Brenda wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2007 16:56, Nick Rout wrote: > >>> Writing source code does not qualify as developing a codec? Am I missing >>> something? Distributing the source code doesn't give you any protection >>> against patent law whatsoever, does it? >>> >> I don't know how it is presumed to impact, but it is a common practice >> with grey area software. >> > > Some consider source code as free speech and/or educational only. (myself > included) > > I understand this complies with US law (maybe pre DMCA). I'm not sure how NZ > law would treat this. > > It requires the end user to finish the build themselves before it's can be > used to breech the patent. >
Carl Cerecke wrote: > The source code is just instructions on how to do something, whereas > the object code is.... > just instructions on how to do something (hopefully the same thing as > what the corresponding source code specified). > > With instructions that involve physical properties (such as how to > cook spaghetti, or how to speak effectively) the instructions alone > don't get you very far. You need labour and possibly raw materials. > > With source (or object) code, the instructions are pretty-much > everything. But not quite. It still takes some labour. No raw materials perhaps, but quite an expensive computer. The only difference is that the computer is reusable. > That's why people want to pay lawyers to protect their instructions. I think people pay lawyers to protect their income. > I think that, if you want to consider source code as free speech, you > must necessarily consider compiled code as free speech also. There can > be no clear distinction between the two. Hear hear! Software patents are simply a Bad Idea. Mind you, if you scratch the surface, hardware patents are a pretty bad idea too. I can download the patent text itself. The language is English. I can legally translate it into French. Can I legally translate it into C? I believe so. Can I sell my French translation? Can I sell my C translation? My limited understanding of patent law is that it only prevents me _selling_ a patented idea. I'm still free to study it, modify, use it myself, and republish it in modified form. On the surface of it, a patent doesn't affect the freedom of software until you charge for a CD - which few distributions do. This is at odds with the GPL, which does allow open software to be sold. ======================================================================= This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no other act on the email. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission. =======================================================================
