On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Raj Mathur<[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday 10 Aug 2009, Vickram Crishna wrote: >> [snip] >> I understand this to mean that FSF is not against the idea of >> software patents per se, only against encumbered or entailed >> software. Do Fosscommers feel otherwise, generally speaking? > > AFAIK FSF is opposed to both copyrights and patents (in any form) in > principle. The GPL was an attempt to subvert the copyright regime from > inside -- since you can't easily change the rules, play the game by the > rules and change the game itself, hence copyleft. The GPL will have > fulfilled its function and become irrelevant the day there is no more > copyright. >
FSF does not want to treat copyright and patents under the same hood. Though lot of people try to do that by including them under the "intellectual property" hood. FSF uses the copyright instrument, and is NOT against it. Personally I do not think, copyright would loose its role. E.g, I write a note strictly for the members of a group, For example, I can say: Copyright Nagarjuna G. 2009, and further add in the condition clause: "This note is confidential and meant only for the intended group, and cannot be modified, and can only be copied verbatim. Quoting parts of the note out of the group is not permitted." This is also a way of respecting and protecting the freedom and authorship of the individual's expression. This way authors might always need an instrument of this kind to add any restrictions when needed. Software Patents on the other hand do not have any demonstrable role, while other kinds of patents may have (though dubious.) FSF does not take a stand on other kinds of patents. Individually we may reject the very instrument of patenting for promoting inventions. > A similar reasoning applies to the GPLv3 take on software patents -- > since some backward countries have software patents and they show no > signs of going away, the GPLv3 plays the game by the rules to nullify > the effect of software patents, just as the GPL did with copyright. > Again, the relevant clauses of the GPLv3 are redundant in domains where > software patents do not apply, and will be meaningless when software > patents are globally abolished. > > I'm sure our friends from the FSF would be able to expand on this and > correct any flaws in my understanding. > Since GPL is a means to reach an end, its role will vanish when we reach the end. So, let us work hard to make GPL "useless" :-) Continuing on the lighter vein: while software patents are like /land mines/ for destroying creativity, GPL is a /viral means/ of distributing creativity. -- Nagarjuna G. _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
