyright differ, all these things kick in only if you write the code and have the patent, i.e. if Microsoft were to release, under GPLv3, code that they patented, it would be OK. If I write code that implements the H264/mp4 codec, then we can all still be sued for patent infringment.
  - CJefferson 15y ago
    This is exactly the reason why many people don't use the GPLv3. If Apple distributed a slightly modified GCC, they would be also given away every patent they have that might be used anywhere in GCC. That is unacceptable, as doing a full search over the whole source code for patent usage isn't reasonable.
    - rmc 15y ago
      I upvoted you, but I disagree with your conclusion. Some people (e.g. myself) think that it would be great if Apple had to go open source.
      - CJefferson 15y ago
        Oh, I would love it if Apple went open source. However, if I was running Apple, I would consider applying applying a fairly substantial amount of money into avoiding GPL3. This appears to be exactly what Apple are doing (I don't think their support of clang after gcc went GPL3 is a coincidence, maybe I'm wrong).
        ars 15y ago
        See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 "Apple’s great GPL purge"
      - rimantas 15y ago
        Apple replaces GCC with LLVM and Clang. Both are open source.
        ortatherox 15y ago
        and both of which are BSD licensed, which Apple has shown to prefer.
- icebraining 15y ago
  For those who don't want a copyleft license, Apache 2 includes a patent grant too: 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. 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. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
zerohp 15y ago
A license like that would violate the Debian free software guidelines. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines

vog 15y ago

The current GPL (GPLv3) does implement this goal, but in a different way. It has a very clever paragraph that basically says: If you distribute the software you give basically every user a free licence of your patent. More information: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#stronger-protection-against-patent-threats http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#stronger-...

rmc 15y ago
It's a shame that the GPLv3 isn't more commonly used. The GPLv2 has some language & sections that would mean you cannot sue people with patent claims, however, due to how patents and copyright differ, all these things kick in only if you write the code and have the patent, i.e. if Microsoft were to release, under GPLv3, code that they patented, it would be OK. If I write code that implements the H264/mp4 codec, then we can all still be sued for patent infringment.
- CJefferson 15y ago
  This is exactly the reason why many people don't use the GPLv3. If Apple distributed a slightly modified GCC, they would be also given away every patent they have that might be used anywhere in GCC. That is unacceptable, as doing a full search over the whole source code for patent usage isn't reasonable.
  - rmc 15y ago
    I upvoted you, but I disagree with your conclusion. Some people (e.g. myself) think that it would be great if Apple had to go open source.
    - CJefferson 15y ago
      Oh, I would love it if Apple went open source. However, if I was running Apple, I would consider applying applying a fairly substantial amount of money into avoiding GPL3. This appears to be exactly what Apple are doing (I don't think their support of clang after gcc went GPL3 is a coincidence, maybe I'm wrong).
      - ars 15y ago
        See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990 "Apple’s great GPL purge"
    - rimantas 15y ago
      Apple replaces GCC with LLVM and Clang. Both are open source.
      - ortatherox 15y ago
        and both of which are BSD licensed, which Apple has shown to prefer.
icebraining 15y ago
For those who don't want a copyleft license, Apache 2 includes a patent grant too: 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. 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. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

zerohp 15y ago

A license like that would violate the Debian free software guidelines. http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines