On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:33:17PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > real invention, whether implemented in software or hardware. The RSA > cryptosystem is a decent example of this. > > So there are some legitimate patents, though they're probably a > minority. But that means that those people do have a legitimate
I don't believe any patent enforcement against software is legitimate; I believe that enforcement of a patent against RSA code is just as destructive and abusive as enforcement against XOR mouse cursor code. (I also concur with Michael's response.) (This may be something close to the core of where we disagree.) > But it still seems like you bought the freedom for some of this code > by giving up the copyleft. You got more code into StepMania by > sacrificing freedom for those who receive In The Groove. That helped > there be more software, but it certainly didn't help there be more > freedom. Sure, but it didn't cause there to be less freedom, either, in any way that I can perceive. More free software existing may mean more freedom, but more non-free software existing (that isn't in lieu of free software that would have otherwise existed) doesn't mean less freedom. I just havn't seen any negative effects from this, and I don't foresee any. -- Glenn Maynard
