On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 02:14:01PM -0500, Paul Serice wrote: > The assumption I would like to revisit is that software patents or > copyright laws lead to closed software.
If you consider that an assumption, you'd better start by defining what you mean by "closed software". > Perhaps this too is a well-discussed, but RSA going into the public > domain (early or not) is a significant and rare event. It provides an > excellent example and context for revisiting some basic assumptions. > > I'm merely making an observation (as the event passes before us in > time) that the current laws can *** in most instances *** lead to open > code. Sure -- in the case of U.S. patents, they're only good for 20 years after they're issued. [But remember that they also cover the period between the time they're filed and the time they're issued, and this period can cover a number of years.] Copyrights last significantly longer. Typically, we'll all be dead (of old age) long before they expire. > Maybe something like the GPL only needs to be used for those few > instances where people or corporations find ways to avoid the spirit > of the patent and copyright systems. I hope you don't mind if I wait till long after you die before I agree with you. -- Raul
