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.
Your argument that RSA would have been in the public domain for the last decade is impossible. Under a GPL-based legal regime there is no public domain. There can't be. Nicolás Lichtmaier made an observation similar to yours. If you have the time, take a look at my reply. It is more detailed only because I didn't want to post the some thing twice. Thanks, Paul Serice
