RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Russell McOrmond wrote: [... questions ...] http://google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10109131121160.13573-10%40calcutta.flora.ca (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) [...] In order for us to move forward we need to reject the concept of ideas as property [...] You

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-19 Thread Russell McOrmond
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) My most recent submission to the Canadian government on copyright policy includes a reference to that document among others. No need to reference the Google version when the original is

Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-19 Thread Ben Reser
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:30:14PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote: (1) Software patents and interface copyrights are used to revoke creators rights (copyright holder need not be aware of a patent in order to have information process patent infringement claims revoke their copyright - a real

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-17 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Copyright law on the expression ... protects ... Right, *expression*. And that's why patents are your friends. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg5.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg7.html

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-17 Thread Russell McOrmond
Sorry I am adding more non-licensing messages only the next day. I'm trying to keep my messages to a minimum. Will stop posting if an OSI person tells me that it really is too far off topic. In an email message I wrote to the patents are your friend comment: Patents may be IBM's and your

Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-16 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most common political phrase used against Open Source software. The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than laws, acts of parliament

Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-16 Thread Russell McOrmond
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most common political phrase used against Open Source software. The problem is, software is not

Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-16 Thread jcowan
Russell McOrmond scripsit: My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy circles? That's not a question, it's an

Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-16 Thread Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect? I'm meeting some IBM people at LinuxWorld next week. I'll ask them. :) - Robin -- license-discuss archive is at

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-16 Thread Russell McOrmond
(Will try to make this quick -- I don't want to dominate this thread, and won't post any more today in the hopes that others have interest as well) On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

2004-01-16 Thread Brian Behlendorf
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote: I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect? Of course they can. In my opinion, I do not believe that they IBM's model has a long-term future. IP inextricably