Green Patent License - Revision history

142.177.81.73: link

2003-11-25T02:08:34Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 25 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. It was originally proposed as a way for [[Greens]] to hold patents on technologies they don't like, to suppress them, e.g. [[land mine]]s, [[nuclear]] technology, or [[genetically modified food]].		A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. It was originally proposed as a way for [[Greens]] to hold patents on technologies they don't like, to suppress them, e.g. [[land mine]]s, [[nuclear]] technology, or [[genetically modified food]].

	This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to ~~require~~ [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] with perhaps some agreements so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]]:		This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to obligate [[required reintegration]] of [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] with perhaps some agreements so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]]:

	To do so the Green [[Governance Organization]] ([[Green Parties]] or [[nonprofit]] [[Consortium]] holding the patents for them) would agree to make them, and possibly other patents, available for use for all [[Green purposes]] of the [[healthy signal infrastructure]], of which at least the [[healthy buying infrastructure]] must be [[royalty-free]] or [[self-funding]], i.e. Consumerium does not pay for access to things it itself created or channeled from a [[Consumerium Contributor]], and royalties paid equal royalties received. Doing this might also give Consumerium access to other patents, which would be highly desirable as it may prevent a [[bad copy problem]].		To do so the Green [[Governance Organization]] ([[Green Parties]] or [[nonprofit]] [[Consortium]] holding the patents for them) would agree to make them, and possibly other patents, available for use for all [[Green purposes]] of the [[healthy signal infrastructure]], of which at least the [[healthy buying infrastructure]] must be [[royalty-free]] or [[self-funding]], i.e. Consumerium does not pay for access to things it itself created or channeled from a [[Consumerium Contributor]], and royalties paid equal royalties received. Doing this might also give Consumerium access to other patents, which would be highly desirable as it may prevent a [[bad copy problem]].

142.177.82.78 at 10:18, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T10:18:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:18, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. It was originally proposed as a way for [[Greens]] to hold patents on technologies they don't like, to suppress them, e.g. [[land mine]]s, [[nuclear]] technology, or [[genetically modified food]].		A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. It was originally proposed as a way for [[Greens]] to hold patents on technologies they don't like, to suppress them, e.g. [[land mine]]s, [[nuclear]] technology, or [[genetically modified food]].

	This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to require [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]].		This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to require [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] with perhaps some agreements so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]]:

	~~In this case~~ the [[~~Green Parties~~]], [[~~Governance Organization~~]] or [[nonprofit]] [[Consortium]] holding the patents would agree to make them, and possibly other patents, available for use for ~~the~~ [[Green purposes]] of the [[healthy signal infrastructure]], of which at least the [[healthy buying infrastructure]] must be [[royalty-free]] or [[self-funding]], i.e. Consumerium does not pay for access to things it itself created or channeled from a [[Consumerium Contributor]].		To do so the Green [[Governance Organization]] ([[Green Parties]] or [[nonprofit]] [[Consortium]] holding the patents for them) would agree to make them, and possibly other patents, available for use for all [[Green purposes]] of the [[healthy signal infrastructure]], of which at least the [[healthy buying infrastructure]] must be [[royalty-free]] or [[self-funding]], i.e. Consumerium does not pay for access to things it itself created or channeled from a [[Consumerium Contributor]], and royalties paid equal royalties received. Doing this might also give Consumerium access to other patents, which would be highly desirable as it may prevent a [[bad copy problem]].

	Alternatively all patentable aspects of extensions could be revealed to the [[public domain]] (improvements on which would then be subject to independent patent - [[self-interested fork]]) or [[open patent]]s could be used. However the latter is not [[self-funding]] and seems not to really be going anywhere.		Alternatively all patentable aspects of extensions could be revealed to the [[public domain]] (improvements on which would then be subject to independent patent - [[self-interested fork]]) or [[open patent]]s could be used. However the latter is not [[self-funding]] and seems not to really be going anywhere.

	Or, like [[free software]], we could just require in the [[Consumerium License]] that no one patent anything improved on that they got from Consumerium, unless it is an [[open patent]] ~~including~~ the Green license. This would be hard to enforce and would do nothing to assist [[self-funding]]. It would also possibly be unenforceable, and would not provide any incentive for extensions, whereas participating in a larger scheme Greens run may do both.		Or, like [[free software]], we could just require in the [[Consumerium License]] that no one patent anything improved on that they got from Consumerium, unless it is an [[open patent]] or the Green license. This would be hard to enforce and would do nothing to assist [[self-funding]]. It would also possibly be unenforceable, and would not provide any incentive for extensions, whereas participating in a larger scheme Greens run may do both.

	There are few ideal solutions in the patent world.		There are few ideal solutions in the patent world.

142.177.82.78 at 09:58, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T09:58:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, 24 November 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to require [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]].		A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. It was originally proposed as a way for [[Greens]] to hold patents on technologies they don't like, to suppress them, e.g. [[land mine]]s, [[nuclear]] technology, or [[genetically modified food]].

			This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to require [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]].

			In this case the [[Green Parties]], [[Governance Organization]] or [[nonprofit]] [[Consortium]] holding the patents would agree to make them, and possibly other patents, available for use for the [[Green purposes]] of the [[healthy signal infrastructure]], of which at least the [[healthy buying infrastructure]] must be [[royalty-free]] or [[self-funding]], i.e. Consumerium does not pay for access to things it itself created or channeled from a [[Consumerium Contributor]].

	Alternatively all patentable aspects of extensions could be revealed to the [[public domain]] (improvements on which would then be subject to independent patent - [[self-interested fork]]) or [[open patent]]s could be used. However the latter is not [[self-funding]] and seems not to really be going anywhere.		Alternatively all patentable aspects of extensions could be revealed to the [[public domain]] (improvements on which would then be subject to independent patent - [[self-interested fork]]) or [[open patent]]s could be used. However the latter is not [[self-funding]] and seems not to really be going anywhere.

			Or, like [[free software]], we could just require in the [[Consumerium License]] that no one patent anything improved on that they got from Consumerium, unless it is an [[open patent]] including the Green license. This would be hard to enforce and would do nothing to assist [[self-funding]]. It would also possibly be unenforceable, and would not provide any incentive for extensions, whereas participating in a larger scheme Greens run may do both.

			There are few ideal solutions in the patent world.

142.177.82.78 at 09:52, 24 November 2003

2003-11-24T09:52:32Z

New page

A '''Green Patent License''' is a parallel to a [[Green Documentation License]] and [[Green Software License]]. This might be an aspect of the [[Consumerium License]] if there is a way to require [[improvement]]s that might be subject to [[patent]] into a [[friendly license]] so they can't be used to suppress the [[Consumerium Services]].

Alternatively all patentable aspects of extensions could be revealed to the [[public domain]] (improvements on which would then be subject to independent patent - [[self-interested fork]]) or [[open patent]]s could be used. However the latter is not [[self-funding]] and seems not to really be going anywhere.