On 8/8/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If distributing the source doesn't violate the patent, > and distributing a binary doesn't violate the patent, > then what *would* constitute a violation of a software > patent?
> Writing new code using the algorithm? Compiling > something which uses it? Any of the above, depending on the particular judge. The difference is that there is now some precedent saying that source (can be) an expression, rather than an implementation. There is no such precedent suggesting protection for anything executable. This still doesn't mean that (writing or distributing) source code is automatically safe -- but in practice, it means lawsuits would be filed first against those using or distributing a binary. Since the PSF does not have deep pockets, plaintiffs would prefer not to involve them. If the actual defendants had made an affirmative choice to violate (by changing their own build instructions), other BigCorps might not blame python for the risk. "Martin v. Löwis" > IANAL, but AFAICT, the rights controlled by patent law > are the right to make, to use, to sell, to offer to sell, > and to import. ... In general, the right to sell and to offer to > sell would be relevant for software as well, but not > so for free software (I assume). Giving it away interferes with the patent owner's ability to sell it, and is therefore considered interference with the exclusive right to sell. -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
