Re: [boost] Boost and patents

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-21 13:57:37

Paul A Bristow wrote:
[...]
> silly software patents that are doing little but enrich some members of the
> legal progression.

C'mon, $$$ licensing aside (it enriches shareholders), unless 
prosecuted, RCU patents enrich the LTC guys. IBM's Invention Achievement 
Plateau Awards and all that. :-)

Ha! Note that under SCO's crackpot theory (inspired by the FSF's 
crackpot theory regarding "based on" copyright derivation a la
"Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of 
the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a 
GPL'ed class." www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang), IBM does 
(kind of) own RCU but can't publicly disclose it (due to nonsensical 
reading of AT&T contracts, ignoring side letters, etc.) because it's 
sorta "UNIX derivative" method and/or concept and/or code infected by 
viral SCO's license on ancient SysV stuff that it was in contact (is 
"based on") and hence got contaminated (same as with FSF's 
contamination theory***).

And since patenting requires public disclosure... IBM just can't 
patent it without owing SCO a petabuck or two in contractual damages 
(copyright claim arising from subsequent use of purportedly SCO's 
copyrighted material after license termination for breach aside for 
a moment). 

Man oh man.

***) http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/assignunisrule.html

-----
Once code is written and placed under the GPL, any code based on 
that code and distributed will also placed under the GPL. Thus, 
there is nothing a university could do with a developer's code if 
it is based on previously GPL'd code anyway. There is no good 
reason NOT to assign code to the FSF.
-----

and http://www.google.com/search?q=jacobson+FSF yields "From: 
"Jonas Jacobson via RT" <copyright-clerk at fsf dot org>" and "FSF 
Assignment Administrator Jonas Jacobson".

Man oh man.

regards,
alexander.