-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
|>True, but if the patent is used to control the source code,
|>the difference is trivial and irrelevant.
|
|
| This is a very complex legal argument, calling it trivial shows a
| distinct lack of comprehension.
I think he meant that in the context of what was stated, there
isn't a practical difference between the patent and the
source code license, as the patent is used to control
the source code.
|
|>>TO THE PROGRAM
|>
|>So what? A standard is irrelevant if there is no program
|>that implements it.
|
| Plans are irrelevant if no house is ever built to them. But that
| does not mean that a plans are the same as a house, the fact that
| a plan is copyright and certain rights on the distribution are
| reserved does not mean that the copy is encumbered.
Nicely put. However, it also does not mean that the copy is unencumbered
either, as this is not strictly stated. This is (among other things)
wiggle room.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBK7Vca44x14FCa6ARAi0xAJ99bLxrIj4ncML09Ru+aXIjrPnZqACgmtGs
NxZALKv/DDTT4bV8nAhr/C8=
=ZE1S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----