Fernando Cacciola wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Motivated by A. Terekhov concerns, I think the license should, if at all
> > > possible, expressely PROHIBIT anyone, including the copyright holder,
> > > from patenting the covered Software and any implied intellectual production.
> >
> > That would make no sense.
> >
> Why?
Because a patent protects against the unauthorized manufacture,
use, sale... {subset of} rights that *ARE GRANTED* by a license
{subject to whatever requirements} we're discussing here. Also,
a public disclosure of an invention prior to the patent
application renders the invention no longer "novel" under the
IP laws of almost all countries outside North America. Finally,
AFAICS, a sort of "common practice" at companies practicing
"the open source" (e.g. IBM) is to seek the patent protection
and grant rights to the open source community (again: CPL *is*
the preferred license) but seek "compensation" from the
proprietary "closed source" competitors. What's wrong with that?
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
