With Software Patents, you have proponents who make proprietary software,
and
you have opponents that make proprietary software and free software.
With Free Software Patents, you don't have any proponents from any
business or
company that focuses on free software. Right? Am I wrong?
I'd
Ah, I see. But then I don't really agree with the logic. I agree that there
aren't really any free software companies that support software patents.
But they aren't the ones who will be opposing this -- it will be the
proprietary software companies who don't want free software companies to
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Adam Bolte abo...@systemsaviour.comwrote:
We cannot allow these
hobbyists to rip off our ideas and then compete with us at zero cost.
That
will mean we have no incentive to invest money in further research.
From the ABC website:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Matt Giuca matt.gi...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, would this law be applied to free-as-in-speech software, or
free-as-in-beer software, or both? If I write a proprietary program
but give it away for free (freeware), am I exempt? If I write a GPL
program but sell
Three things about a free software exception:
1. It would pretty much mean recognising software as being patentable.
(This might be the biggest problem.)
2. It would require putting a definition of free software in a law.
(If this gets messy or botched, point #1 will hit us in the face.)
I thought that there was a really great idea from a commenter at the end
of your talk whereby free software would be considered by law 'in the
public interest' and becomes except from applying to patent lawsuits at all.
Not only would this meet our goals of being able to write and use free
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012, Matt Giuca matt.gi...@gmail.com wrote:
While I like free software, I respect the right for people and
companies to keep secrets, if they wish. I prefer to let the market
decide: if you want to lock up your software, then I won't buy it, but
that doesn't mean I should be
