On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:20:33 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that this is an equivalent situation...
> > I could be misleaded by my opinion that software patents are an
> > abuse and should not exist in the first place, but anyway I'll try
> > and clarify what my position is.
>
> But we're talking about trademarks, too. Do you think trademarks
> which cover software are an abuse? What about when those trademarks
> describe functional behavior, like the shape of a car or the sound of
> an engine? How about the interface of a computer, like an iPod?
I didn't think about trademarks enough to conclude...
I haven't yet make up my mind about them.
>
> > If you offer me the MS Visual C++ source code under the GNU GPL
> > license,*you* are doing something you cannot legally do. You are not
> > the copyright holder: the real copyright holder didn't give you
> > permission to distribute under the GNU GPL.
>
> Perhaps I'm a reseller -- like CompUSA or Egghead. I sell you a copy,
> and attach a note saying that I license all my copyrights to the
> included work under the GNU GPL.
Which copyrights?
(almost) none, I think... or do resellers add modifications to MS
programs?
[...]
> > The Freeness of MS Visual C++ is indeed affected by the permissions
> > granted by its copyright holder and by any holder of patents that
> > are*involved* in VC++ itself.
>
> What's this "involved"? I don't think that has a clear definition.
Well, I would think we cannot judge the Freeness of a program by looking
at software patents that its *possible* modifications or uses *could*
infringe.
If we did, GNU bash would not be Free, because you have the
possibility to write a bash script that infringes some
not-freely-licensed software patent...
If we did, I think that no program could be judged Free.
IMHO, we must look only at (actively enforced) software patents covering
algorithms that are *already* implemented in the program.
This is what I meant by "involved"...
>
> > The Freeness of Apache is affected by the permissions granted by its
> > copyright holder and by any holder of patents that are *involved* in
> > Apache itself (and one-click shopping is not, AFAIK).
>
> How come? If it were restriction on building web sites, you'd say
> that was involved, I think. If it were a restriction on frames, you'd
> say that was involved. If it were a restriction on separate
> menu-bars, like on Debian's own site down the side, is that involved?
> Where's the line between that and a one-click shopping cart?
None of the above are implemented *in* Apache: it merely serves pages.
This restrictions would come into play when judging the Freeness of a
website or of a web authoring tool, but not of a web server...
Or at least, that's the way I would think it works: Apache has no "build
separate menu-bar" feature...
Or do you think that Linux is non-free because its TCP/IP implementation
*can* be used to vehiculate an HTTPS e-commerce transaction featuring
one-click shopping or an HTML page with frames and/or separate
menu-bars?
I don't think that the Freeness of the Linux kernel depends on such
software patents...
[...]
> But I don't lose my license to Apache for murdering people with it, or
> for implementing a one-click shopping license. Not even if I'm sued
> for doing so. I think *that's* the difference, that Apache doesn't
> run off and remove its license if I use it for these things.
>
> The Open Somethingorother license under discussion here recently did
> so, and trademark law does so too.
I'm sorry: I think I'm not understanding that last sentence.
Do trademark laws state that, when I violate a trademark, I lose a
license?
Which license? A copyright license? A trademark license?
Could you please clarify, as I'm not very knowledgeable about trademark
laws (IANAL)?
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
Attachment:
pgpQh_yuSr3JO.pgp
Description: PGP signature