| |||||||||||||
why a free software exclusion isn't so greatwhy a free software exclusion isn't so greatPosted Nov 6, 2012 11:42 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by bojan Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
One problem with that idea is that it requires that "free software" be defined in a law. This could be done poorly, or it could be changed later, or lawyers could find ways to worm past the definition.
Another problem is that it implies that software is patentable, thus making it harder for us to argue in the high up courts that they should interpret the law as not allowing software patents.
(Log in to post comments)
why a free software exclusion isn't so great Posted Nov 6, 2012 12:57 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] This might be a good moment to use the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" in its original, proper sense.
why a free software exclusion isn't so great Posted Nov 6, 2012 17:03 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
I had the same thought. :-)
why a free software exclusion isn't so great Posted Nov 6, 2012 15:18 UTC (Tue) by Rudd-O (subscriber, #61155) [Link]
> One problem with that idea is that it requires that "free software" be defined in a law. This could be done poorly, or it could be changed later, or lawyers could find ways to worm past the definition.
I can assure you, this is exactly what will happen if any solution to this problem is pursued politically.
|
|||||||||||||