6 Dec
2003
6 Dec
'03
8:06 p.m.
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
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
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