Kiss The Blade wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:34:34 -0300 > Lisias Toledo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Surreal citar uma empresa com o maior registro de patentes > > > propriet�rias do mundo como defensora de software livre. > > > > Nem tanto, se levarmos em conta que nem mesmo o RMS � contra patentes. > > Propriet�rias?
Existe, de fato, outra? Se uma "patente" � publica, pra que serve a patente (exceto para proteger-se de ser patenteada de forma propriet�ria, o que n�o ocorreria se n�o houvessem patentes at all)? Mas respondendo � sua pergunta: De http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html : "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. " "It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice." RMS n�o � contra patentes. ELe � contra as patentes que inviabilizem o seu modelo de Software Livre. -- []s, ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Quote of month: Liberdade n�o � um esfor�o individual. A sua s� existe se vc garantir a dos outros! Assinantes em 21/04/2002: 2243 Mensagens recebidas desde 07/01/1999: 163578 Historico e [des]cadastramento: http://linux-br.conectiva.com.br Assuntos administrativos e problemas com a lista: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
