Re: The GPL and Patents: ROFL

[RJack]

On 8/16/2010 10:53 AM, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 8/13/2010 5:59 PM, RJack wrote:
> > What say ye now
>
> That what you quote supports what I said, not what you said. A work
> is not copyrightable when it represents the only way to do something,
> because then its creation lacks creativity. Whether the work is
> subject to patent claims is relevant only to the extent that the
> patented process is so precise that any work embodying it would be
> written in the same way. It is not the patent that prevents copyright
> from applying, it is the precision of the description. The same might
> apply if a computer program implemented a precisely-described but not
> patented algorithm published in a journal.

As I just quoted:

"For computer programs, “if the patentable process is embodied
inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of the computer
program, [ ] then the process merges with the expression and precludes
copyright protection.” Atari I, 975 F.2d at 839–40;"

If the *patent*process you wish to indemnify through the GPL license is
implemented in the code you claim is covered by the GPL *copyright*
license then copyright protection is precluded in that specific
line-by-line embodiment.

You can't have it both ways.

Sincerely,
RJack :)