On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Dean Anderson wrote: > ... > > When the open-source tide really turns, and the best quality source code > > and technology is free, then it will be subject to theft of the sort where > > it is made improperly not-free. Then it will be the open-source community > > that is trying to enforce the copyright and possibly even patent law. That > > is why alterations must be careful. > > s/When/If/ if you want this statement to be read without laughter.
I don't know why you'd think that statement is funny. I suspect that you are just completely unaware of the issues. Certain large organizations have made assertion that the GPL is not valid, arguing that a contract requires exchange of money. That is, that the GPL is not enforceable and that one can take GPL code private. We would consider this a copyright violation. The counter argument is that a license is not a contract, but a permission. Its a fine point of law for which there is no direct precedent, so it could be argued in court, and its //possible//(*) a court could invalidate the GPL. (*)We think that is unlikely, but it is not impossible. What is more likely is that someone simply takes GPL code, uses it in violation of the license as the basis for a proprietary product. When this is discovered, we would consider this a copyright violation subject to demands/litigation. As the quality of the GPL codebase improves, so does the temptation to steal GPL code in a proprietary product. The LPF has also considered in the past holding software patents in order to ensure that technology remains free. There are presently individual patent holders who have obtained patents just to make sure that licensing remains free, who have suggested that the LPF is a better repository for these patents, than individuals. When the US changes to first-to-file, creation of a free patent repository may be the _only_ way to prevent non-inventors from patenting technology. The first-to-file change is presently required under treaty, and we expect that it will be implemented. The best hope at present is that we obtain a change in whether software can be patented. Venture Capital is finally coming around to the LPF viewpoint, so a change may be possible. There is also a group working to weaken copyright law so that software would not be protected in the same way other works are. This group is apparently responding to the SCO-IBM lawsuit. While well-intentioned, such a weakening would probably have a long-term harm to open-source. I would prefer them work on a change to patent law so that free software is not subject to patents instead. > But you're right, of course. If *you* held all the software patents, > *you* could decide who got to use them. The point of a free patent repository is to make sure that _everyone_ gets to use them for free. > Meanwhile, the IETF process deals with the real world, not with > hypotheticals. If you think these are hypotheticals, then you are seriously uninformed. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf