[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Taking a position on anti-patent licenses

MJ Ray wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>I'm undecided about these clauses.  One argument against them seems to
>>be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case
>>for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via
>>copyright", but copyright is all we have available. [...]
> My main argument for not mixing them is that most of these terms
> seem extend software patents into places which don't have them
> yet, but do have software copyright. That spread is the opposite
> of what some of us seek. I realise other places already have
> software patents and need some way to reduce their effect,
> but please stop tipping your rubbish into our back yard. If
> the two licences for copyright and patents don't interact,
> swpat-free residents can ignore one of them and I like giving
> people less legal work.

That seems like a reasonable argument.  However, I don't see how these
clauses would cause a problem for people in
non-software-patent-afflicted areas.  It seems like the only way these
clauses could affect you would be if you sued someone using the software
because they infringed your software patent.  If you are in a
non-swpat-afflicted area, then either 1) you have no such patents to sue
with, or 2) you would use another legal jurisdiction for the suit, in
which you do hold such patents.  In the former case, the clause doesn't
affect you, and in the latter case, we aren't talking about the
swpat-free jurisdiction.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: