Green Patent License: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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. | |||