Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:00:04 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ? Message-ID: <20120803220004.GC26239@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20120803142750.GA51560@neutralgood.org> References: <1343995740.40983.YahooMailNeo@web120803.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201208031409.q73E9X9o041587@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120803142750.GA51560@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:27:50AM -0400, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: > > There are a number of essays on the error of the term "intellectual property" > that are very good despite coming from Richard Stallman. Your phrasing is hilariously accurate. > > If you go back and reread this thread you'll see this mistake underneath > more than one post. For example, being clear on the copyright to all the > source in FreeBSD does _zero_ in terms of protecting FreeBSD from claims > of patent infringement. > > Software patents in practice are both so general and so stupid that there > is zilch that FreeBSD, or any other organization or individual, can do to > avoid accidentally infringing. The conflation of different forms of "intellectual property" in the minds of many is probably largely to blame for the fatuous nonsense of people preferring the Apache License 2.0 over (for instance) the Simplified BSD License (aka FreeBSD License) for its patent clause. People are often so unaware of the differences between copyright law and patent law that they think a patent clause provides the same protections against malicious patent litigation as copyright licensing provides against malicious copyright litigation. The truth of the matter is that a copyright is held by a single entity, while patents differing only in phrasing and patent number, covering the same basic software behavior, could in theory be held by every single member of the human race. As a result, a copyright license provides protection against litigation by the one and only copyright holder, but the patent clause in that license only provides protection against litigation by one potential patent holder out of billions. I believe the main reason that people choose the Apache License 2.0 is simply the lack of a copyfree license that comes with a patent clause (and, for all the talk of the Apache License 2.0 being a "permissive" license, it falls well short of being a copyfree license like the Simplified BSD License). That's why I rolled my own copyfree license with a patent clause, even though I believe that in practice a patent clause provides about as much protection as a "life vest" provides against gunfire. > > "A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of > invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor ... > in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser ... in an irregular way > fascinating to cats,..." -- US patent 5443036, "Method of exercising a cat" That's hilarious, and awfully depressing. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120803220004.GC26239>