[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
- To: Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>, rms@gnu.org
- Cc: russell@flora.ca, nb@norbert.ch, fsl-discuss@alt.org, DMCA-Activists@gnu.org, DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org, fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org, patents@aful.org, seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org, xdrudis@tinet.org, iriXx@iriXx.org, C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, s11@member.fsf.org, simo.sorce@xsec.it, phm@a2e.de, srctran@world.std.com, orre@nada.kth.se
- Subject: Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software over-protection -- moving forward..
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:06:23 -0400 (EDT)
>>I wonder if sometimes [Stallman] said something like "software patents
>>wouldn't be bad if they were as narrow as copyright" ...
>I have indeed said things like that. The point is that if a software
>patent are not "patenting programs". If a software patent covered a
>single program, it would be harmless (but also nobody would bother to
>apply for it).
Richard, by "harmless" I can assume you also mean "useless", as in
offering no real exclusionary protection. Since you are equating such a
narrowly scoped software patent with software copyright, can I assume
you thus believe that software copyright for a computer program is
also "harmless" and "useless" in offering no real exclusionary
protection? And therefore that there should be no protection for
software, patent or copyright, it should all be completely freely
available?
Greg Aharonian
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)