How will the Apache Public License and Eclipse Public Licenses affect “patent portfolio management” for software patents?
Stallman: First of all, what are we talking about? The term “portfolio management,” for software patents, is a euphemism for bullying other software developers, and their users, by threatening to sue them for patent infringement over programs that they wrote or use. It is nasty, antisocial, and under wiser governments it is illegal. I wish that these patent retaliation provisions could stamp out software patent “portfolio management” entirely, but I think that is too much to hope for. After all, lots of companies already use Apache and Eclipse, with these same patent retaliation provisions. However, it is possible that these patent retaliation provisions will protect some free software developers and users from some nasty bullies. That is not a bad thing. LinuxInsider: Let’s turn to Digital Rights Management for a moment. GPLv3 contains several provisions addressing the FSF’s concerns about DRM, including restrictions on the use of covered programs for DRM technology. Specifically, the
Related Questions
- How will the Apache Public License and Eclipse Public Licenses affect "patent portfolio management" for software patents?
- Why does the Eclipse Foundation redistribute some content under licenses other than the Eclipse Public License?
- What other licenses (besides the Eclipse Public License) may be used by the Eclipse Foundation?
