[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy w3c-patent.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy w3c-patent.html |
|
Date: |
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:39:14 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/07/25 13:39:14
Modified files:
philosophy : w3c-patent.html
Log message:
Boilerplate compliance.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/w3c-patent.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.28&r2=1.29
Patches:
Index: w3c-patent.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/w3c-patent.html,v
retrieving revision 1.28
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -b -r1.28 -r1.29
--- w3c-patent.html 26 Aug 2007 20:09:09 -0000 1.28
+++ w3c-patent.html 25 Jul 2008 13:38:47 -0000 1.29
@@ -8,176 +8,168 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2 style="text-align:center">FSF's Position on W3 Consortium "Royalty-Free"
Patent Policy</h2>
+<h2>FSF's Position on W3 Consortium “Royalty-Free” Patent
Policy</h2>
<p style="text-align:center">
-<i>Rewritten 1 June 2003</i><br />
+<i>Rewritten 1 June 2003</i>
</p>
-<h3 style="text-align:center">Our Position</h3>
+<h3>Our Position</h3>
- <p>
- The Free Software Foundation, represented by Professor Moglen of
- Columbia University Law School, has participated in the W3
- Consortium Patent Policy Working Group from November 2001
- through the present. The current W3C patent policy, which in
- most cases requires "royalty-free" or "RF" patent licenses, is a
- significant step in the direction of protecting the World Wide
- Web from patent-encumbered standards. But it falls short
- because a loophole allows conditions on these patent licenses
- that would prohibit free software implementations of the
- standards.</p>
-
- <p>
- The problem comes from the "field of use" restrictions that
- patent holders are allowed to put in their royalty-free patent
- licenses. Such restrictions say that you are allowed to
- practice the patented idea, but only for implementing the
- standard precisely as specified--not in any other way. Thus,
- if you change the code to depart from the spec even slightly,
- the patent license no longer protects you from against being
- sued for infringing the patent.</p>
-
- <p>
- One requirement for Free Software is that users have the freedom
- to modify and redistribute it. But we can hardly consider that
- users have freedom to publish modified versions of the program
- if, for a part of the program's behavior, modification is
- prohibited. Thus, these "field of use" restrictions would
- prevent implementation of W3C standards as
- <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">Free Software</a>.</p>
-
- <p>
- "Field of use" restrictions are also legally incompatible with
- section 7 of the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html#TOC3">GNU General
- Public License</a>, since it does not allow the user's freedom
- to modify to be shrunk to zero in this way.</p>
-
- <p>
- Many other Free Software licenses have no provisions equivalent
- to the GPL's Section 7, but you can't solve the problem merely
- by using one of those licenses. Section 7 is intended to
- prevent the imposition of side restrictions (for instance, by
- patent licenses) which would deny the freedoms that the GPL
- itself gives you. If the software license does nothing to
- prevent this, you can find yourself in a situation where the
- program's license appears to give you freedom, but this freedom
- has been taken away by restrictions not stated there.</p>
-
- <p>
- For example, suppose the W3 obtains patent licenses for a
- standard describing certain functionality in a web server. One
- of the things you should be able to do with a Free Software
- implementation of that standard is to merge it into a web
- browser or a non-interactive web client, so as to provide the
- same functionality there. However, in this new context, the
- code would not be implementing the specific standard for which
- the patent was licensed, so the restriction that the patent is
- licensed only "in order to implement the standard" would not be
- met. Even reusing the exact same code in the new context would
- face possible claims of patent infringement.
- </p>
-
- <p>
- Freedom to modify software can always be limited by third-party
- patents in ways that the software copyright license doesn't
- disclose. This is why software patents are
- <a href="http://swpat.ffii.org/";> so dangerous to software
- freedom</a>. The W3C, by allowing members of W3C working groups
- that help to frame standards to impose restrictions on the
- modifiability of code that implements those standards, is
- missing an opportunity to help solve that problem, and may in
- specific cases even be helping to make the problem worse.
- </p>
-
- <p><a name="comment"></a>
- By allowing "field of use" restrictions, the proposed policy
- falls short of protecting the rights of the Free Software
- community to fully participate in the implementation and
- extension of web standards. The goal of our participation in
- the policy making process at W3C, to make sure web standards can
- be implemented in free software, has only been partially
- achieved.</p>
-
- <p> The FSF plans to continue to participate in the implementation
- process. We will try to convince patent-holders not to impose
- "field of use" restrictions, and we encourage all those who care
- about the right of Free Software developers to implement all
- future web standards to do the same.
- </p>
-
-<h3 style="text-align:center">Interaction with the GPL </h3>
-
-<p>
- The problem of "field of use" restrictions comes from
- <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-Requirements";>
- Section 3 of the W3C's proposed patent policy</a>. Item 3 of that
- section says that the royalty-free license "may be limited to
- implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by
- the Recommendation". Here's how such "field of use" restrictions
- interact with the GNU GPL.
-</p>
-
-<p>
- The problem is the interaction of such a "field of use" restriction with
- <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#TOC3";>Section 7 of GPL</a>.
- Under Section 7, the "field of use" restriction is a "conditions are
- imposed on you [the distributor of GPL'ed software] that contradict the
- conditions of this License". The "conditions of this license" require,
- for example, that those receiving distributions of GPL'ed software have
- the right to run the program for any purpose (Section 0), the right to
- modify it for any purpose (Section 2), etc. Any of these "purposes"
- could easily practice the teachings of the patent beyond what the "field
- of use" restriction allows.
+<p>
+The Free Software Foundation, represented by Professor Moglen of
+Columbia University Law School, has participated in the W3 Consortium
+Patent Policy Working Group from November 2001 through the present.
+The current W3C patent policy, which in most cases requires
+“royalty-free” or “RF” patent licenses, is a
+significant step in the direction of protecting the World Wide Web
+from patent-encumbered standards. But it falls short because a
+loophole allows conditions on these patent licenses that would
+prohibit free software implementations of the standards.</p>
+
+<p>
+The problem comes from the “field of use” restrictions
+that patent holders are allowed to put in their royalty-free patent
+licenses. Such restrictions say that you are allowed to practice the
+patented idea, but only for implementing the standard precisely as
+specified — not in any other way. Thus, if you change the code
+to depart from the spec even slightly, the patent license no longer
+protects you from against being sued for infringing the patent.</p>
+
+<p>
+One requirement for Free Software is that users have the freedom to
+modify and redistribute it. But we can hardly consider that users
+have freedom to publish modified versions of the program if, for a
+part of the program's behavior, modification is prohibited. Thus,
+these “field of use” restrictions would prevent
+implementation of W3C standards as <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
+Free Software</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+“Field of use” restrictions are also legally incompatible
+with section 7 of the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html#TOC3">GNU General
+Public License</a>, since it does not allow the user's freedom to
+modify to be shrunk to zero in this way.</p>
+
+<p>
+Many other Free Software licenses have no provisions equivalent to the
+GPL's Section 7, but you can't solve the problem merely by using one
+of those licenses. Section 7 is intended to prevent the imposition of
+side restrictions (for instance, by patent licenses) which would deny
+the freedoms that the GPL itself gives you. If the software license
+does nothing to prevent this, you can find yourself in a situation
+where the program's license appears to give you freedom, but this
+freedom has been taken away by restrictions not stated there.</p>
+
+<p>
+For example, suppose the W3 obtains patent licenses for a standard
+describing certain functionality in a web server. One of the things
+you should be able to do with a Free Software implementation of that
+standard is to merge it into a web browser or a non-interactive web
+client, so as to provide the same functionality there. However, in
+this new context, the code would not be implementing the specific
+standard for which the patent was licensed, so the restriction that
+the patent is licensed only “in order to implement the
+standard” would not be met. Even reusing the exact same code in
+the new context would face possible claims of patent infringement.</p>
+
+<p>
+Freedom to modify software can always be limited by third-party
+patents in ways that the software copyright license doesn't disclose.
+This is why software patents are <a href="http://swpat.ffii.org/";>so
+dangerous to software freedom</a>. The W3C, by allowing members of
+W3C working groups that help to frame standards to impose restrictions
+on the modifiability of code that implements those standards, is
+missing an opportunity to help solve that problem, and may in specific
+cases even be helping to make the problem worse.</p>
+
+<p>
+By allowing “field of use” restrictions, the proposed
+policy falls short of protecting the rights of the Free Software
+community to fully participate in the implementation and extension of
+web standards. The goal of our participation in the policy making
+process at W3C, to make sure web standards can be implemented in free
+software, has only been partially achieved.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF plans to continue to participate in the implementation
+process. We will try to convince patent-holders not to impose
+“field of use” restrictions, and we encourage all those
+who care about the right of Free Software developers to implement all
+future web standards to do the same.</p>
+
+<h3>Interaction with the GPL</h3>
+
+<p>
+The problem of “field of use” restrictions comes
+from <a
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-Requirements";>
+Section 3 of the W3C's proposed patent policy</a>. Item 3 of that
+section says that the royalty-free license “may be limited to
+implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the
+Recommendation”. Here's how such “field of use”
+restrictions interact with the GNU GPL.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The problem is the interaction of such a “field of use”
restriction with
+<a href="/licenses/gpl.html#TOC3">Section 7 of GPL</a>. Under Section
+7, the “field of use” restriction is a “conditions
+are imposed on you [the distributor of GPL'ed software] that
+contradict the conditions of this License”. The
+“conditions of this license” require, for example, that
+those receiving distributions of GPL'ed software have the right to run
+the program for any purpose (Section 0), the right to modify it for
+any purpose (Section 2), etc. Any of these “purposes”
+could easily practice the teachings of the patent beyond what the
+“field of use” restriction allows.
</p>
<p>
Here's a detailed step-by-step example that shows how this problem could
play out:</p>
<ol>
-
<li>
Programmer <em>P</em> downloads the Konqueror web browser, receiving it
under terms of GPL.</li>
-<li> <em>P</em> learns of a new web standard that requires exercising a
+<li><em>P</em> learns of a new web standard that requires exercising a
technique for parsing URLs that is patented by Corporation <em>C</em>.
- <em>C</em> has licensed the patent under an RF, non-exclusive license,
- but with a "field of use" restriction that says the license can be used
- to "implement the standard". The standard, as it turns out, covers only
- what browsers must do with URLs, and says nothing about the server side
- or clients that aren't user browsers.</li>
-
-<li> <em>P</em> implements this technique in Konqueror, and seeks to
- redistribute the modified version on his website so that other users can
- benefit from Konqueror now complying with the standard. If he does, he is
- bound by the GPL under copyright law, because he is redistributing a
- modified version.</li>
+ <em>C</em> has licensed the patent under an RF, non-exclusive
+ license, but with a “field of use” restriction that says
+ the license can be used to “implement the standard”.
+ The standard, as it turns out, covers only what browsers must do
+ with URLs, and says nothing about the server side or clients that
+ aren't user browsers.</li>
+
+<li><em>P</em> implements this technique in Konqueror, and seeks to
+ redistribute the modified version on his website so that other users
+ can benefit from Konqueror now complying with the standard. If he
+ does, he is bound by the GPL under copyright law, because he is
+ redistributing a modified version.</li>
<li>However, he knows full well of a condition on that code that
- contradicts the GPL (violating Section 7) -- namely, he knows
+ contradicts the GPL (violating Section 7) — namely, he knows
that <em>C</em>'s patent license prohibits folks from taking his
URL parsing code and putting it into, say, a search engine.
Therefore, under GPL Section 7, he is prohibited from
redistribution.</li>
-<li> You might think that <em>P</em> can simply assign his copyright
- to the existing copyright holder of Konqueror and let distribution
+<li>You might think that <em>P</em> can simply assign his copyright to
+ the existing copyright holder of Konqueror and let distribution
happen from that source. They could distribute under the GPL, but
they would be granting a self-contradicting license. Nothing
prohibits someone from distributing copyrighted works under licenses
that make no sense and are self-contradictory, but that is not free
software. Those who receive distribution of those works are stuck,
- and can't undertake further distribution or modification themselves.
- </li>
- </ol>
+ and can't undertake further distribution or modification
+ themselves.</li>
+</ol>
<p>
- Regardless of who makes the changes, the result either shuts down
- distribution or forces the original developer to abandon the GPL
- (and the program won't really be free even though its license looks
- free). Both outcomes are very unfortunate. This is why we urge the
- community to pressure patentholders not to use "field of use"
- restrictions.
+Regardless of who makes the changes, the result either shuts down
+distribution or forces the original developer to abandon the GPL (and
+the program won't really be free even though its license looks free).
+Both outcomes are very unfortunate. This is why we urge the community
+to pressure patentholders not to use “field of use”
+restrictions.
</p>
</div>
@@ -188,10 +180,10 @@
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways to
contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -203,9 +195,10 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
-51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA
-<br />
+Copyright © 2002, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+</p>
+<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA</address>
+<p>
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in
any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
</p>
@@ -213,7 +206,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/08/26 20:09:09 $
+$Date: 2008/07/25 13:38:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy w3c-patent.html,
Yavor Doganov <=