Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On 2004-09-14 12:25:41 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
wrote:
As a non-strictly related point, both the FSF and the OSI appear to
consider clauses of this nature free. [...]
On what do you base this opinion?
Based on private emails with licensing@gnu, I think that the Free
Software Foundation does not consider patent clauses at all, unless
considering at a particular piece of software known to be
patent-encumbered. They regard software patents as unethical and no
free software developer would use them, so they are irrelevant in
their advice to free software developers on the GNU site. This is
fairly close to debian-legal's approach, but from an "developer
advice" rather than "distributor" position. If a piece of software
requires a patent licence, how does FSF act?
The failed OpenSource Initiative famously "does not have a position on
whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of
the related controversies." (Source: OSI FAQ) I didn't find any case
with serious scrutiny of patent licensing terms and one of the most
common "overbroad patent clause" licences was written by their legal
adviser. They do not consider "free" but merely whether something can
use an "OSI certified" logo, according to a "definition" derived from
debian's guidelines.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
http://www.thewalks.co.uk stand 13,Lynn Carnival,12 Sep
Reply to: