Walter Bright wrote:
> David B. Held wrote:
>> it is not a defense against patents (not sure if Walter has any patents on any D stuff, or if anyone does, but this seems like the smaller risk for you).
> 
> There are no patents on D technology that I am aware of, and I don't plan on filing any. I personally believe that software should be unpatentable.
Did you know, that the only reason why software technology is patentable at all, is because in the 1800's, some guy was granted a patent for a (paper) opera ticket that could be folded in multiple ways, and modern courts successfully argued that it was an algorithm.
So this whole situation exists just because some stupid patent office once granted a patent for origami. It's absurd.

Don Clugston wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> David B. Held wrote:
>>> it is not a defense against patents (not sure if Walter has any patents on any D stuff, or if anyone does, but this seems like the smaller risk for you).
>>
>> There are no patents on D technology that I am aware of, and I don't plan on filing any. I personally believe that software should be unpatentable.
> Did you know, that the only reason why software technology is patentable at all, is because in the 1800's, some guy was granted a patent for a (paper) opera ticket that could be folded in multiple ways, and modern courts successfully argued that it was an algorithm.
> So this whole situation exists just because some stupid patent office once granted a patent for origami. It's absurd.

I didn't know that.

Patents are supposed to exist in order to encourage innovation. The reality of software patents is they do nothing of the kind, they discourage it. Before 1989, software wasn't patentable, and there was a tidal wave of software innovation.

Hum, BTW, how about this scenario, which I think is even more complicated:

Suppose there is a GPL project, and a company wants to make a commercial project based on the GPL project. GPL states that any derivative work must also be GPL. What if to circumvent this, a company packages its product into two parts: one that is the derivate work of the GPL project, and thus is also under the GPL; and a second part, which *uses* the first part, but doesn't know anything about the first part's source code?
Some might say that it depends on how the use is (static linking, dynamic linking, etc.), but the company can always change the use method to a more loose form. For example, if dynamic linking isn't enough to prevent GPL propagation (which legally, it still seam unclear whether it does), then ultimately what if the second part simply calls the first part as an external program?
It seems that in the end the use form isn't enough to determine whether the GPL propagates or not.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Some might say that it depends on how the use is (static linking, dynamic linking, etc.), but the company can always change the use method to a more loose form.

It is up to the courts and copyright holders to decide the issue.  There are no black and white rules with regards to linking.

GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

An ongoing court case, where a GPL chess client was "wrapped":
http://www.jinchess.com/ichessu/

-Jeff

Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Some might say that it depends on how the use is (static linking, dynamic linking, etc.), but the company can always change the use method to a more loose form.
> 
> It is up to the courts and copyright holders to decide the issue.  There are no black and white rules with regards to linking.
> 
> GPL FAQ:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
> 

Yep, that's my question alright, thx.

> An ongoing court case, where a GPL chess client was "wrapped":
> http://www.jinchess.com/ichessu/
> 
> -Jeff

Hum, interesting, let's see how that turns out.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D