Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RayLopez99]

On Aug 20, 12:18 am, Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/2010 4:46 PM, RJack wrote:
>  > I claimed that the GPL could not affect ideas
>  > covered by patent rights.
>
> The GPL is a copyright license, granting additional rights to
> a work beyond those permitted by copyright law. When someone
> distributes their work under the GPL, they agree to waive
> their right to enforce their patents embodied in that work
> against others who use, copy, and distribute that work. I
> don't know what you mean by the GPL "affecting ideas".
>

I think he meant exactly what you wrote above--or he should.

>  > Ergo, the GPL as a copyright license cannot extend to an
>  > idea covered by a patent.
>
> No, that's false. Copyright cannot extend to prevent someone
> other than the rights holder to a work from making use of the
> ideas expressed in that work. A license issued by the copyright
> holder, on the other hand, can grant extra permissions including
> to things which are restricted by other things than copyright.

Splitting hairs, but you sound like a lawyer.

>
> It's really very simple, as long as one is not an anti-GPL crank
> who cannot bear the cognitive strain of a universe seemingly bent
> on demonstrating his errors at every turn.

GPL is the devil.  It's a bad idea to subscribe to it if you have
serious IP.


> There is no requirement in law that parts of the program covered by
> one form of intellectual property protection must not simultaneously
> be covered by another. There is a requirement in law that copyright
> cannot cover ideas, which may instead be covered by patents.
>

In general, true, but in this case, with the GPL, as you said above,
signing the GPL means you cannot assert your patents against others
that are part of the GPL agreement.  That's bad if you have strong IP,
good if you are a freetard.

I sure hope you're not a Linux user.  That's worse than being a
Communist in the 1950s.

RL