[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy w3c-patent.html
|
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy w3c-patent.html |
|
Date: |
Sat, 21 Jul 2012 20:36:57 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 12/07/21 20:36:57
Modified files:
philosophy : w3c-patent.html
Log message:
Some of these problems don't exist due to other W3C policies.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/w3c-patent.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.35&r2=1.36
Patches:
Index: w3c-patent.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/w3c-patent.html,v
retrieving revision 1.35
retrieving revision 1.36
diff -u -b -r1.35 -r1.36
--- w3c-patent.html 10 Jun 2012 08:06:19 -0000 1.35
+++ w3c-patent.html 21 Jul 2012 20:36:45 -0000 1.36
@@ -37,6 +37,13 @@
protects you from against being sued for infringing the patent.</p>
<p>
+The W3C has policies to reject some kinds of “field of
+use” restrictions. For instance, it won't allow a patent
+license to be limited to a certain kind of software or a certain kind
+of platform. (We were informed of this in 2012.) However, that still
+allows other kinds of restrictions that can cause a problem.</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
@@ -48,8 +55,8 @@
<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>
+Public License (version 2)</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
@@ -62,34 +69,10 @@
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>
+dangerous to software freedom</a>.</p>
<p>The FSF plans to continue to participate in the implementation
process. We will try to convince patent-holders not to impose
@@ -97,82 +80,6 @@
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
- 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>
-
-<li>However, he knows full well of a condition on that code that
- 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
- 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>
-
-<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.
-</p>
-
</div>
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
@@ -208,7 +115,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/06/10 08:06:19 $
+$Date: 2012/07/21 20:36:45 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy w3c-patent.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=