升級為 GPLv3 或採用有明確專利授權的許可證

第一項 效益面的評估

自由/開放原始碼軟體依照自由軟體基金會發佈的 GNU 公共授權或開放原 始碼促進會認證的各種授權條款散布，按照創造開放原始碼授權模式的目的和理 念來看，開放原始碼授權條款是一種意圖在現行法秩序下創造智慧財產公共利用 新秩序的設計，自 GPL 起算，自由/開放原始碼授權條款發展已經有 20 餘年歷 史。上一章節提到，自由/開放原始碼授權條款對專利授權規定不明確是引起專 利威脅的原因之一，因此較晚期釋出的授權條款如Apache Lisence2.0 和 2007 年 修正後釋出的 GPLv3 都有明確的專利授權條款。只要專利權人將專利技術寫入 程式並以含有專利授權內容的自由/開放原始碼授權條款發布，就表示願意受到 授權條款的義務拘束。

例如 Apache Lisence2.0 規定：任何貢獻者（Contributor），含著作人及著作 物所有權人，必須授予一項永久性的，全球性的，非排他性的，不收費，免版稅 的，不可撤銷的應用軟體的專利授權。Apache Lisence2.0 界定了專利授權範圍，

授與被授權人的專利權許可包含得製造、代工 (have made)、使用、為販賣邀約 (offer for sell)、販售、進口及以其他方式的轉讓 (transfer) 專利授權產品。Apache Lisence2.0 也設計了專利報復條款（patent retaliation）若任何 Apache Lisence2.0 授權程式的使用者提起專利訴訟，主張該軟體或編寫進該軟體中的貢獻部份

by Red Hat, Red Hat agrees to refrain from enforcing the infringed patent against such party for such exercise ("Our Promise")…….See http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2011).

139 前揭註 60。

48

（Contribution）¹⁴⁰構成專利侵害，依 Apache Lisence2.0 所獲得之專利授權也將 同時終止¹⁴¹。 不宜升級，第二個原因則是 GPLv3 中有關數位權利管理（Digital Rights

Management, DRM）的內容不適合 Linux。

GPLv3 和 Apache Lisence2.0 相同，也以貢獻者一詞，指稱將程式以 GPLv3 授權釋出，或是 GPLv3 程式乃構築於其作品的基礎上後續發展的原著作權人。

141 Grant of Patent License:Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. see

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 (last visited Feb. 2, 2012).

142見林俊言，前揭註 124。

；Jacobsen v. Katzer 案中聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，Artistic License 構成一個有效的授權，見林珈

宏(2010)，〈開放源碼軟體商業應用之法律爭議及其可能解決之途徑〉，頁 53，中央大學產經所碩

士論文；軟體自由法律中心 (Software Freedom Law Center, SFLC) 創辦人 Eben Moglen 也認為將 自由/開放原始碼授權條款定性為授權比定性為契約更適合自由/開放原始碼軟體特質也更容易 獲得救濟。see The GPL Is a License, not a Contract, LINUX WEEKLY NEWS, Dec. 3, 2003, available at http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (last visited May 2, 2012).

49

必須詳讀 GPLv3 的運行法則，一旦將專利技術寫進 GPLv3 程式裡，即表示願受 授權條款規則約制。¹⁴³

第十一條規定參考了 Apache Lisence2.0 和 Mozilla Public License，也建立類 似的專利報復條款（a patent retaliation clause），除 GPLv3 授權條款本文及第七條 容許的額外添附條款（Additional terms）外，任何散布者不得於 GPLv3 程式的傳 遞過程內，對後手增加原條款所無的額外限制。例如任何散布者不得以 GPLv3 GPL3 程式散布者，將此專利技術依 GPLv3 授權條款蘊含的精神再授權，GPLv3 在此處提到的「專利授權條款」事實上是「一定範圍內專利權行使抑制條款」， 任何後手依 GPL3 授權的規定對程式進行修改、及使用、散布，並不會侵犯到此 一貢獻者的專利權，貢獻者也不得向依 GPLv3 授權條款取得程式並進行後續修 改、散布之人進行專利權聲明的訴訟¹⁴⁵。

143 Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, A First Look at General Public License 3.0, Computer and Internet Lawyer, Vol. 24, 17(2007).

144 原文為…You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of

it….seehttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2012).

145 原文為 11. Patents.

A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.

A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the

contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.

If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through

50

a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.

A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html (last visited Feb. 27, 2012).

146 Asay, C. D, The General Public License Version 3.0: Making or Breaking the FOSS Movement?, 14 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 265,286-288(2008).

147 Greg R. Vetter,Commercial Free & Open Source Software, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 77, No.

2087,2100-2102(2009).

51

實際上，GPLv3 在解決 GPLv2 未明確專利授權問題的同時又引發了新的問 題¹⁴⁸。首先，上述專利授權僅適用貢獻者，不適用於未修改代碼而只是單純散布 的經銷商。雖然早期草案中經銷商（distributors）也包括在內，但最後因擁有專 利組合的經銷商反對而作罷。

其次，GPLv3 的專利授權範圍較其他授權條款廣，其他授權條款大多只是 就特定範圍授權 GPLv3 則屬於概括式的授權，因此 GPL3 的貢獻者的專利授權 很可能及於自己從未修改過的部分，當後手進行修改時，貢獻者的專利許可是否 可以擴張及於該修改？再者，「貢獻者」既然包括了擁有及控制專利者，那麼是 否及於子公司所擁有的專利？¹⁴⁹

除了以上未規定清楚的部分，GPLv3 可能使專利權人的合法權利受損也是 不願升級的原因之一。例如當 GPLv3 的貢獻者或開發者認為第三方專利無效，

此時將他人專利技術寫入GPLv3的程式碼裡便不會違反 GPLv3 的規定。反面說 來，專利權人一旦使用 GPLv3 散布軟體，即使停止散布也無法阻止衍生著作繼 續依照 GPLv3 進行專利授權，等同於對所有人放棄軟體專利，欠缺吸引專利權 人改用 GPLv3 的誘因。因此一些擁有專利的自由/開放原始碼社群成員不願意將 現行的 GPLv2 授權升級為 GPLv3，寧願保持模糊空間，或者採用 Apache Lisence2.0 等 copyleft 性質較弱的授權條款。¹⁵⁰對於被授權人而言 Oracle v. Google 促使其認識採用 GPLv3 授權專案能夠避免造成專利侵權的優點，但只要 Linux 等社群主流拒絕升級，GPLv3 同樣無法發揮其效益。