On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:48:00AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
> > So, that's the "case in point": Under the RSA example, the current
> > legal regime, for all its imperfections, results in software and ideas
> > that are freer than what you would have under a pure GPL legal regime.
>
> Like what? Free software people don't patent software, so if RSA had
> been under this pure GPL "regime", it would never have been patented,
> and hence would have been in the public domain for the last decade. The
> RSA people didn't release any software to the public domain, so that's
> irrelevant. Your example is totatlly bogus.
I wouldn't count on free software people not patenting algorithms.
It can be a way of fighting fire with fire, just as using copyright
licenses rather than the public domain is.
I don't know what Paul is going on about with RSA either, though.
Lynn
