IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA,
oh, and I don't represent OSI either.

On Mon, 05 November 2001, DeBug wrote:
> Explain me please how copyrights are compatible with free(libre) software?

ya know, I did a quick search through www.opensource.org
and couldn't find a quick quote that explains it.
Here's a quote from the GPL:

: We protect your rights [for free software] with two steps: 
: (1) copyright the software, and 
: (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission 
: to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

Basically, the preferred way of making software "free"
is to NOT make it public domain. Rather the preferred way
is to copyright it and then LICENSE it in such a way
that allows people to use it 'freely'.

There are issues with going the public domain route that
make open licensing much more attractive.

hm, I couldn't find a quick bullet to explain THAT either 
on the open source website. oh well, you'll just have to 
trust me on that one...

> Explain me please how patents are compatible with free(libre) software?

patents have NOT been very compatible with open source.

In America, copyright is automatic and free.
registeration, if you want to bother with it,
costs 30 dollars, a one page form, and about 6 months 
to wait for the paperwork to get the rubber stamp. 

But since its free and automatic,
I can write code, get immediate copyright protection,
and I have no legal fees that I need to recover.
I didn't spend money to get the copyright, so
I don't lose money giving my code away.

Patents are not automatic, they cost a lot of money,
and the application may not be approved. So, generally,
anyone who goes to the trouble of getting a patent,
has a vested interest to maintain control of it.

It is unlikely you'll see a wide base of "Open" patents
as long as it costs a truckload of dough to get the patent.

Linux and Perl both started as part-time projects by 
individuals that slowly grew into huge, multi-person designs. 
If you needed to spend a couple thousand
bucks to copyright each piece of code, you wouldn't 
have Linux or Perl the way you see it today.

Patents have another barrier to openness:
You can't get around them.

If I copyright some code for a Unix style operating
system, and put a proprietary license on it,
and charge a million dollars per copy, someone
else could make a compatible version of the code
from freshly created source code and not infringe
on my copyright.

A patent does not except independent development.
If you patent a Public Key Cryptography thing,
then it doesn't matter if I start from scratch
in a clean room, and never see your design,
I cannot make a Public Key Cryptography
thingy without infringing on your patent.

Linux does not infringe on Unix copyright
because the code was independently developed.
copyright does not care that the functionality
is identical, just that the expression of 
both works are independent.

Copyright prevents someone stealing my expression,
but it does not give me a monopoly on the
functionality.

But, once you have a PATENT on something that
everybody wants, you suddenly have a MONOPOLY
on anything that performs that function.

combine that with the fact that I just spent
a truckload of dough to get that patent,
why would I give away a perfect monopoly
when I have legal expenses to recover?

> I somehow thought that the idea of the free software 
> is incompatible with both copyrights and patent laws...

free software exists solely because of copyright law.

By being free and automatic, a single person can contribute
code to the world of free software with only the investment
of the time needed to write the code. The license then
protects that code from being re-copyrighted by someone else
and restricted in some way. This is essentially the problem
with putting code in the public domain.

because copyright law does not deal with functionality,
you can recreate identical functionality in a different
expression, and not infringe on anyone's copyright.
The copyright on Unix could be worked around by recoding
the entire software base from scratch.

Patents do not dove-tail well with free software.

Their cost to obtain prevents people who might write
free software from bothering to try to get a patent and
license it away for free.

And their basis on functionality means there is no
way to work around their monopoly. it doesn't matter
how you developed it, if it functions the same way,
it infringes on the patent.

barring a change in Patent law, it would be really 
cool to see a group come into existence whose sole
purpose was to take patentable ideas from people
who wish to make them "free", get the patent, and 
then license them away freely.

but as far as I know, such a group does not exist.

oh well, If someone would be willing to put
me through law school on a scholarship,
I'd be willing to work part time for free on
such a project.

You know, kind of like an open source 
version of that TV show, "Northern Exposure",
where the guy paid for the doctor's medical
school in exchange for working in alaska for
some number of years.

;)

Greg "hey, it could happen" London




--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

