This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The contents of the Open patent page were merged into Patentleft. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (26 March 2017) |
C should not be infected by A if patentleft works like copyleft. B should be able to dual-license his patents. So he must license them to everyone under patentleft, but can separately license them to C under a proprietary agreement, meaning C can keep his patents proprietary -- provided C doesn't use any of A's patents under patentleft terms. Jdz ( talk) 05:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Is patentleft a real thing? I can't find a credible source or example of this? Can we merge this with something else? — mako ๛ 02:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a fascinating topic. I'm glad to see it's getting more attention!
However, I'm very concerned about one edit. I removed a portion of text form the history section, which was copied with modifications from http://www.lesi.org/images/60d5b196-0941-407d-a3d0-8c79d678c6bf.pdf . The text must not be restored. It may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize that source. It's serious – please read these: WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM.
In several instances phrases were copied verbatim, and at least one complete sentence was copied exactly, but for a few deleted words. -- Pnm ( talk) 04:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I started to summarize this paragraph but removed it instead, since it doesn't apply to patentleft:
Since patentleft is voluntary, its existence doesn't create a disincentive to innovate. It only applies to those who deliberately give up their right to commercialize.
That there should be a balance between (1) incentive to innovate and (2) efficiency/output: it's a good point, but it's about the patent/anti-patent debate, not patentleft. -- Pnm ( talk) 04:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As explained here, I suggest merging the content of open patent to patentleft. Both seem to be about exactly the same concept, as far as I can see. -- Edcolins ( talk) 16:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)