Around 06:51pm on Sunday, July 08, 2007 (UK time), Les scrawled: > On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 17:34 +0100, Steve Searle wrote: > > Around 05:28pm on Sunday, July 08, 2007 (UK time), Les Mikesell scrawled: > > > > > Which still leaves open the question of how many times you have to pay > > > to license the same patent for the same device, or whether you can > > > rearrange the bits in one licensed program? > > > > Never! As a user you do not buy a licence for the patent - you would > > only do that if you were going to manufacturei (code) and distribute > > something that uses the patented process. As a user you get a licence > > to run the software (and maybe do other things with it, e.g. the GNU > > licence). > > > So, under this stricture, the folks who race cars, modifying the engine > by changing the valve train, exhaust, modify the carburator or injection > system add superchargers and do other things to boost performance are > patent violators? <lots of similar examples slnipped> > And if it is OK to modify and engine, or a car or even a radio, then why > not a computer program? Is software hacking more illegal than hardware > hacking? And is computer hardware and software hacking subject to > strictures not imposed on other hardware in our possession? I was talking about someone who takes i something containing a patented item or concept, and gives away or sells mutltiple copies of it. Thats why I used the word "distribute". > A person who uses the Microsoft C compiler to create a new OS is a > patent violator? No but a person who took Microsoft's C compiler source, and used it as the basis of another application would be a patent violator if Microsoft had a patent on any of that code. However in real life they would be breaking the copyright on the code. > Are derivative patents then not valid? For instance, the frontwheel > drive was originally developed by the Cord in the US. Are then all > users of frontwheel drive subject to patents held by the Cord or the > companies that inherited the Cord patents and records? Superchargers > were first on Dusenbergs. Does that mean all superchargers have to pay > a royalty to the Dusenbergs? I suspect they would like to hear that. I don't know, but in any case I assume those patents would have expired by now. Btw, I do not believe software patents are a good idea, and I would love the govenments that impose them to revoke them, or the courts to strike them dowm. But unless that happens, I do not expect Red Hat to put themselves at risk by breaking the law, now matter how much that law is an ass. Steve -- Play Champions - my free football predictions game at: http://www.stevesearle.com/champs/about.html 18:53:35 up 12 days, 22:33, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.04
Attachment:
pgp9ndWWbe3JN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
