what defines source code in (A)GPL ?

[David Woolley]

Wilson, Andrew wrote:

> 
> Note this illustrates why SW patents in general are considered
> toxic by engineers, because engineers have no way to know which algorithms
> in source code they read are patented.
> 

The other big problem is that you don't even need to have seen the other 
product to fall foul of patents.  That strongly favours companies big 
enough to employ lots of lawyers, and severely inhibits innovations, 
which is the opposite of the intended purpose of patents.  Although, in 
theory, trivial and obvious things are not patentable, big company 
marketing departments tend to succeed in patenting the most obvious 
things, probably because they believe their own propaganda that they are 
innovative.

There is a real threat to small software developers, including those of 
proprietary software, that the cost and time needed to patent clear 
software may be much much more than the cost and time needed to develop it.

I believe that Richard Stallman comes from a pure academic tradition, 
that knowledge should be available to everyone and available for their use.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.