Subject: Re: termless copyright and patents
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:17:31 -0400

On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 13:18 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:

> Teachings, products, etc. used to decide the validity of
> a patent under the "obviousness" criteria.

Ok, but I don't see why you are talking of prior art for a granted
patent.
Once a patent is granted you have to go to a court to invalidate it by
showing prior art the the poor PTO couldn't find before the grant :)

But unless you want to go into a court I don't see why talking about
prior art can matter.

> > The possibility for Alice to sue anyone for programs itself conveys (for
> > the claims they embed) is probably already close to null (if you do not
> > violate the license) no matter what the license.
> > 
> > In the GPL case Alice agrees also to not sue anybody else that receives
> > a copy of Alice's conveyed program by means of third party distribution.
> > 
> > This means that the GPL is "better", and "protect" more people.
> >   
> 
> I'm not sure what two things you are comparing when you say "the GPL
> is 'better'".

It is better in the sense that protection is extended not only to the
recipients of the first program but also to downstream recipients.

That is usually not the case with proprietary software (or it is
regulated by strict licensing requirements and revenue based royalties
etc...).

Simo.