On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Les Kitchen <ljk@csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
...
2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL (and copyleft) technically relies on copyright law, he omits to mention that that's only a defence against a system that's largely biassed against free flow of ideas and methods and code.
Plus, patents != copyright, just because they share the IP umbrella. For the most part it should be pretty trivial for an individual to not violate copyright when writing software, but it can be impossible to even know if you are violating a patent. The interesting part with software and its protection by copyright
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Tim Cuthbertson <tim@gfxmonk.net> wrote: that I see: software=speech. Thus, at least in my mind, if one: a. pulls a software patent b. implement it c. distribute the implementation *in source code only* (as any "artistic creation") then this way of distributing should be protected by the "right to freedom of expression". Now, the mileage may vary from legislation to legislation. I know that Aus. laws doesn't have an *explicit* protection for the right to free speech, but by the US system of laws (I don't know which of their constitution amendments) the protection of free speech should trump the existence of the patent (I remember that mid-90-ies have seen some squabbles over the export of crypto software - not patented but classified as ammunition - that were solved by printing the source code in books/T-shirts, etc and exporting them as such until their gubt. gave up). Personally, I'm highly tempted to give the above a try. Any opinions about other risks, please? Regards, Adrian