Re: Patent clauses in licenses
MJ Ray writes:
> On 2004-09-24 15:49:12 +0100 Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
>
> > [...] patents covering programs is not a problem
> > specific to the USA. [...]
>
> Indeed, but that's neither global nor natural. The post I first
> replied to seemed to be claiming it was natural that programs are
> patentable.
>
> You repeatedly making a different point (many countries have this bug)
> doesn't contradict my point (programs not naturally patentable). You
> seem to think I don't read parts snipped (I do), but I think you're
> not understanding what you're quoting.
Patents themselves are not natural. They are defined by a particular
legal system. (Copy rights are not natural, either, but they are
treated more consistently than are patents.) When I said that
computer programs include "patentable elements" in my earlier mail I
meant simply that people can and have received patents that cover the
operation of certain computer programs.
There is a European patent (EP0482154) on the IDEA cipher. That, and
its US equivalent, prevent a lot of people from writing computer
programs that use IDEA. The question is not whether a particular
program can be patented, but whether a particular program (whether by
simply existing or through its execution) can infringe a patent. See
also http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html .
Maybe the European IDEA patent has been ruled unenforceable for
computer programs. Maybe similar cases in Japan, South Korea, etc,
have that effect in those countries. Maybe your point is not related
to the question of whether a program can be made non-free by a patent.
However, I have not seen anything to support those possibilities.
The reason I mention non-freeness is because that is what this thread
is about: When someone asserts a patent claim, which -- if any --
granted rights may be terminated by a free license? The broadest
termination I have seen supported[1] is termination of both copy and
patent grants to a person who claims in court that the program
infringes a patent. Your argument seems to be that such a court claim
either is or should be legal nonsense; perhaps that is the case in the
UK, but the European patent on IDEA and the German Supreme Court case
cited earlier suggest that the rest of Europe differs. The US and
Asia certainly have different laws.
To claim that Debian should make policy based on the most permissive
laws is contrary to both prior practice and common sense; for example,
-legal requires new licenses to specifically license users to execute
or use software, since not all copyright regimes have the US's
exemption for that.
[1]- I intentionally set aside section 4 of GPLv2 and the non-Debian
support for termination when one sues the software author(s).
Michael Poole
Reply to: