[copyleft-next] copyleft-next patent commons?

Pamela Chestek pchestek at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 21:13:31 UTC 2013


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>wrote:

>
> As for the goal ... I didn't say this in my earlier response, but I'm
> personally skeptical about the introduction of ambitious
> anti-software-patent provisions. Not that it isn't good to propose and
> consider such things, we definitely should as we are doing here, just
> giving my personal take or bias. One of the first things I did with
> the GPLv3 text when starting this project was get rid of almost every
> patent-related provision -- except for the patent license grant itself
> (which I believe I've improved significantly through radical
> restructuring of the license itself). I believe that ambitious
> anti-software-patent provisions in FLOSS licenses, provisions designed
> to realistically shape corporate behavior or else just make a
> political statement, are the product of a now-very-bygone era. But
> maybe I'm wrong.
>
> Somewhat off-thread, on patents though: looking at the provision, I wonder
if we can invoke the termination sooner than the "initiation" of a patent
infringement suit. Much more harm is caused by the threat, preventing
people from adopting software because there is a known threat.  So how
about instead of "initiate" is it "allege or threaten"?

Pam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/attachments/20130222/ac54ffb7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list