Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:08:18 +0900

>>>>> "Don" == Don Marti <dmarti@zgp.org> writes:

    Don> In places where the LZW patent is in force, only proprietary
    Don> derived works, not the original BSD-licensed software, can be
    Don> distributed.

In places where Patent X is in force, only proprietary derived works,
not the original GPL-licensed software, can be distributed (cf.
Clause 7.)

Presumably publication of an algorithm under a university license
would constitute "prior art" (assuming an honest implementation of
patents, and if the patent system is dishonest, no software license
can help you).  I see a dead heat here, on your argument.

    Don> If the intent is to fund infrastructure software that can be
    Don> incorporated into both free and proprietary products, you
    Don> have to put both copyrights and patents on the table.

Of course.  I think your argument that GPL should be used for licenses
of copyright because patents can prevent distribution of university-
licensed software is specious, though.  It applies just as well to
GPLed software.

So if we have patents, your argument seems to imply there are no
acceptable free licenses.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py