Hi,
There's an article on groklaw about a business model based on sw patents and open source. Besides the patents being, from my understanding, purely data processing stuff which shouldn't get patented in the first place, the scheme is rather insidious, since it enforces through the patent licence that internal modifications for one's own use of the software must be distributed to the public. While distributing improvements to the public is generally a good thing, it seems to me that this is an excessive requirement that renders the scheme non-free. You can get more info at URL below: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006091118502284
I believe free software advocacy organizations should oppose this use of patent law, even if it is more permissive towards free software than the norm. Otherwise pro-swpat people will start saying that "even those free software radical lunatics think patents are OK sometimes".
--David.
On Groklaw there is a follow up to the article "International Characters' Business Model": "Larry Rosen Responds to Your Comments" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060914192614297
--- Stefano Spinucci FSFE Fellow
On Groklaw there is a follow up to the article "International Characters' Business Model": "Larry Rosen Responds to Your Comments" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060914192614297
Are you convinced by that response? If we apply the reasoning to the orthogonal case of copyrights, then the GPL could call itself free and open by permiting free use for r&d, non-commercial applications and use of the code so long as it is either unmodified or modifications are shared, while automatically demanding payment for use when private modifications are made and not distributed. I would not call that GPL a copyleft, I'd call it a landgrab.
--David.