>2010/1/21 Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de>:
>> This is sad news. I've had a look into the details a bit, but I can't find
>> the patent related information.
>
>Someone from intel on the ptpd list offered to help with the
>paperwork, so maybe it will work out OK in the end.
>
>> I have always been wondering why it is possible for these iPhone projects to
>> include GPLd code and not publish the sources? This seems not juridically
>> defendable in the first place.
>
>The code is GPLd but the original authors have agreed to also license
>it to apple under different terms.
> The license doesn't restrict the
>original authors, it's their copyright.
I am stll surprised that open source an be closed just by such an
arrangement. It is still the very same code. Can you licence the same
code as GPL and as something else simultaneously?
>If someone gives you a patch
>to your code under the GPL you can't relicense that though. So RJ are
>giving code to the community but are not accepting changes back,
>unless it comes with a copyright transfer too. I guess ChucK is in
>the same boat (IANAL).
>
>> Let's keep on working hard
>> to make it all prior art.
>
>And hope we don't have to spend time and money proving it...
yes, this spring, the big decision happens in Europe.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2721&blogid=14
In the US, there are already tendencies of a move back from software patents
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/scotus-to-hear-bilski-may-be-huge-for-software-patents.ars
It'll continue to be a very difficult topic. Sound and video
programmers might get a hard time once any of those patents are
enforced.
--
.
Received on Thu Jan 21 2010 - 11:59:05 GMT