On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, David Forslund wrote: > I have no objections to people wanting to make money, but this seems > to me to be essentially the same as charging for the software and thus > the software is no longer "free".
Dave, Patent and copyright are different. GPL is built upon existing copyright laws and grants the licensee certain copying rights in return for conforming to the conditions that the GPL sets forth. One can argue that GPL is less free than public domain software (as Microsoft has done). However, the intent and effect of GPL is to increase freedom, not to diminish it. We are trying to do the same for patents. The tool that I am proposing is a patent pool. It rests upon existing patent laws. Yes, my proposed patent pool does include monetary payment as one of the conditions. However, the monetary payment is a cap - such that the future cost of patents can be limited. The purpose is to encourage more GPL software while making the existing patent system work for rather than against the production of GPL software. > I think the process of making money by servicing the software is a > better model, and the GPL already protects the intellectual property. GPL, by itself, does not adequately balance the needs of patent-holders and their users. Therefore, GPL will not work for patents. Also, patents do not require servicing - so the money-for-service model is no appplicable. For these reasons, we need to find a new win-win business model that works for patents implemented in software. > This process won't stop people from filing legal claims against > patents either. Any patent can be challenged legally - so can any copyright. The point is not to forbid legal claims, but to try to prevent and reduce them. > So I don't see the value of this. It appears to only be an obstacle > and only adds to the need for people to employ lawyers. Currently, patents are already obstacles. My proposal for a patent pool hopes to help overcome those obstacles. There are many other proposals on the table - all the way from abolishing software-implementable patents to some type of viral patent pool. My proposal has a viral payload - but also provides a micro-payment system to "suger-coat" the uptake of the virus. As I said, I don't know whether what I am proposing will work at all - we will have to see. > It seems to be counter to the idea of GPL itself. I think the GPL and the GPPL are attacking two different problems. In situations where GPL is adequate, there will be no need to use the GPPL. > It seems that this should be discussed in the larger open-source > community, since it has nothing to do with healthcare. ... We are very much a part of the larger open-source community. The SDSS does have potential uses in healthcare, but I am not opposed to continuing the discussion elsewhere. (As I said, anywhere, anytime :-) Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
