From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265284AbUAMTen (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:34:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265461AbUAMTem (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:34:42 -0500 Received: from gprs214-177.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.177]:6529 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265284AbUAMTek (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:34:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:35:49 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Chuck Campbell , Jamie Lokier , Arjan van de Ven , Lennert Buytenhek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OT] use of patented algorithms in the kernel ok or not? Message-ID: <20040113193549.GB294@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20031218231137.GA13652@gnu.org> <1071823624.5223.1.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20031221103308.GB3438@mail.shareable.org> <20031221165755.GB12866@openzaurus.ucw.cz> <20040113153507.GG14044@helium.inexs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040113153507.GG14044@helium.inexs.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > I know that equivalent code, which is covered by most if not all of > > > the patents, is sold by some software companies to product developers > > > _in the USA_ without prelicensed patents. The problem of acquiring > > > suitable patent licenses is left to the purchasers. > > > > > > Rationally I would expect that if someone is able to sell code and > > > leave the problem of patent licensing to the purchaser, then one > > > should be able to _give away_ code and leave the problem of patent > > > licensing to the recipient. > > > > As far as I can see, it is okay to ignore patents *if > > you are doing research*. So you should be able to offer > > it to US people for research purposes. > > According to recently passed legislation, this may no longer be true. It > remains to be tested, but my understanding is that this "research" shield > is now gone. Time to move to Cuba? [Well, I thought that explicit reason for patents is "to promote research", and it used to be okay to improve upon someone else's patent. If patents no longer serve that purpose (if you can't improve upon someone elses work, it is worse than he keeping it secret; and patents were made so that people would not keep stuff secret), perhaps its time to ask if they are still constitutional?] Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]