Re: This patented code Who owns this patent? What is the patent? The patent own can set the license terms as he/she wishes.
Where you say 'free licenses cannot be revoked': What is your authority for that statement? The licensor can set the terms and conditions upon which revocation may be a consequence. More info please... NatePuri Certified Law Student & Debian GNU/Linux Monk McGeorge School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ompages.com On 15 Mar 1999, John Hasler wrote: > Bruce Sass writes: > > How's this... What would happen if I was to have a free program depend > > on patent code distributed with a free license,... > > This is difficult to answer because I don't know how to formulate a free > license for a patent. > > > ...then the license of the patent code became non-free at some later > > date. > > Free licenses cannot be revoked. > > > I'm trying to get at the difference between depending on someone elses > > library routines (where a license change requires a new release?),... > > Copyright law cares nothing about releases. It works like this: I give you > a copy of pppconfig, with the GPL attached. You now have the right to > distribute copies of that copy as long as you cmply with the terms of the > GPL. The license applies to _that copy_ . I now give an identical copy of > pppconfig to someone else, with the Artistic license attached. She now has > the right to distribute copies of that copy as long as she cmplies with the > terms of the Artisitic. The license applies to _that copy_ . it doesn't > matter if the two copies are identical or are different releases. > > Because copyright deals with copying, it is possible to irreversibly > 'infect' a work with freedom by giving out a copy of it attached to a > license that grants the recipient the right to distribute copies if and > only if he agrees to grant all recipients of his copies the same rights he > received. > > I'm not yet sure how to accomplish the same thing with a patent. You must > understand that the whole notion of freedom is antithetical to intellectual > property law. The IP lawyer's idea of a license is an agreement between > the owner of the IP and an individual licensee in which the licensee is > granted limited rights in return for money. > > > I'm trying to get at the difference between depending on someone elses > > library routines (where a license change requires a new release?), and > > depending on patent code (where the license may change without a new > > release?). > > One does not patent code. One patents an algorithm (though the IP lawyers > deny it). > > This discussion belongs on debian-legal. > -- > John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. > Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. > Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
