What constitutes free or open source software can be open to debate unless the concept is grounded in a definition. Both the OSI and FSF definitions are well established and commonly understood conceptualizations of what constitutes free or open source software. The two definitions substantially overlap and the differences between them are not essential for purposes of the OPN Pledge. Both definitions encompass the most commonly used forms of open source license agreements and distribution practices. Accordingly, we thought linking the definition of “Free or Open Source Software” in the OPN to both definitions would be both comprehensive and intuitive for those who stand to benefit from the Pledge.

Existing open source licenses with patent provisions, such as Apache License 2.0, Mozilla Public License 2.0 and the GNU General Public License v3 are principally copyright licenses. As such they are typically used in connection with software source code distributions. Google releases a lot of open source code under such licenses. The OPN Pledge is oriented to open source software to which Google has contributed little or no code, or has not otherwise incurred any patent license obligations under patents it owns. The OPN allows us to do more than conventional patent rights transfer mechanisms around free or open source software would allow.

Google has released and will continue to release OSS code under a variety of license agreements, including those with patent grant provisions. The OPN Pledge is not intended to conflict with or supersede those more specific arrangements. In particular, the patents selected for inclusion in the OPN should have little to no bearing on patent rights that Google may have granted under prior OSS releases.

Google intends to expand upon the Pledged Patents over time. We wanted to start first with well known technology and a discrete quantity of patents given the novelty of the OPN Pledge, so we could properly consider public reaction to our Pledge and incorporate that into the timing and selection of future technologies and related patents for inclusion as Pledged Patents. Stay tuned.

[Update (August 8, 2013): Google has since expanded upon the Pledged Patents by adding patents relating to Middleware, Distributed Storage Management, Distributed Database Management, and Alarm Monitoring. We have added a “Date added” column to our list of Pledge Patents so that the public can see when certain patents were pledged. Google plans to continue expanding the list of Pledged Patents.]

The Pledge applies only with respect to Free or Open Source Software. Google is open to discussing suitable arrangements with interested parties for other software implementations relating to Pledged Patents. For any inquiries related to this particular question, please contact us at patentlicensing@google.com.

End users in OSS ecosystems are differently situated from developers and distributors, particularly with respect to the most common licenses used with various OSS products. Specifically, most licenses approved by both OSI and FSF impose certain obligations on developers and distributors of OSS, such as copyright attribution or making any modifications available in source code form. A developer’s or distributor’s failure to abide by the license obligations would cause the software not to qualify as Free or Open Source Software. But that would not necessarily hold true for end users, as these licenses typically permit end users to modify and adapt OSS for internal use without any further obligations. The OPN Pledge was designed to support the compliant use of Free or Open Source Software across a broad range of OSS industry acceptable usage scenarios.

The focus of the OPN Pledge is Free or Open Source Software given the growing ubiquity and importance of OSS to innovation. While some open source projects around hardware have been initiated, their industry impact remains uncertain. Thus, Google has elected for now not to have the OPN apply to hardware as such.

Most OSS is designed to be hardware platform agnostic and to execute on a broad range of general purpose computing devices. Special-purpose hardware, such as microprocessors or servers that incorporate unique functionality in the form of deeply embedded firmware, tend to be proprietary to their developers. For purposes of Our Pledge, we wished to support truly Free or Open Source Software, and not address edge cases where there might be questions regarding whether the use of such software is truly free or open. In any event, recognizing that customized applications of Free or Open Source Software are typically permitted for end users, we have broadly included within coverage of the Pledge Internal-Only Use of Open Source Software combined with special purpose hardware.

Simply announcing that we were offering the OPN Pledge for certain technologies relevant to OSS projects and distributions would leave uncertainty for both the public and Google regarding what patent rights were involved. By structuring the OPN such that Google offers a broad promise with respect to specifically identified patents, Google offers clarity and transparency around the initiative. Pledged Patents may also relate to proprietary technologies that have been or still are strategic to Google internally. Because the company operates in a highly litigious environment, increasingly involving other operating companies, Google wishes to be thoughtful both about the patents it considers for inclusion among Pledged Patents and the timing of such inclusion. Additionally, it is Google’s intent that the OPN terms and conditions be binding on successors in interest if Google divests Pledged Patents for any reason. This is practicable only if the affected Pledged Patents are clearly known and identified.

No, not as such. Licenses are typically contractual agreements between two or more parties. In the OSS context licenses typically accompany source or object code distributions or development efforts. Google is not at this stage distributing any software under the OPN Pledge, so in that context Google chose the vehicle of simply extending a broad non-assertion promise in connection with open source implementations that practice Pledged Patents. The Pledge states very explicitly Google’s intent that it be legally binding on Google. Our Pledge extends to each and every user, distributor and developer of Free or Open Source Software, regardless of whether each is aware of the Pledge or otherwise would have taken steps to sign on to a document embodying its principles. This makes the Pledge different than more conventional licenses or covenants not to sue.

No, the Pledge is self-operative. No further action is required for users, distributors or developers of Free or Open Source Software to enjoy the benefits of the OPN Pledge.

Google is happy to be a member of the Open Invention Network (OIN) and commends the organization for all it does to protect OSS. Both the OPN and OIN use patents in the service of protecting open technologies. However, there are the following key differences:

No, the Pledged Patents are not necessarily all patents owned by Google that relate to MapReduce or any other technology. Google is constantly innovating and obtaining patents that cover a broad range of inventions and technologies. And Google expects to regularly evaluate its patent portfolio to identify other patents to supplement the list of Pledged Patents.

Those OSS licenses with patent provisions typically allow for defensive termination of any patent rights offered to a licensee if that licensee brings a patent suit against another licensee accusing the licensed OSS technology. Both the scope of the initial patent rights grant and focus of any patent suit that might trigger defensive termination are centered around the OSS technology itself. Google has structured the OPN so that a broader range of patent aggression can give rise to defensive termination around Pledged Patents.

Google has designed the OPN such that Google or any other company adopting the OPN for itself (an “OPN Company”) would have a broad defensive termination right. In addition to patent attacks against OSS technologies used or distributed by an OPN Company, any patent attack against an OPN Company or against a 3rd party based on its use or distribution of that OPN Company’s products or services may trigger defensive termination of the OPN Company’s pledge. Additionally, the OPN is structured to address a practice now commonly known as “privateering.” Some patent owners have taken to outsourcing the aggressive enforcement of patents to third parties, while retaining an ownership stake in the patents or revenues flowing from litigation judgments or settlements. If a party stands to benefit financially directly from the enforcement of patents by third parties, then that connection can also serve as a defensive termination trigger under the OPN, even though the benefiting party is not a named participant in the initial patent attack.

Awesome! We are happy to address any questions you might have about adopting the Pledge, and to assist you with getting up and running. We envision that Pledge adopters would publish a copy of their own Pledges and Pledged Patents at their own or an affiliated Web site. Additionally, we intend to make Pledges and Pledged Patents from other companies available at a designated site alongside our own OPN Pledge. For any inquiries relating to Pledge adoption or the Pledge more generally please contact us at opnpledge@google.com.