Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> That's a non sequitur
>> The ONLY, and I mean ONLY bit that's relevant is the one about licence terms
>> - and that's *relatively* easy to deal with one way or another as the
>> licence terms are there to be read (either there are terms that allow you to
>> redistrib
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:10:35AM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> The first bit is correct - most proprietary software is encumbered by
> patents, DMCA restrictions, and all that stuff - I almost said "all that
> carp" but that would be wrong since both patents and (to a much lesser
> extent) DMCA do
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:45:32 +0100
Adam Borowski wrote:
> The reason patents were introduced for was getting more money for the king.
No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
invention for a certain time, so he alone could profit from it during that time.
Intro
Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 schrieb Renaud OLGIATI:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:45:32 +0100
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > The reason patents were introduced for was getting more money for the king.
>
> No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
> invention for a ce
Karl:
> Steve Litt:
> > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:13:02 +0100
> > hellekin wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2016 08:43 AM, hellekin wrote:
...
> > > > https://bxl.dyne.org/vectors/small-singularities
> > I didn't understand a single sentence in the preceding URL.
...
> β stands for Brussels, λ for laboratry, and
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
> invention for a certain time, so he alone could profit from it during that
> time.
>
> Introduced to make research economically viable.
And the flip side is that to get a patent, you have
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:11:10PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
>
> > No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
> > invention for a certain time, so he alone could profit from it during that
> > time.
> >
> > Introduced to make resear
KatolaZ wrote:
> All very good points, indeed, which unfortunately become automatically
> nonsense in the case of software. 17 or 25 years are the blink of an
> eye for hardcore 19th centrury industrial innovation, when the patent
> system was invesned, but correspond to several geological eras i
I believe software should not be patent-able although could/should be
protected under a shortened copyright term at worst.
Software when you get right down to it is a presentation of an idea
using math, ideas are free, math is free, so why a patent?
Clarke
__
Clarke Sideroad wrote:
> I believe software should not be patent-able ...
And this is part of the "system is broken" - especially in the USA.
A novel business process which happens to use computers/software should (IMO)
be patentable under the same rules of prior art/obviousness as any physica
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:11:10 +
Simon Hobson wrote:
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> But then, this is all getting well off-topic for the list and the
> thread. The point remains - neither patents nor DMCA are relevant.
Indeed we are getting well offtopic. In fact, patents weren't part of
the
On 12/07/2016 11:23 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
* Because most wifi software sucks, I suggest Devuan roll its own CLI
software, for the installation, that iwlist wlan0 scanning lists the
access points, takes the ssid and password, and then appends the
result of wpa_passphrase to the bottom
of
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> * Because most wifi software sucks, I suggest Devuan roll its own CLI
> software, for the installation, that iwlist wlan0 scanning lists the
> access points, takes the ssid and password, and then appends the
> result of
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:55:44 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> Wifi is always problematic. Always. NetworkManager, Wicd, and even the
> wpa_* all seem to fail at just the wrong time. If I were Devuan, I'd
> create a wifi module that:
>
> 1) Displays the wifi signals in signal strength order
>
> 2) Asks
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 12:23:06 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:11:10 +
> Simon Hobson wrote:
>
> > Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
>
> > But then, this is all getting well off-topic for the list and the
> > thread. The point remains - neither patents nor DMCA are relevant.
>
Quoting Clarke Sideroad (clarke.sider...@gmail.com):
> I believe software should not be patent-able although could/should be
> protected under a shortened copyright term at worst.
It used to be the case that software was not patentable. The
consequence was that, e.g., the patent on Diffie-Hellma
16 matches
Mail list logo
