Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) IBM is only talking about software patents. I'm willing to concede
> > that software patents constitute a much more direct threat to free
> > software than traditional patents.
> Why should that matter in your eyes?
Because, we're talking about proticting oneself from threats, not
about getting a free ride on everybody else's other kinds of patents.
> > 2) The only thing that terminates here is patent licences - which is
> > separate from the copyright license spoken about by the DFSG.
> If there is a patent on anything in the software, then it amounts to
> the same thing.
No - because the DFSG is basically about *copyright* licensing. The
existence of a patent may render the software undistributable at all,
but that's not a quistion of whether it's copyright license is free or
not.
> However, the cat is out of the bag, everyone accepts these licenses as
> free (even the FSF),
I haven't seen anybody accept the license we're talking about here as
free.
--
Henning Makholm "... a specialist in the breakaway
oxidation phenomena of certain nuclear reactors."
