On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 16:24 -0400, Erik Hemdal wrote: > > ---------------------------- > > > > Message: 12 > > Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:32:33 -0500 > > From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > I don't think this point is clear at all. This is software, remember, > > just a collection of bits and I'm introducing the modifications myself. > > Suppose I rearrange a few of the bits in program A as my own > > modification, but keeping all the 1's and 0's that used to be there. > > Suppose I keep rearranging them until they look just like program B > > which might be something I developed myself or it might be very close or > > identical to something someone else has done and published. At what > > point do I stop having the right to use the process permitted by those > > original bits that I still own. > > As I understand things, you still have the right to use the original > bits. Specifically you have the rights given to you in the license. > Whether you are able to make modifications depends on whether your > license gives you the right. > > You never have the right to "use the process" in the sense that you can > create your own software that implements the process and then distribute > it to others. For that, you don't go to the software vendor, but to the > holder of the patent. Fedora doesn't link to sites that provide > encumbered software because that might been taken as distributing > illegal software, besides being philosophically opposed to the ideals of > the project. > > You might be able to do these things if your license allows, if for > example, you get a license to exploit the patent along with the license > to use the software. Maybe the patent holder will license the patent > freely at no cost. But if that were common practice, we'd not be having > this discussion, would we? > > > Now it becomes a question of whether I > > have the right to use the parts of that paid-for Ford ABS if I bolt them > > onto a Chrysler myself. > > > > My understanding is that this right is under attack for things such as > encryption devices and algorithms; trusted-computing modules, and such. > That is you can't reverse-engineer these things anymore, in the name of > protecting DRM schemes. > As an end user your do not license a patent. You purchase the product covered by the patent. You may use that product in anyway you see fit. Licenses do not fit the end user, what is called "cross licensing" is only an agreement between patent holders that they will not sue. A "license" for a patent has NOTHING at all to do with patent law, but is only an agreement between manufacturers (product creators). The product holds the license, not the individual who purchased it. This is key to this whole thing. And is why the US patent office is revisiting the whole process. DRM is a tool that has no cause or purpose. The products that DRM purports to protect fall under copyright law. This is the big snafu. Patents cover physical implementations. the law was never changed. Several folks have tried to set precedents to change the implementation of the law, and so that opened up this whole birds nest, where lawyers and politicians are trying to set the laws of physics and affect the outcome of original thought. We cannot stand by and let it succeed. I know I am preaching to the choir for the most part here, but where will this end if we do not stand up for our rights as publishers of software, is our right to freedom of expression suddenly to be curtailed because it doesen't fit some lawyers idea of expression. And what of AI, where the bits are set, randomized, or organized without human intervention. Is the result patentable, copyrightable, or is it a cogent being with separate rights? How will we decide this point and when? And will someone else claim that the machine has no legal right to the particular organization of its bits, freely arrived at by the means of its own learning algorighms or even randomness? And how will this play out in Microsoft's vision? or Anyone's? Regards, Les H
