Re: Intellectual Property II

[Alexander Terekhov]

> http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html

----
Because the deterrent effect of denying the right to have and use and
distribute free software is not enough in and of itself to break most
patent aggression schemes. Where we have satisfied ourself that narrow
targeted patent retaliation may have true deterrent affect, we have
however incorporated it into the license as part of a general attempt to
do everything we can about the patent problem. Here we believe that one
narrow form of retaliation may actually have meaningful effect, so this
license gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the
program provided that you do not bring suit for patent infringement
against anyone for making, using, or distributing, their works based on
the program. And as Richard has already told you, we believe the
operative effect of this clause would be to deny continued opportunity
to maintain privately modified versions on the part of any party who
seeks to use its patent claims to prevent similar or equivalent
modifications from being made by others. In this very narrow field we
think retaliation may actually deter aggression and we wish therefore to
include it.

Please note also the way in which the next paragraph makes use of our
copyright-culture-free notation scheme.

"Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided
it does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies.
Propagation which does enable them to do so is permitted, as
'distribution', under the conditions of sections 4-6 below."

So let us, just for a moment, attend to the question of non-US statutory
copyright schemes under the new license.
-----

Hey GNUtians (folk at gnu.misc.discuss), would you please buy your crazy
Prof. a new glasses and let him take a brief look at Sections 109 and
117 in the US statutory copyright scheme.

Thank you in advance. 

regards,
alexander.