On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:10 PM, physnut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's an interesting point you raise about the GPL license terms... > > The concerns I have about abuse of my code is more related to things > like this: > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39289505,00.htm > (article about microsoft trying to sue 'Linux' - whoever they think > that is!, most probably rich vendors, even though every single Micro > $oft 'innovation' is either bought up or stolen from open source > code...)
Well, Microsoft is just a company with good and bad people. They are for example funding the windows port of Sage, i.e. supporting an opensource alternative to Maple/Mathematica, so not everything that MS does is bad. > > There is clearly much going on in the world of software patenting and > not wanting to get stung I prefer to err on the side of caution... > I would prefer people to be able to play with my code however they > want, that benefits everyone (especially me if the post it on the net > and give me credit...). It would be better if I didn't have to lock > my door and remember my keys but I just can't trust everyone! If BSD > license protects me from legal nasties it sounds good enough for me. I think it does, see below. > I'm quite happy about people developing what I have done into > something better/customized/evolved and would love to see things > flourish like that...I guess if I see some company making money from > my code i'll just have to ask them if they would be nice enough to > donate some money to keep me out of corporate work and in science. My own opinion is that as long as there is a good opensource operating system with enough programs so that I can do my everyday tasks with opensource (which there is, e.g. Debian and other distributions) and as long as there are people contributing back (this is important), I don't mind also companies inventing clever ways to make money, even with my own code --- they have the same opportunities as I have, e.g. I can do the same as them and make money too. Fair enough. On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 17:20, Andrew Straw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Ondrej Certik wrote: >> >>> I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me it is not possible to patent a >>> code that someone else has written and released as BSD or GPL, is it? >> >> IANAL either, but I don't think this is correct -- patents and >> copyrights (licenses are implemented using copyright law) are >> more-or-less orthogonal. Just because something is patented doesn't mean >> it cannot be released under an open source license. You can have and >> distribute the source code, but you might need to seek a patent license >> to actually use the code. One example of this I know about is the >> marching cubes algorithm in VTK (although that patent has now expired). > > I believe the important part about Ondrej's hypothetical is that the > code was written and published under an open source license *before* > someone else tries to patent it. Under essentially all patent regimes, > prior publication of the invention by someone else is grounds for > preventing or invalidating a patent (with a lot of effort). The VTK > situation is different; the VTK code was written after the algorithm > was patented. Yes, I meant publishing the code before someone else patents it. Thanks for the clarification. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
