[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Patents != patents ?

On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 12:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> I fail to understand this issue - I don't see how them holding patents
> matters at all:
> The authors are selling a product and grant their product's users
> certain rights to use their product (aka. "License").
> I my understanding, this license also means _them_ granting _their_
> users certain rights to use _their_ intellectual property as part of
> their works. Wrt. to this, I don't see how a patented algorithm would be
> any different from copyright.

IANAL, but I do know that patents are quite different from copyright
under US law.

The BSD license (unless they added some wording) doesn't provide an
unlimited, irrevocable, and royalty-free patent grant to software
patents implemented in the code.

Axel, that's exactly what we would need for this.

Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always
that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence
and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We
will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in
our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended
from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to
associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
-- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]