Re: [Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>] Re: Debian & BSD concerns
Re: This patented code
Who owns this patent? What is the patent? The patent own can set the
license terms as he/she wishes.
Where you say 'free licenses cannot be revoked': What is your authority
for that statement? The licensor can set the terms and conditions upon
which revocation may be a consequence.
More info please...
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
publisher@ompages.com
http://ompages.com
On 15 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Bruce Sass writes:
> > How's this... What would happen if I was to have a free program depend
> > on patent code distributed with a free license,...
>
> This is difficult to answer because I don't know how to formulate a free
> license for a patent.
>
> > ...then the license of the patent code became non-free at some later
> > date.
>
> Free licenses cannot be revoked.
>
> > I'm trying to get at the difference between depending on someone elses
> > library routines (where a license change requires a new release?),...
>
> Copyright law cares nothing about releases. It works like this: I give you
> a copy of pppconfig, with the GPL attached. You now have the right to
> distribute copies of that copy as long as you cmply with the terms of the
> GPL. The license applies to _that copy_ . I now give an identical copy of
> pppconfig to someone else, with the Artistic license attached. She now has
> the right to distribute copies of that copy as long as she cmplies with the
> terms of the Artisitic. The license applies to _that copy_ . it doesn't
> matter if the two copies are identical or are different releases.
>
> Because copyright deals with copying, it is possible to irreversibly
> 'infect' a work with freedom by giving out a copy of it attached to a
> license that grants the recipient the right to distribute copies if and
> only if he agrees to grant all recipients of his copies the same rights he
> received.
>
> I'm not yet sure how to accomplish the same thing with a patent. You must
> understand that the whole notion of freedom is antithetical to intellectual
> property law. The IP lawyer's idea of a license is an agreement between
> the owner of the IP and an individual licensee in which the licensee is
> granted limited rights in return for money.
>
> > I'm trying to get at the difference between depending on someone elses
> > library routines (where a license change requires a new release?), and
> > depending on patent code (where the license may change without a new
> > release?).
>
> One does not patent code. One patents an algorithm (though the IP lawyers
> deny it).
>
> This discussion belongs on debian-legal.
> --
> John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
> john@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
> Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
> Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: