Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
"Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It would seem that the linkage of open source software and patented > > technology is awkward to say the least. What use is open source if > > it is patented? > > I'll take "User Confidence" for 20, please. It would not be "open source" if the patent is not licensed freely, since the basic requirements of the "open source" definition would not be met. With the GPL, the patented technology is required to be licensed freely to everyone. I do not know what license ZKS is using tho, since I don't recall them actually releasing source code yet. Let us hope that ZKS freely licenses the patents when distributing the source. Patents are just fucked anyways. -- Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig "Hiding like thieves in the night from life, illusions of oasis making you look twice. -- Mos Def and Talib Kweli
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, dmolnar wrote: > > more that... anyone can implicitly license the patent (i.e you have > > _already_ given permission) if they are prepared to make a "full > > disclosure" of all intellectual property used in an implementation of a > > product atht uses the patent. > > Can I offer a general license of this type now, if I hold a patent? anyone know any good lawyers? > What I'm trying to determine is why a new law is needed to provide > for this kind of license. It would be better if no new law is required; > then patent holders could be persuaded to offer such licenses right now. if that's the case, that would be very, very good: it immediately solves the problem. > or did you mean that _every_ patent would be under GPL by default? no, every patent specifically requested by the registerer / owner of the patent be under the GPL license by default.
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > or do you mean "we must grant you a license to this other patent we > > used to implement something covered by a GPL patent" ? What if the > > person implementing the GPL patent doesn't have the ability to license > > that patent? > > then in a similar, analogous way to GPL libraries and proprietary source > code, if you can't get the ability to license or use that patent, you > can't use that patent to produce your product. It seems like you need the ability to license the patent to others. Merely having the ability to use it will not allow you to comply with this requirement -- since then you can't give others the ability to use your software / patent / whatever. > > obviously, if you can buy a component (equivalent to a library) and use it > in a product, you shouldn't have to research and fully disclose all > patents on the individual component. > > requires a lot of thinking through, doesn't it? :) Yup. > more that... anyone can implicitly license the patent (i.e you have > _already_ given permission) if they are prepared to make a "full > disclosure" of all intellectual property used in an implementation of a > product atht uses the patent. Can I offer a general license of this type now, if I hold a patent? That is, can I take a patent and make some kind of legally binding declaration which makes it available under these conditions? What I'm trying to determine is why a new law is needed to provide for this kind of license. It would be better if no new law is required; then patent holders could be persuaded to offer such licenses right now. or did you mean that _every_ patent would be under GPL by default? Thanks, -David Molnar
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, dmolnar wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > A new law that requires that any implementation instance of something that > > is covered in full or in part by a GPL Patent requires FULL disclosure of > > all Intellectual Property used in the implementation. Design documents, > > other patents, other processes, etc. Sufficient such that another person, > ^^^ > Do you mean "we document that some other patent was used in implementing > this source code, which itself implements something covered by a GPL > patent, but don't do anything about licensing this other patent" ? no. > or do you mean "we must grant you a license to this other patent we > used to implement something covered by a GPL patent" ? What if the > person implementing the GPL patent doesn't have the ability to license > that patent? then in a similar, analogous way to GPL libraries and proprietary source code, if you can't get the ability to license or use that patent, you can't use that patent to produce your product. obviously, if you can buy a component (equivalent to a library) and use it in a product, you shouldn't have to research and fully disclose all patents on the individual component. requires a lot of thinking through, doesn't it? :) > > > organisation, corporation etc. can, if they so desire, implement it > > themselves. > > If I am the holder of a patent, can I make this "full disclosure" a > necessary condition for licensing the patent? more that... anyone can implicitly license the patent (i.e you have _already_ given permission) if they are prepared to make a "full disclosure" of all intellectual property used in an implementation of a product atht uses the patent. other uses - private, non-full-disclosure licenses - would still need to be explicitly granted by the patent holder.
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
At 11:14 AM 2/23/00 -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: >lcs Mixmaster Remailer writes: > > Have their been other open source projects which used patented technology > > owned by the company releasing the source? How has the licensing been > > handled in those cases? > >Basically, "You get a license for this patented algorithm only if you >use this source code." Details are at http://opensource.org/licenses/ The general policy isn't that simple. Under MPL 1.0, for example, a contributor can submit open-source that is subject to third-party patents. All that is required is notification, and this is of course limited by the extent of the contributor's knowledge. In this regard, open source is more like a standards body policy, where submitters must tell what they know, only about what they submit, and provide some fair usability assurances in light of that. -- dpj
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > A new law that requires that any implementation instance of something that > is covered in full or in part by a GPL Patent requires FULL disclosure of > all Intellectual Property used in the implementation. Design documents, > other patents, other processes, etc. Sufficient such that another person, ^^^ Do you mean "we document that some other patent was used in implementing this source code, which itself implements something covered by a GPL patent, but don't do anything about licensing this other patent" ? or do you mean "we must grant you a license to this other patent we used to implement something covered by a GPL patent" ? What if the person implementing the GPL patent doesn't have the ability to license that patent? > organisation, corporation etc. can, if they so desire, implement it > themselves. If I am the holder of a patent, can I make this "full disclosure" a necessary condition for licensing the patent? Thanks, -David
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
lcs Mixmaster Remailer writes: > Have their been other open source projects which used patented technology > owned by the company releasing the source? How has the licensing been > handled in those cases? Basically, "You get a license for this patented algorithm only if you use this source code." Details are at http://opensource.org/licenses/ -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M. ^gratuitious moderator suck-up^
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
> seem that the linkage of open source software and patented technology is > awkward to say the least. What use is open source if it is patented? > But allowing people to freely modify the source would be tantamount to > giving the patent away. > > Have their been other open source projects which used patented technology > owned by the company releasing the source? How has the licensing been > handled in those cases? time to introduce a really wild, new idea. GPL Patent Law. A new law that requires that any implementation instance of something that is covered in full or in part by a GPL Patent requires FULL disclosure of all Intellectual Property used in the implementation. Design documents, other patents, other processes, etc. Sufficient such that another person, organisation, corporation etc. can, if they so desire, implement it themselves. Its Going To Take A Lot Of Money to get this Law. The benefits: Open Source community, Governments, Research institutes, philanthropic organisations can release Intellectual Property under the GPL Patent Law knowing that instead of protecting that Intellectual Propery as "private" knowledge it is protected as "public" knowledge. These two are diametrically opposed and they are BOTH required for ... er... how do i put this ... dynamic, stable intellectual development _and_ to reap the benefits. If you think it won't work, just look at the effectiveness of the GPL in producing Linux. luke mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton http://cb1.com/~lkcl" > Samba and Network Development http://samba.org" > Samba Web site http://www.iss.net"> Internet Security Systems, Inc. http://mcp.com"> Macmillan Technical Publishing ISBN1578701503 DCE/RPC over SMB: Samba and Windows NT Domain Internals
Re: ZKS hires Brands, licenses patents
> It would seem that the linkage of open source software and patented > technology is awkward to say the least. What use is open source if > it is patented? I'll take "User Confidence" for 20, please.
