On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:41:11 -0700 Steven Michalske <smichal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 2011, at 4:25 PM, al davis <ad...@freeelectron.net> wrote: > > > On Monday 16 May 2011, Steven Michalske wrote: > >> But lawyers can use that clause as a loophole to invalidate > >> legitimate patents. > > > > Minor side effect of "lawyers can use that clause as a loophole > > to invalidate ILLegitimate patents" ... which outnumber the > > ligitimate ones a million to one. > > > A software licence should not be used for this purpose... As a person with > patents, I can't afford to contribute substantual code back, but I can use > all the code I want. Because my patents are legitimate. You don't want to open *that* can of worms here, Steven. If your patents are in regards to a piece of software or a software algorithm, they aren't legitimate, no matter what the laws of the issuing country may say. You "can't afford it" because you have this idea in your head that locking up your code will somehow result in a substantially higher profit than if the code had been open. -- "There are some things in life worth obsessing over. Most things aren't, and when you learn that, life improves." http://digitalaudioconcepts.com Vanessa Ezekowitz <vanessaezekow...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
