Talk:Open source license litigation

Insufficient references
I recently reviewed the page for copyediting and noticed the article needs a lot of help with references. The references previously used were the court documents themselves, which are primary sources rather than reliable secondary or tertiary sources. The majority of the article may be original research based on those documents, which isn't acceptable for an encyclopedic article. However, it seems probable that reliable sources exist on such high-profile litigation, so any help in finding relevant sources to improve the article would be great. I moved the court documents into an external links section where they seemed more appropriate and tagged the article's creator to see if they have more suitable references. Popoki35 (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue of original research on the noticeboard, and User:Masem pointed out that Wikimedia Library gives access to HeinOnline, which may have the appropriate secondary sources to help improve the article. I will attempt to put some work into that and would welcome help if any interested editors want to join. Popoki35 (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To note that my just added section on McHardy has seven substantial sources. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Open source trademark litigation
I am user 2601:204:c600:3b00:c0d5:3f14:1945:b1f9. I wrote the section on the Planetary Motion v. Techsplosion case. I am licensing it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA 3.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). It is not copied from the Beebee work. I had not looked at the Beebe work until now and I see that the Beebe work has simply reproduced the court's opinion, which as a government work is in the public domain. There is no similarity whatsoever between what I wrote and what is original content in the Beebe work.

The Beebe work also does not discuss this work in the context of its meaning and effect in open source licensing, but rather the case is taught in law schools for the proposition that use in commerce does not require revenue generation and the types of use that may be sufficient to show use in commerce.

I am an open source trademark lawyer, in practice for 20 years.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchestek (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This reference might be useful when adding material related to open source trademark litigation. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Rothschild Patent Imaging v. GNOME Foundation case
I recently added a subsection on this case. The following references were not used on the main article but are nonetheless worth recording on this talk page. In chronological order as follows. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

2019

Kwan (2019) first reporting on the Rothschild Patent Imaging (RPI) law suite. GNOME (2019) on patent defense. López (2019) summary. Vaughan-Nichols (2019) on OIN.

2020

GNOME (2020) on their settlement.

2022

Smith (2022) on invalidating the RPI patent.

ongoing

End Software Patents (ongoing) campaign.

Article name somewhat restrictive
Some of the case law in this article goes well beyond "license litigation" — for instance, some of the patent litigation is not related to the use of open source licensing to any degree (although open source projects do tend to react differently to commercial projects in this context). Perhaps the article name should shift to something like "Open source software litigation"? Any thoughts? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)