On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 21:00:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 9/2/2014 4:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> They said this is an "ex partae" thing, where until the patent is
>> granted, I am not allowed to be part of the process. Only after a patent
>> is granted can I file a prior art notice.
>>
>
> Bureaucratic scams at their finest... :/

I don't know if what they told you it's accurate...
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp

I'm going to ask to my consultant about that... it seems I totally need some clarification... *sigh*

--
/Paolo Invernizzi

On Wednesday, 3 September 2014 at 05:33:22 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 21:00:53 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 9/2/2014 4:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> They said this is an "ex partae" thing, where until the patent is
>>> granted, I am not allowed to be part of the process. Only after a patent
>>> is granted can I file a prior art notice.
>>>
>>
>> Bureaucratic scams at their finest... :/
>
> I don't know if what they told you it's accurate...
> http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/faqs-preissuance-submissions.jsp
>
> I'm going to ask to my consultant about that... it seems I totally need some clarification... *sigh*
>
> --
> /Paolo Invernizzi

I phoned my consultant, and he told me that there are two distinct things:

The first is related to perhaps the most important news coming out from the AIA (America Invent Act), and it is the possibility of attack someone else patent without having to go in front of a judge, as in Europe can be done with an opposition via the EPO. That procedures are called "post grant review" and "inter partes review", and as in Europe are against granted patents.

The second is related to what in EU are called "third part observations" and by the USPTO are called "Third Party Inquiries and Correspondence in a Published Application". They are informations about documents relevant to the exam process that the examiner is performing. That filing can be done, as obvious, after that the patent is published and before that the patent is granted, exactly the same as in EU.

So it seems that informations about prior art can be posted to the examiner also for not granted patent...

--
/Paolo Invernizzi

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Yea, I know there were reasons a new version needed to be created. But if a license designed with the specific and sole purpose of promoting openness can't even get along with another version itself, then something's clearly gone horribly, horribly wrong with it.
>
> I can link BSD 2-clause, 3-clause and even 4-clause all into the same program just fine. Forget the usual "BSD vs GPL" argument about GPL viral unwillingness to play nice with other licenses, the thing can't even play nice with *itself*!

AFAIK GPL3 is incompatible with any license, which doesn't address patent problem, not just GPL2. Think of it as a next generation of opensource licenses.

On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:24:37 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> AFAIK GPL3 is incompatible with any license, which doesn't address patent problem, not just GPL2. Think of it as a next generation of opensource licenses.

GPL3 is not incompatible with GPL2, because GPL2 has a clause that allows you to upgrade to any later version of the GPL.

GPL3 can use modules under the following common licenses: GPL2, LGPL2, LGPL3, modified 3-clause BSD, Apache v2, FreeBSD, Boost, Mozilla Public License, Intel Open Source License, W3C, and many others…

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make a GPL program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code. Then drift it past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see what happens.

1. You can statically link GPL2 code with GPL3 code if you have received the source code through proper channels. I think you are confusing  GPL2 with Linux "GPL" which isn't GPL2. Linus removed the upgrade clause, thus creating an island for Linux. Bad idea in my opinion. If you want to use a license, use it unmodified or write your own…

2. FSF becomes a party if it has copyright to the code. Otherwise the author of the codebase is the only source for litigation. The author can relicense the code in any license he wants. GPL is based on international copyright treaties, it gives you rights as a recipient (if you received it in a legal manner), but does not take away publishing rights from the author.

On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:35:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:24:37 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> AFAIK GPL3 is incompatible with any license, which doesn't address patent problem, not just GPL2. Think of it as a next generation of opensource licenses.
>
> GPL3 is not incompatible with GPL2, because GPL2 has a clause that allows you to upgrade to any later version of the GPL.
>
> GPL3 can use modules under the following common licenses: GPL2, LGPL2, LGPL3, modified 3-clause BSD, Apache v2, FreeBSD, Boost, Mozilla Public License, Intel Open Source License, W3C, and many others…
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

Hmm...
>Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well.

Boost does indeed allow to use software free of charge. Does it really prevent patent claims? What if they come in form other than royalties?

On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:35:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:24:37 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> AFAIK GPL3 is incompatible with any license, which doesn't address patent problem, not just GPL2. Think of it as a next generation of opensource licenses.
>
> GPL3 is not incompatible with GPL2, because GPL2 has a clause that allows you to upgrade to any later version of the GPL.

This is wrong. By itself, GPLv2 is indeed incompatible with GPLv3. However, many (most?) projects using the GPLv2 in fact say "or any later version" in their licensing conditions, as recommended by the FSF. I don't think that this is a proper part of the license, however.

David

On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 14:54:31 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:35:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 08:24:37 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>> AFAIK GPL3 is incompatible with any license, which doesn't address patent problem, not just GPL2. Think of it as a next generation of opensource licenses.
>>
>> GPL3 is not incompatible with GPL2, because GPL2 has a clause that allows you to upgrade to any later version of the GPL.
>
> This is wrong. By itself, GPLv2 is indeed incompatible with GPLv3. However, many (most?) projects using the GPLv2 in fact say "or any later version" in their licensing conditions, as recommended by the FSF. I don't think that this is a proper part of the license, however.

It is:

« 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.»

And the following text is recommended to be put in each source file:

«<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
    with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
    51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.»

On 9/4/2014 4:56 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make a GPL
>> program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code. Then drift it
>> past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see what happens.
>
> 1. You can statically link GPL2 code with GPL3 code if you have received
> the source code through proper channels. I think you are confusing  GPL2
> with Linux "GPL" which isn't GPL2.

I was just going by what Stallman said in the article linked to earlier:

"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause."
  - Richard Stallman: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

I think this thread, and every other discussion of GPL on the net, demonstrate one of my earlier points: GPL is freaking confusing.

On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 06:23:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> I think this thread, and every other discussion of GPL on the net, demonstrate one of my earlier points: GPL is freaking confusing.

Yeah, it is probably not a good idea to use GPL if you don't agree with the political views of FSF and the policy-making they are championing.

The idea that an external party, that you are not affiliated with, can change the license of an author is extraordinary!

And probably at at odds with what is taken as basic authorship rights in some jurisdictions. But it might stand a chance if the author explicitly grant FSF the right to do it in every single source file… It makes it more difficult for the author to claim that he has been tricked by FSF to give them the authority without understanding the consequences fully.

Some of the GPL weirdness is caused by FSF using copyright treaties to take away authorship rights in all countries, while the treaties are about granting the author rights in all countries.