Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The situation the clause aims at is one where a patent owner seeks to > > gain a monopoly on the original author's work by preventing everybody > > else - including the original author himself - from using it. > > Your use of the term "original author" is misapplied. Either the > copyright owner is not the original author, because the patent > predates his work, or he is the original author and can win the suit > easily.
His use of the term is correct. The software was written by the "original author." Software can infringe a patent that was issued before, after or concurrently with the software being published. The odds are that, even for a patent with a filing date after the software was first published, the defendant in a patent suit would have trouble winning on that basis. Among other reasons, many countries have a "grace period" that allows publication of an invention before filing a patent for it; the USA allows such publication by third parties. > > I don't think "justice", impartial or not, has anything to do with > > that. My intuition is that it is fair for free software to say, "if > > you want to have a monopoly on implementations of your patented > > gadget, you have to write the code yourself". > > Similarly, I think it's fair to say that Free Software licenses > should not attempt to circumvent the courts, and that penalties for > bringing law cases belong only in negotiated contracts. Can you relate this limitation on licenses to the DFSG? Michael Poole