| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Red Hat has a pointRed Hat has a pointPosted Jun 12, 2002 21:51 UTC (Wed) by origz (guest, #1985)In reply to: Red Hat has a point by forthy Parent article: Red Hat and software patents The patent pool idea is pretty good, but it inherently leads to squabbles and lawsuits. Furthermore, RHAT needs its own patents to be a successful company. This is a step in the right direction, and if it holds up to its promise of not enforcing the patents for free software, I'm ok with it. However, please do not call stuff licensed under BSD "free software." It is not. Free software must not only be provided with source at no charge, it must also be under a GPL-type license that prohibits making it non-free. BSD is not free software, but rather software in the public domain. If you say that public domain software can use your patent, you are effectively saying that ANYONE can use your patent. Coupled with good lawyers on the offensive side, this would easily invalidate the patent.
(Log in to post comments)
BSD Public Domain? No. Posted Jul 22, 2002 22:11 UTC (Mon) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Free software must not only be provided with source at no charge, it must also be under a GPL-type license that prohibits making it non-free. BSD is not free software, but rather software in the public domain.What? No, sorry, that's just wrong. Public domain refers to software for which the copyright has expired or has been given up by the owner. BSD software is not public domain. Furthermore, BSD software qualifies as free software according to the very specific and clear definition provided by the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman. Of course, BSD software cannot properly be called "copyleft" because that term explicitly applies to software with GPL-like licenses that prevent non-free derivation.
|
|
||||||||||||