RE: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Software Patents
From: MJ Ray [mailto:markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk]
Are supporters of GNU and Linux use in education against the introduction of software patents? They could be used to restrict use of otherwise-available software.
I thought that GNU differentiates between ownership and accessibility. How does Linus exert ownership over the kernel? All software is copyright the owner and that ownership needs to be asserted. The GNU licence allows others to make use of the product, hopefully in an attributable way. But GNU specifically covers passing off work as if it's your own. AFAIK software is rarely patented per se. You can patent new ideas but they tend to have physical representations before the patent office get interested. But things like the GIF format have escaped to the public domain despite private ownership - and that ownership has been reasserted; thus the development of png. In any case a patent would be overturned if someone could prove that ownership lay elsewhere. -- ******************************************************************************** All mail sent and received may be examined to prevent transmission of unacceptable material. Wellington College does not accept responsibility for email contents. Problems to postmaster@wellington-college.berks.sch.uk. Website: http://www.wellington-college.berks.sch.uk ********************************************************************************
<SNIP> AFAIK software is rarely patented per se. You can patent new ideas but they tend to have physical representations before the patent office get interested. But things like the GIF format have escaped to the public domain despite private ownership - and that ownership has been reasserted; thus the development of png. </SNIP> Boring but... I remember writing some graphics code about 1980 and being aware of and discussing the fact that in the late 70's (could have been computer myth even back then) someone had (tried to?) patented XORing data to a display - Hey it was a long time ago! If this is true then virtually every piece of software that effects the display is in breach of copyright! Sticky! :-)
Grainge, Derek <DGG@wellington-college.berks.sch.uk> wrote:
I thought that GNU differentiates between ownership and accessibility.
Yes, you are correct. GNU uses copyright law in its GPL to ensure that certain rights (freedoms) are available to all users of the software. [...]
AFAIK software is rarely patented per se. [...]
It seems to be increasingly common, even in the UK, but there is a general understanding that software patents are not enforceable in the UK today. However, many groups are lobbying for both an EU directive and a change in UK law. If it happens, we may lose access to a lot of software and there's potential for "submarine patents" like the GIF one you mentioned, which hide below the water line for years, then jump up to attack us. http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/ One of the larger (but still small) UK "open source" supporting groups are supporting software patents at the EU level and other "open source" groups are promoting them at UK level. Amazed, I checked the Open Source Definition and the FAQ on the OSI site and discovered that nothing there prevents them... Copyright and patents are not connected directly, but the FSF Free Software Definition includes the assertion that users should have the "freedom to use" and patents can be used to block that, so the free software movement is trying to prevent their spread. It seems there is a difference in views between "free software" and "open source". http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Maybe this is a better explanation of why I've argued for the correct description of free software as free software? I don't want software patents for the UK. -- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: slef@jabber.at This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging. How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
participants (3)
-
adrian.wells -
Grainge, Derek -
MJ Ray