Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Added date. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest from October 2014 | #UCB_Category 16/48 |
rm dead pov tag: no extant dispute |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
{{fanpov|date=October 2014}}
{{lead rewrite|date=October 2014}}
}}
{{Computer programs, software and patent law}}
Line 77 ⟶ 76:
"Patent retaliation" clauses are included in several [[free software licenses]]. The goal of these clauses is to create a penalty so as to discourage the licensee (the user/recipient of the software) from suing the licensor (the provider/author of the software) for [[patent infringement]] by terminating the license upon the initiation of such a lawsuit.
|title=Richard Stallman speaking about GPLv3 in April 2007
|url=https://fsfe.org/activities/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript.en.html#retaliation}}</ref> The final published version of GPLv3 contains a patent retaliation clause similar to those in the [[Apache License]] and [[Mozilla Public License]], which terminates rights granted by the license in response to litigation alleging patent infringement in the software.<ref>{{cite web |website=GNU Project |publisher=Free Software Foundation |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3PatentRetaliation |title=GPL FAQ: Does GPLv3 have a 'patent retaliation clause'?}}</ref>
===Patent pools===
Line 238 ⟶ 235:
|publisher=groklaw
| date=2007-10-11
| access-date=2007-10-12}}</ref><ref>The U.S. patent 5,072,412 concerns the desktop User Interface, see [https://
|url = http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
|archive-url = https://archive.today/20130103223944/http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
|