[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The new apache license [OT]?
Disclaimer: This message is about patents, and is only peripherally
related to OpenBSD. Don't read it unless you want to discuss window
managers and the nature of "free as in free".
I had a chance to read a good deal of this patent application from
Microsoft before my eyes glazed over. And sure, if you only read the
title without a shadow of a grasp of the English language, it sounds
like they're patenting all window managers everywhere. My question is
this, though: What's wrong with the patent? It refers to "A method",
not "All methods". It seems to me like this patent applies to a very
specific and long windedly described interface, the *particular* likes
of which I'm not aware of currently existing. Can anyone here with a
detailed knowledge of window managers read the patent application and
cite the existing window manager that performs *all* the functions
described in the patent, not just one, two, or n-1?
If not, I don't see what's wrong with coming up with an idea and then
protecting yourself from a bunch of "Free As In Stallman" clones keeping
you from making any money off it. I mean, free is great. I love free. I
use it every day, but isn't "freely given" part of "free"? Isn't
voluntary contribution to the public good the reason BSD
License-o-philes oppose the GPL?
I don't know. Maybe I'm way off base, and this patent really does cover
all window managers everywhere. Does anyone have a clue-by-four handy?
I just don't see the threat unless individual terms of this patent are
enforceable by themselves.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Kurt B. Kaiser
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:56 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: The new apache license
> Theo de Raadt <email@example.com> writes:
> Microsoft Pat. Appl.: "A method for a user to preview multiple virtual
> desktops in a graphical user interface"
> You can't code around this stuff. It's the method that's locked up.