Russel, Thanks for your response! I'm not exactly clear on what Intel proposes for patented software, or the implications thereof, but I imagine that will become clear as I continue to skim the thread. OK, I went back and reread some of the thread -- I guess they propose to give a royalty free license (on the patent) that allows use (only under a GPL'd OS), but not modification? I guess I have the gist of it and can follow along now!
Thanks, Randy Kramer Russell Nelson wrote: > > Randy Kramer writes: > > 1. Use (and modification) of software can be restricted by copyright but > > might also be restricted by patent (if the software uses something which > > is patented). > > Because U.S. law relating to intellectual property has been corrupted. > > > Aside: I would feel cheated (misled, whatever) if I started to use > > software that was open source (with the rights associated with the open > > source license applied to that software), but some of those rights were > > restricted by patent issues, especially if the licensing was so opaque > > that I didn't realize that until later. > > Worse than what Intel is doing (that is, trying to be helpful), is the > issue of third-party and submarine patents. Intel could write > software (patented or not), release it under the proposed BSD+Patent > license, and both you and Intel would be very surprised if someone > else turned up to also have a patent, or a patent could turn up to > have been registered but not granted until after you started using > it. > > Intel can't solve those problems but it should be commended for doing > what it can (even if it isn't doing everything that we think > possible). -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
