KJK::Hyperion wrote:
I also don't see anything illegal
in the license you say "you're free to redistribute", to the patent office you say "they're really not". I know patent are enforced only if and when the holder asks for it, but this is stretching the law pretty thin
Let me explain. Handing someone a software license and saying you are free to distribute *this* code is not the same as handing them a patent license and saying you are free to use this patent. One operates under copyright law - the other under patent law (no, IANAL).
One possible wording for the software license is a penalty clause where the violator must share their patent portfolio.
The patent protects the feature set implemented by the code. Suppose a big corporation wants to add this innovative feature (which could be anything) to their product but they don't want to be encumbered by some open source license - so they reverse engineer it. That avoids the copyright but not the patent. You could even license the patent with proceeds going to ReactOS, the EFF or similar organization.
This is a very rough idea but I hope I've gotten some people thinking.
On a side note, I should point out - for the record - that I am very much against the ideas of software patents. However, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire (while wearing asbestos gloves).
-rick