Proposed new OSD item - patent termination
Brian C
brianwc at ocf.berkeley.edu
Sat Apr 9 14:35:40 UTC 2005
While the earliest version of APSL was rejected by both the OSI and FSF,
Apple's subsequent changes to the license have satisfied both groups.
Earlier Complaints:
by OSI members: http://www.perens.com/Articles/APSL.html
by the FSF: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/historical-apsl.html
Subsequent Acceptance of APSL 2.0:
OSI: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php
FSF: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/apsl.html
As others have mentioned, using similar terms as a patent defense for
free software could be a strong defense for the community. If, for
instance, bringing a patent infringement suit against a free software
developer terminated the plaintiff's licenses to a large amount of free
software, this could be such a strong deterrent that almost no one would
bring such a suit.
There would be other concerns about such a proposal and the details
would matter, but closing the door to such a defense before thinking
about it from this side too would be rash. I will say though that I
might agree with the heart of your point, I'd just like to see
"unrelated" defined adequately. I think that would be difficult.
Brian Carver
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> No copyright license termination on unrelated patent action
>
> The copyright license must not terminate if patent action unrelated to
> the licensed software is initiated against the licensor.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The APSL contains a term that terminates the entire license if you
> initiate patent action against Apple. Apple manufacture hardware - if
> they infringe a hardware patent I hold, I'm not able to sue them if I
> want to carry on using any software they produced. Open source licenses
> shouldn't restrict my rights to perform reasonable acts (such as sue a
> hardware manufacturer for patent infringement).
>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list