On 07/10/2012 06:30 AM, Oleksandr Gavenko wrote:
Copyright would allow you to do so. The generally-used strategy regarding patents for an Open Source project is to proceed on the assumption that there isn't one until you are informed otherwise, and then ask legal counsel for advice. If you are some deep-pockets company, the strategy is different but you would also have your own attorneys to advise you.Is it possible use knowledge I get form these sources? In case of patent I think no...
And it also depends upon the purpose. Publishing information about a patented process doesn't infringe, using the process potentially does.
Which copyleft license? There can be copyleft licenses that are not compatible with each other in the specific terms of the license. Even GPL2 vs. GPL3. Are all of the pieces clearly under the same license or compatible licenses? Sometimes it is a lot of work to figure that out. And be sure to attribute the pieces correctly, and provide information about their licensing.I don't understand this. For example I use copyleft licence for my program and Wikipedia use copyleft (share alike) license for its content. I got conflict?
Generally what you find in Wikipedia is an explanation of an algorithm. This algorithm isn't copyrightable, but the specific way it is written can have copyrightable parts. So, the easy way to deal with this is to look at how it works and write your own version. The more complicated way would be to develop an understanding of the functional vs. expressive dichotomy in copyright law, in which case you would start by reading the decision in CAI vs. Altai.Wikipedia free for knowledge but non-free for use it in free software with different statements for freedom?
We just had a re-iteration of the functional vs. expressive debate in the Oracle v. Google case regarding Java. It made it even more clear that the functional part of the Java specification was not copyrightable. You get to use the constants, function names, etc. The problem would not be copyright, but patents.================================================================ Interesting also case of non-free references and standards. They define a coupe of constants, without which you can't develop certain types of protocol. You need to copy a large part of constants and adapt many symbolic names for these constants... Is that valid?
Thanks Bruce
<<attachment: bruce.vcf>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss