|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Friday 09 November 2007 05:51:11 pm Matthew Rosewarne wrote:
> The problem with trying to apply a software license to physical goods is
> the difference between a product that can be copied at infinitesimal cost
> vs. one that requires expensive production facilities and raw materials.
I would like to make a distintion between an invention and a product.
Inventions are abstract ideas and products are tactile and physical things.
Inventions can be copied for less than a piece of software (ever try to tell
someone an exact copy of source code?) Look up "free patents" in google and
you will find inventions galore.
> The way the GPL handles patents is that it grants (explicitly) a patent
> license to anyone who uses the product or distributes it under the GPL. If
> you're only releasing the product under the GPL, then it's a (fairly nasty)
> way to stomp on any non-GPL competitor. Otherwise, you can license the
> patent out like you would usually. I'm not sure how that would apply to
> physical objects, though.
I have thought of this case: let's say someone created a new way to make
renewable fuel from waste products. He wants to make the process available
to everyone without impeding them from improving upon the process. He does
not want royalties from the implementations of the process, and wants it to
remain "free". He surely would need to patent it because if someone found
his invention and patented it themselves, he would surely have to go to court
to free his patent. Therefore, he would need to defend his invention from
other people's greed/malice/treachery while not impeding others' use of it.
He would need to stop others from patenting improvements on his invention, as
that would close the loop and end the process.
This is getting way off topic, but I have pondered a license which does the
following and more: (this is not legalize, just a bunch of ideas)
1) effectively forbids the issuer of the license from requesting or figting
for any royalties for the item of which he holds a patent (this point should
in effect deny the patent holder the right to request continued payment for
another entity's implementation of the invention).
2) effectively allows other people to modify the invention in any way they see
fit without restriction except that the resulting invention must remain "free
as in speech" (this point should allow the person who acquired the license
for the invention to improve upon the invention only if they agree to keep
this license intact on the invention. This may be hard to do, as
improvements on inventions can be patented)
3) effectively allows the invention and all derivative inventions to be
produced and the product to be sold for profit by anyone who receives a copy
of the patent (separation of invention and product: the invention is the
intellectual work, not the tactile end-result of the process)
4) forbids the patent holder from selling his or her rights of the patent to
any other entity
5) effectively makes the license last forever, even well past the death of the
patent holder
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|