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

>>>>> "Don" == Don Marti <> 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
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