Here are some of my ideas for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9

[Les Mikesell]

Steve Searle wrote:
> Around 06:02pm on Sunday, July 08, 2007 (UK time), Les Mikesell scrawled:
> 
>> That's the way it worked in the days before software (which you can 
>> represent as a large string of bits or a number) was allowed to be 
>> patented.  The argument for permitting software patents is that the 
>> software also represents a model of a process that could be covered when 
>> running.  My contention is that software is only in this covered state 
>> when actually running on a device (otherwise its just a big number) and 
>> that having any license to run the covered process on a particular 
>> device should absolve any obligations to the patent holder even if you 
>> modify that copy or replace it with different software that implements 
>> the same covered (and previously licensed) process.
> 
> Les, when you say "My contention is..." do you mean that you think that
> this is the actual case in law, or do you mean you think it should be
> like that?

I think that is the way it should be as a result of what patents are 
supposed to cover.  I don't have any idea if a court could be convinced 
to see it that way or not.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com