Re: Patent clauses in licenses
On 2004-09-24 17:03:17 +0100 Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
[...] 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.
Thank you for the clarification. I am not sure why you felt the need
to object to my complaint that computer programs are not patentable by
their nature, as we seem to agree on that.
There is a European patent (EP0482154) on the IDEA cipher.
The EPO is widely regarded as having exceeded the convention that
established it in some cases. Is that one?
[...] Maybe your point is not related
to the question of whether a program can be made non-free by a patent.
I'm not sure to which point you are referring, but the nature of
computer programs is not directly related to that question.
[...] When someone asserts a patent claim, which -- if any --
granted rights may be terminated by a free license?
Patents are handled by patent licensing. So, it would be the patent
license that terminates.
However, do we agree that a free copyright licence may not terminate
when someone asserts a copyright claim?
[...] 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.
Of course they are different. I'm not even sure what the situation is
in Scotland, for example, although you seem to suggest that I made
some claim about the UK.
I don't really know what Germany is up to. Asking discussion@fsfeurope
.org is more likely to find people who do, if you are interested.
I didn't see your cited slides say where they got that info, but I
vaguely remembered it. Translating BGH as Supreme Court (I think
BVerfG is more like a supreme court, but I'm not sure) set some alarm
bells too: was it from the translation circulated by the pro-swpat
lobbyists? It seems that decision of the German BGH was milder than
some expected. For an example in English, see
http://lists.ffii.org/archive/mails/news/2002/Nov/0001.html
To claim that Debian should make policy based on the most permissive
laws is contrary to both prior practice and common sense; [...]
Just as well I'm not doing that, then. Notice too that Debian's policy
doesn't screw up in the more permissive places, which some of the
patent copyright-termination clauses seen in the past do.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
LinuxExpo.org.uk village 6+7 Oct http://www.affs.org.uk
Reply to: