Re: [Patents] copyright scope

[iriXx <iriXx@iriXx.org>]

Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> Roland Orre wrote:
>
>
> > About software patents: I don't agree with rms that software can be
> > patentable. As I have understood, rms (nowadays) has a similar view as
> > Greg that obvious software ideas should not be patentable, but I
>
>
> huh??
> where did RMS say that software should be patentable?
>
>
> > consider no software to be patentable. Software should be possible to
> > copyright but a reimplementation in another language should not infringe
> > the copyright.
>
>
> > Of course this view has consequences: it implies that it would be
> > perfectly all right for M$ to steal the [ref Ballmer] "viral" GPL
> > programs and reimplement them in C# for instance. This feels wrong,
> > but it's less bad than having the "idea" of a GPL program
> > copyrighted or patented.
>
>
> Just rewriting in C# is a copyright infringment.
>
> Only clean-room implementations are not.
>
> If you are so close to an original that the original's errors or
> individual peculiarities show up in your program, then you are a plagiator
> and have violated copyright.

and whats more, if you have 'plagiarised' GPL software in this way... 
then technically, your software is unable to be released in proprietary 
form as it contains GPL code so it is therefore GPL.

i always *loved* viral transmission... :)

m~

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_
 ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_     HTTP 503: Too Busy
      |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL


 .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.

            gnupg key ID: AEB7A31E