Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #212393 > unrolled thread

How free is Debian

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  How free is Debian Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-08 02:40 +0200
    Re: How free is Debian Judah Richardson <judahrichardson@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 03:20 +0200
    Re: How free is Debian Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-08-08 05:00 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 05:10 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-08-08 14:00 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2019-08-08 14:30 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-08-08 14:50 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 22:50 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2019-08-08 15:40 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 06:50 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 15:10 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-08-09 00:30 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 02:10 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2019-08-09 03:20 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-08-09 05:30 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-09 14:00 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 16:00 +0200
                  Re: How free is Debian Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-09 16:40 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-10 10:00 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-08-10 10:20 +0200
                Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-10 15:00 +0200
                  Re: How free is Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-10 16:40 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-09 18:00 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-09 18:20 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 19:40 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-09 18:20 +0200
    Re: How free is Debian David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-08 06:20 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-08 06:30 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 07:00 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-08-08 09:40 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> - 2019-08-08 15:10 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-08 15:20 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-08-08 15:30 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-08-08 15:40 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-08-10 10:00 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-08-08 16:50 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 23:10 +0200
              Re: How free is Debian Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2019-08-09 07:30 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 13:30 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2019-08-08 16:10 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-08-08 15:20 +0200
      Re: How free is Debian john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2019-08-08 09:00 +0200
        Re: How free is Debian <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-08-08 10:00 +0200
          Re: How free is Debian John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-08-08 14:00 +0200
            Re: How free is Debian Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-08-09 19:10 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#212393 — How free is Debian

With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.

Are all binaries in the kernel code were writing from scratch? Are
there any binary blobs in the kernel that it was given to developers?
If amd64 license is not free, how is it that we have amd64 microcode in
the debian free? and if they are not the same, are we using the full
potential of our hardware?

I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
Thank you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#212394

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

You don't need a license for an ISA to compile for it. You need a license
only if you're developing a CPU that uses that ISA.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 19:34 Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
> here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.
>
> Are all binaries in the kernel code were writing from scratch? Are
> there any binary blobs in the kernel that it was given to developers?
> If amd64 license is not free, how is it that we have amd64 microcode in
> the debian free? and if they are not the same, are we using the full
> potential of our hardware?
>
> I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
> Thank you.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212396

Shahryar Afifi <shahryarafifi@yahoo.com> writes:

> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
> here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.
>
> Are all binaries in the kernel code were writing from scratch? Are
> there any binary blobs in the kernel that it was given to developers?
> If amd64 license is not free, how is it that we have amd64 microcode in
> the debian free? and if they are not the same, are we using the full
> potential of our hardware?
>
> I apologize in advance for my ignorance.
> Thank you.

Typically the binary blobs are not free.  If you get the source for a
package that includes a blob (for instance, amd64-microcode) you'll see
where the blob came from.  In the case of that package, it's all just
binary -- no source code for the microcode.  The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
includes the paragraph:

    You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
    Software or any portion thereof.

So... not free at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212397

Joe Pfeiffer writes:
> The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
> includes the paragraph:

>    You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
>    Software or any portion thereof.

Quite unenforceable, of course.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212422

On Wednesday, August 07, 2019 11:03:46 PM John Hasler wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer writes:
> > The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
> > 
> > includes the paragraph:
> >    You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
> >    Software or any portion thereof.
> 
> Quite unenforceable, of course.

When you say that, do you mean:

   * that statement / requirment is illegal (or not supported by (US?) law)
or
   * as a practical manner, somehow you don't think such actions could be 
detected 
or
   * something else (e.g., maybe that requirement is supported by US law, but 
could be done in some other country where it is not illegal?

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212426

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:51:00 -0400
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

Hello rhkramer@gmail.com,

>   * that statement / requirment is illegal (or not supported by (US?)
> law)

A brief internet search resulted in me reading an article stating that,
in the USA at least, the EULA supersedes the user's legal allowance for
reverse engineering (case cited in the article) the software.

See;
<https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/60/is-reverse-engineering-and-using-parts-of-a-closed-source-application-legal>

So, when a person agrees to the terms of the EULA, they waive their
legal right to reverse engineer.  If you wish to NOT waive your rights,
then you don't accept the EULA.  Of course you then won't be able to
install, never mind use, the software.  Catch-22.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Kill joy, bad guy, big talking, small fry
Death On Two Legs - Queen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212429

On 2019-08-08, Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> wrote:
>
> So, when a person agrees to the terms of the EULA, they waive their
> legal right to reverse engineer.  If you wish to NOT waive your rights,
> then you don't accept the EULA.  Of course you then won't be able to
> install, never mind use, the software.  Catch-22.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

...
 Sega v. Accolade has been an influential case in matters involving reverse
 engineering of software and copyright infringement, and has been cited in
 numerous cases since 1993.[3]:388[10] The case has redefined how reverse
 engineering with unlicensed products is seen in legal issues involving
 copyright. Legally, the decision concurred that the nature of Accolade's work
 in reverse engineering the Sega Genesis was to access ideas that were deemed
 unprotected by copyright law, and could only be accessed by decompiling.[12] By
 the verdict, the console's functional principles were established not to be
 protected by copyright,[5] and that when no other means were available, reverse
 engineering the copyrighted software to access information about the console's
 functional principles is protected by the fair use doctrine
...
 Sega v. Accolade also served to help establish that the functional principles
 of computer software cannot be protected by copyright law. Rather, the only
 legal protection to such principles can be through holding a patent or by trade
 secret.


-- 
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” 
― Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212467

Brad writes:
> A brief internet search resulted in me reading an article stating
> that, in the USA at least, the EULA supersedes the user's legal
> allowance for reverse engineering (case cited in the article) the
> software.

> So, when a person agrees to the terms of the EULA, they waive their
> legal right to reverse engineer.  If you wish to NOT waive your
> rights, then you don't accept the EULA.  Of course you then won't be
> able to install, never mind use, the software.  Catch-22.

An EULA is a civil contract having nothing to do with patent or
copyright law.  You agree to it as a condition of sale: in addition to
promising to pay the seller some money you also agree to refrain from
certain actions such as reverse engineering or selling your purchased
copy that copyright law alone would permit you to do[1].  Of course, a
contract cannot be imposed after the transaction is complete.  The
(shaky) theory of the shrinkwrap license is that you can read the
contract before you open the package and can then return the unopened
package for a refund if you don't like it.  Before downloading[2]
purchased software you usually have the opportunity to read the
contract.  However, when you download[2] a package from Debian Non-free
with full permission from the copyright owner and only later discover
a "license"[3] that purports to revoke some of the rights you would
otherwise have as a legitimate owner of a copy it's too late to
establish a contract (other elements of a contract are also missing).


[1]  You do *not* need any sort of license to use, sell, or give away a
copy that you legitimately own.  Note, however, that under copyright law
a "copy" is a tangible object   such as a printed book, a CD, or a
portion of your hard drive.  Copyright law limits the making of copies,
not the disposition of them.  It also grants owners of copies of
software limited rights to make copies (but not to distribute them).

[2] When you "download a copy" you create a physical, tangible copy that
you own in the same sense as you would by copying the material off the
screen with a pen and paper that you own.

[3] This is almost exactly the same as the original "first sale
doctrine" case in which a publisher printed a statement on the title
page of a book saying that in purchasing a copy of the book the buyer
agreed not to resell the copy.  That publisher lost in court.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212437

John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> writes:

> Joe Pfeiffer writes:
>> The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
>> includes the paragraph:
>
>>    You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
>>    Software or any portion thereof.
>
> Quite unenforceable, of course.

When discussing questions like "how free is this software", the question
is all about what's legal -- not what's practical or enforceable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212400

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
> Software or any portion thereof.

The irony here is that AMD started by reverse engineering Intel.

And unfortunately the US has been protecting monopoly and fake competition
for years.
Such things as Microsoft, Apple and Google should not exist, not to speak of
Intel, IBM and many other monsters. Amazon, Uber ... many many of them - it
is cancer.
Some time ago I read good article why the Patent Law should change, but I
forgot where I found the article. The problems are in the patent law, as I
understood the article 

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212431

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
> Software or any portion thereof.

deloptes writes:
> The irony here is that AMD started by reverse engineering Intel.

Legally.  Reverse-engineering is not illegal in the USA.

> And unfortunately the US has been protecting monopoly and fake
> competition for years.  Such things as Microsoft, Apple and Google
> should not exist, not to speak of Intel, IBM and many other
> monsters. Amazon, Uber ... many many of them - it is cancer.  Some
> time ago I read good article why the Patent Law should change, but I
> forgot where I found the article. The problems are in the patent law,
> as I understood the article

Patent law certainly needs to change (I'm not sure that it should not be
entirely eliminated) but US patent law places no restrictions on reverse
engineering, decompiling, or disassembling software.  US copyright law
bars bypassing of copy protection schemes, but there is actually an
exemption for reverse-engineering under some circumstances.  Printer and
game manufacturers tried to use these "anti-piracy" provisions of the DMCA
to block reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes and lost in
court.

These sorts of "licenses" are actually attempts at a civil contract.
They really have nothing to do with patent or copyright law.  A civil
contract requires agreement in advance, though.  
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212476

John Hasler wrote:

>> The irony here is that AMD started by reverse engineering Intel.
> 
> Legally.  Reverse-engineering is not illegal in the USA.
> 

>> And unfortunately the US has been protecting monopoly and fake
>> competition for years.  Such things as Microsoft, Apple and Google
>> should not exist, not to speak of Intel, IBM and many other
>> monsters. Amazon, Uber ... many many of them - it is cancer.  Some
>> time ago I read good article why the Patent Law should change, but I
>> forgot where I found the article. The problems are in the patent law,
>> as I understood the article
> 
> Patent law certainly needs to change (I'm not sure that it should not be
> entirely eliminated) but US patent law places no restrictions on reverse
> engineering, decompiling, or disassembling software.  US copyright law
> bars bypassing of copy protection schemes, but there is actually an
> exemption for reverse-engineering under some circumstances.  Printer and
> game manufacturers tried to use these "anti-piracy" provisions of the DMCA
> to block reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes and lost in
> court.
> 
> These sorts of "licenses" are actually attempts at a civil contract.
> They really have nothing to do with patent or copyright law.  A civil
> contract requires agreement in advance, though.

So you mean after AMD reverse engineered Intel, they make it illegal for
their own, by license agreement? Well here the word own is may be not
exactly in place :) and this is the irony I meant.

I think this is big topic and no attention and awareness in the public. IMO
it is even worse than climate change.

Entirely eliminate it - no, but restrict if no commercial use to 5y. Few
years ago when I was reading I had the impression as long as you can pay
for the patent rights you are not forced to implement/productize your
patent. So the bastards are gathering tons of patents in their basements. I
personally know few cases. First of all it is very expensive to protect
your rights worldwide or even in the major countries and second if you are
a simple person with a great idea, there is no way to make money from it.
AFAIK it was different some 150y ago.


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212478

deloptes writes:
> So you mean after AMD reverse engineered Intel, they make it illegal
> for their own, by license agreement?

They can't make it illegal.  They can make it a breach of contract for
anyone who agreed to their terms to reverse engineer it and sue them for
damages if they do.

I can go over to UW Stout surplus, find a machine with an AMD cpu in it,
plunk down a fifty, and walk out owning it free and clear.  I then have no
contract with AMD and can reverse-engineer the my heart's content.

> Entirely eliminate [patents] - no, but restrict if no commercial use
> to 5y.

I'd just flat out restrict them to five years.  Twenty is too long.

> Few years ago when I was reading I had the impression as long as you
> can pay for the patent rights you are not forced to
> implement/productize your patent.

Of course not.  There is no fair way to do that.

> So the bastards are gathering tons of patents in their basements.

"The oil companies have bought up all the 100 mpg carburetor patents and
supressed them."  Bullshit.  First of all, patents are public.  Produce
a list of such patents (ones that are being *enforced*).  Secondly,
companies want to make money.  If there is a way to make money
exploiting, licensing, or selling a patent they will do it.

Companies such as IBM often own rafts of patents which they are *not*
enforcing (they are also often pretty iffy patents).  They use them to
strengthen their bargaining position should another company in the same
business sue them for patent enfringement.

> First of all it is very expensive to protect your rights worldwide...

In the USA you can get a provisional patent for $100.  This protects
your invention for one year, giving you time to find financing for a
full patent.  The filing requirements are fairly informal.  There are
also price breaks for individuals for utility patents and a sort of a
time payment plan rather than a large up-front fee.

> ...if you are a simple person with a great idea, there is no way to
> make money from it.

You can start a business to exploit it or you can sell all rights to the
highest bidder.  No, you won't make millions.  On the other hand,
there's a good chance that the buyer won't make anything.  Most patents
don't turn out to be worth anything.

I know of two local people who did very, very well from "basement"
patents, though.

> AFAIK it was different some 150y ago.

Yes.  The application fee (to be paid in cash at the time of
application) was more than a year's income for the average American.

There is a lot wrong with the patent system.  Twenty years is too long.
Fees are too high.  Processing is too slow.  The language used in the
disclosures is arcane (the disclosure is supposed to teach the invention
to someone "skilled in the art", but the art one must be skilled in is
patent law).  Software patents not only exist, but are described in
*incredibly* arcane language rather than in source code.  Pharmaceutical
patent law is even more bizarre than software patent law (mostly due to
the efforts of Congress to "fix" it).

Also realize that patent infringement is not a crime (in the USA).
Government won't enforce your patent for you.  It is a tort, and is
grounds for the patent owner to sue for actual damages (there are no
statutory damages as with copyright).  Thus while there is no statutory
exemption for personal use there is an effective one.  Illustrative is
how Debian deals with software patents: it ignores them.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212480

On 09/08/2019 12:05, John Hasler wrote:
> There is a lot wrong with the patent system.  Twenty years is too long.
> Fees are too high.  Processing is too slow.  The language used in the
> disclosures is arcane (the disclosure is supposed to teach the invention
> to someone "skilled in the art", but the art one must be skilled in is
> patent law).  Software patents not only exist, but are described in
> *incredibly*  arcane language rather than in source code.  Pharmaceutical
> patent law is even more bizarre than software patent law (mostly due to
> the efforts of Congress to "fix" it).

New Zealand banned pure software patents in 2013:

How New Zealand banned software patents without violating international law
https://qz.com/119419/how-new-zealand-banned-software-patents-without-violating-international-law/

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212483

On Thursday 08 August 2019 21:17:25 Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 09/08/2019 12:05, John Hasler wrote:
> > There is a lot wrong with the patent system.  Twenty years is too
> > long. Fees are too high.  Processing is too slow.  The language used
> > in the disclosures is arcane (the disclosure is supposed to teach
> > the invention to someone "skilled in the art", but the art one must
> > be skilled in is patent law).  Software patents not only exist, but
> > are described in *incredibly*  arcane language rather than in source
> > code.  Pharmaceutical patent law is even more bizarre than software
> > patent law (mostly due to the efforts of Congress to "fix" it).
>
> New Zealand banned pure software patents in 2013:
>
> How New Zealand banned software patents without violating
> international law
> https://qz.com/119419/how-new-zealand-banned-software-patents-without-
>violating-international-law/
>
> Kind regards,

Sounds like a great idea. Too bad Disney owns both offices today.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212494

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 19:05:03 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

...

> Also realize that patent infringement is not a crime (in the USA).
> Government won't enforce your patent for you.  It is a tort, and is
> grounds for the patent owner to sue for actual damages (there are no
> statutory damages as with copyright).  Thus while there is no statutory
> exemption for personal use there is an effective one.  Illustrative is
> how Debian deals with software patents: it ignores them.

It does? Here's what the "Debian Position on Software Patents" says:

> Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents;
> Debian contributors should not package or distribute software they know
> to infringe a patent.

https://www.debian.org/legal/patent

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212503

Celejar writes:
> It does? Here's what the "Debian Position on Software Patents" says:

> Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents;
> Debian contributors should not package or distribute software they know
> to infringe a patent.

The key word is "knowingly".  If you believe that a Debian package
infringes a patent of yours you have to speak up.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212508

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 08:51:15 -0500
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Celejar writes:
> > It does? Here's what the "Debian Position on Software Patents" says:
> 
> > Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents;
> > Debian contributors should not package or distribute software they know
> > to infringe a patent.
> 
> The key word is "knowingly".  If you believe that a Debian package
> infringes a patent of yours you have to speak up.

You've snipped the context. You wrote:

> statutory damages as with copyright).  Thus while there is no statutory
> exemption for personal use there is an effective one.  Illustrative is
> how Debian deals with software patents: it ignores them.

So no, Debian does not "ignore" patents. Perhaps what you meant to say
was that Debian does not take the initiative of investigating whether a
given package infringes on any patents. And I still don't see how this
is illstrative of an effective exemption for personal use.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212561

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jo, 08 aug 19, 19:05:03, John Hasler wrote:
> deloptes writes:
> 
> > Entirely eliminate [patents] - no, but restrict if no commercial use
> > to 5y.
> 
> I'd just flat out restrict them to five years.  Twenty is too long.

That would work against inventors as instead of buying useful patents 
companies would just wait 5 years and then use it without any charge.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212563

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 10:52:39 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jo, 08 aug 19, 19:05:03, John Hasler wrote:
> > deloptes writes:
> >   
> > > Entirely eliminate [patents] - no, but restrict if no commercial
> > > use to 5y.  
> > 
> > I'd just flat out restrict them to five years.  Twenty is too long.
> >  
> 
> That would work against inventors as instead of buying useful patents 
> companies would just wait 5 years and then use it without any charge.
> 

That was all that patents were ever intended to do: give the originator
a period of monopoly over that particular implementation of his idea.
It never covered different implementations.

That was in exchange for the inventor freely showing the world
('patent') how his device worked, precisely so that others could use
it later. It was never intended to grant a monopoly for half a working
lifetime, it was intended to discourage producers from keeping a
manufacturing process secret, which of course they have always been
entitled to do.

Closed-source code is secret anyway, definitely *not* patent, and ideas
cannot be patented, so the whole business is simply a demonstration of
the power of Microsoft, just as Disney dominates US copyright law.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web