MJ Ray wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I'm undecided about these clauses. One argument against them seems to >>be "don't mix patents and copyrights", but I havn't seen much of a case >>for that--it seems to say "don't try to protect against patents via >>copyright", but copyright is all we have available. [...] > > My main argument for not mixing them is that most of these terms > seem extend software patents into places which don't have them > yet, but do have software copyright. That spread is the opposite > of what some of us seek. I realise other places already have > software patents and need some way to reduce their effect, > but please stop tipping your rubbish into our back yard. If > the two licences for copyright and patents don't interact, > swpat-free residents can ignore one of them and I like giving > people less legal work.
That seems like a reasonable argument. However, I don't see how these clauses would cause a problem for people in non-software-patent-afflicted areas. It seems like the only way these clauses could affect you would be if you sued someone using the software because they infringed your software patent. If you are in a non-swpat-afflicted area, then either 1) you have no such patents to sue with, or 2) you would use another legal jurisdiction for the suit, in which you do hold such patents. In the former case, the clause doesn't affect you, and in the latter case, we aren't talking about the swpat-free jurisdiction. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
