Perhaps I should have waited for the clarification first before posting. They were in a hurry to get a copy of the software. Sorry for the false alarm.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:38 PM, KRTorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry to offend the readers. > > I talked to our seniors and asked for a clarification, they're filing for > copyright, not patent. They sent someone to ask me the list of modules and > other details of my software projects, and wasn't careful with the choice of > words. > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Jerome Gotangco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM, KRTorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Is it ok for the whole software to be patented, ok for some parts only >> > (patentable ones like user views, database schema), or none at all? >> >> The term "software patent" is highly debatable in its current format. >> Even if you are just going to patent just a part of the general >> package, let's say an algorithm or a routine procedure, it would not >> even be generally acceptable (although legally it might be) as the >> said parts can stifle competition heavily. >> >> Also some free software out there that fall under the GNU GPL v3 has >> explicit provisions with regards to software patents, not to mention >> copyleft. >> >> >> -- >> Jerome G. >> >> Website: http://www.gotangco.com >> Blog: http://engage.wordpress.com >> _________________________________________________ >> Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List >> http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug >> Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph >> > >
_________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
