A colleague just asked me the following question, any thoughts from the list?
Can the OWNER of the copyright in software code that has been released under a GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) change its mind and take the software *private*
(any future versions would be proprietary
Ralph Bloemers wrote:
>
> A colleague just asked me the following question, any thoughts from the list?
>
>
> Can the OWNER of the copyright in software code that has been released under a GPL
>(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) change its mind and take the software
>*private* (any fu
Ralph Bloemers wrote:
>
> A colleague just asked me the following question, any thoughts from the list?
>
>
> Can the OWNER of the copyright in software code that has been released under a GPL
>(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) change its mind and take the software
>*private* (any fu
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Samuel Reynolds wrote:
> The copyright owner can license the code under any terms he likes,
> or none at all.
> He can license the code under different terms to different people.
> He can license the code under different terms to the same people at
> different times.
Or, as
Brian DeSpain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and
> development can continue on the code.
Can you explain why this is the case?
> > In reality, the code would most likely *fork,* leaving one strand open
> > and the other proprietary.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Eric Jacobs wrote:
> Brian DeSpain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and
> > development can continue on the code.
>
> Can you explain why this is the case?
Because the license contains no provisions for revocation.
Eric Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian DeSpain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > Yes - but the previous versions licensed under the GPL remain GPLd and
> > development can continue on the code.
>
>Can you explain why this is the case?
>
> > > In reality, the code would most likely *fork,* leavi
From: "Ralph Bloemers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can the OWNER of the copyright in software code that has been released under
a GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) change its mind and take the
software *private* (any future versions would be proprietary and released
only under typical objec
On Monday 12 February 2001 03:17 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> Ssh is a good example of GPL'd code becoming less free. OpenSSH is a good
> example of what happens with the GPL'd version :)
"The licences which components of this software falls under are as
follows. First, we will summarize and
> This is one of the dangers of basing Linux (or any other large,
> multicontributor project) on the GPL; the threat that something embedded
> deeply in the code could eventually have an external patent applied,
>
[DJW:] In the UK, one is always told never to reveal
anything abou
In the US, previously publishing something does not affect whether or
not it can be patented, AIUI, unless it can (for other reasons than
just being published) be considered prior art.
This is why RSA got the RSA patent in the US only. They had already
published, so they were not able to get a p
> In the US, previously publishing something does not affect whether or
> not it can be patented, AIUI, unless it can (for other reasons than
> just being published) be considered prior art.
This is not correct. The US patent act, 35 USC 102, reads as follows:
A person shall be entitled to a
> From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country,
>or patented or described in a printed publication in this or
>a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant,
>or
>
[DJW:] That seems to raise
; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
>
>
> > From:Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country,
> >or patented or describe
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Someone could attempt to secure a patent on the code after it was
released
> using the GPL. Assuming a patent was granted, the patent holder could
then
> stop the distribution of the code by requiring the payment of a
r
n S. Dancey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Someone could attempt to secure a patent on the code after it was
released
> using the GPL. Assuming a paten
x27;SamBC'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ryan S. Dancey"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 5:27 PM
> Subject: RE: Converting/Splitting Code - Open to Closed
>
>
> > There are a lot of good US companies that pat
> Forutnately for us Europeans, that doesn't apply here - software and
> algorithms are, IIUC, non-patentable in Europe. IANAL
>
>
[DJW:] The recent UK government consultation paper++ on
the possibility of introducing US like software patents
said that European law allowed software patents wh
- Original Message -
From: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As for software being unpatentable in the EU, I would not state the
> proposition so categorically. Certainly, the EU is stricter on
software
> patent applications but nevertheless regularly allows and upholds in
its
> legal institut
19 matches
Mail list logo
