> IBM needs a way to tightly bind a patent license to the source code.
> Without that, they are afraid to contribute. IBM might even want to
> specifically tie patents to Linux. (not also gcc, HURD, emacs...)
What IBM needs to do is play ball according to the rules that have been layed
down, or look for another market to tap.
> It is unfortunate that the FSF doesn't hold any patents. I don't think
> that they like patents at all, but they need some so that they can trade.
> (if anything, patent issues could give GPL code an advantage over BSD code)
Stallman once told me, "patents are a governement mandated monopoly".
I've thought alot about that. He's right.
Who is to say what is and is not patentable? (Do you cede that government has a
stake in all ideas???) If you want to keep TOTAL rights to something, DON'T
make it public at all.
If IBM is forced to give up a patent's protection in order to contribute to
Linux, I say good. If they choose to pass on Linux instead, I also say good.
We're enough of an influence to be noticed, and we stuck to our pricipals that
helped get us here. No company created Linux. No company can stop it, unless
people get too greedy/stupid.
-- http://www.linkscape.net/ Linkscape Internet Services 732-541-4214 http://www.linuxrouter.org/ Linux Router ProjectAt 19981216.11:59 Zulu, Mach 1 was broken with a 1.0080162GHz Dual CPU machine. I'm the Degenerate Overclocker that did it. http://www.psychosis.com/doa/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/