> seem that the linkage of open source software and patented technology is
> awkward to say the least. What use is open source if it is patented?
> But allowing people to freely modify the source would be tantamount to
> giving the patent away.
>
> Have their been other open source projects which used patented technology
> owned by the company releasing the source? How has the licensing been
> handled in those cases?
time to introduce a really wild, new idea. GPL Patent Law.
A new law that requires that any implementation instance of something that
is covered in full or in part by a GPL Patent requires FULL disclosure of
all Intellectual Property used in the implementation. Design documents,
other patents, other processes, etc. Sufficient such that another person,
organisation, corporation etc. can, if they so desire, implement it
themselves.
Its Going To Take A Lot Of Money to get this Law.
The benefits: Open Source community, Governments, Research institutes,
philanthropic organisations can release Intellectual Property under the
GPL Patent Law knowing that instead of protecting that Intellectual
Propery as "private" knowledge it is protected as "public" knowledge.
These two are diametrically opposed and they are BOTH required for ...
er... how do i put this ... dynamic, stable intellectual development _and_
to reap the benefits.
If you think it won't work, just look at the effectiveness of the GPL in
producing Linux.
luke
<a href=" mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton </a>
<a href=" http://cb1.com/~lkcl" > Samba and Network Development </a>
<a href=" http://samba.org" > Samba Web site </a>
<a href=" http://www.iss.net" > Internet Security Systems, Inc. </a>
<a href=" http://mcp.com" > Macmillan Technical Publishing </a>
ISBN1578701503 DCE/RPC over SMB: Samba and Windows NT Domain Internals
