[Patents] Third Paradigm between Patent and Copyright

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

agreed ...

  but all I am saying is that having the thing not free for a
reasonably short time (3 years for logilege), knowing it will be free
later is very much like the ghostscript licensing.

  Whether the situation is due to control (licensing) of the algorithm
or of the implementation does not change much the situation, IMHO.

Cordialement

Bernard


On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 01:33:31AM +0000, David D Gray wrote:
> Bernard Lang wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 09:06:27PM +0200, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> > > > > http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/basti/indexen.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >    The owner of a logilege (logical innovation use privilege) 
> > > > > discloses
> > > > >    an innovative abstract-logical method and enjoys exclusion 
> > > > > rights on
> > > > >     1. application of the method for commercial purposes
> > > >
> > > > Unacceptable. Violates Article 1 of the Open Source Definition. Those
> > > > formally, or informally, bound to a covenent that permits them the use
> > > > only of software that meets all the criteria of the OSD would still be
> > > > in the position of using the software in full compliance with that
> > > > understanding or not at all.
> > >
> > > Indeed it is intended to mean that once an algorithm is logileged, any
> > > software encumbered by it would enter the "semi-free" or "non-free"
> > > directory hierarchy for three years.
> > 
> > This fits the chronodegradable licence model, as used by ghostscript
> > and apparently codoned by RMS (as far as I know): "This software is
> > not GPL, but will be at such date"
> > 
> 
> For an individual app perhaps, but as far as I know there is no patent
> restricting the Ghostscript algorithms, it's just the licensing. Anyone
> is free to develop an alternative implementation (and there are at least
> a couple, even if less competent). I don't think RMS (or free software
> foundationist) would condone the scenario where it is the actual
> algorithm that is protected.
> 
> Also a program with functionality covered by logilege _could_ be covered
> by the GPL. The GPL clearly dissociates its licensing conditions from
> patent issues. You either distribute the program in full accordance with
> GPL or not at all. GPL does not give exclusion for patent
> considerations. For example, the LAME mp3 encoder is GPL, but the law
> may still limit its distribution/use if the jurisdiction has a patent
> covering it. See:
> 
> http://www.mp3dev.org/mp3/
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully
> 
> DD Gray
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX