Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 20:16:18 CST
Conversely a GPL type permit, does not mean that if one adds just
anything to it the result is GPL. If one as as a private indiviual
adds something of ones own creation then the rights belong to oneself
and so you havae the right to make it GPL. If some-one just copies
something from somewhere else then they don't have the rght to make it
GPL, nor can one make GPL something covered by existing patents unless
one is the patent holder.
If one is working for a company when doing a project, often the terms
of the contract mean that the rights belong to the compnay and not the
IMHO the case here of two different licenses from the same company
makes things rather complicated. The best thing to do, if the question
is whehther or not to use BOCU-1 spec, is IMHO ask IBM for a
clarifying statement in writing, BOCU-1 spec can itself be made the
subject of a GPL, this would not free IBMs patents in non BOCU-1 spec
cases and would make it eligable for consideration for acceptance; It
would then be possible to both implemnt and continue development of
BOCU-1 spec as required without fear. Without such a freeing up BOCU-1
itself would seem to be too dangerous.
Quoting Philippe Verdy <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> De : Doug Ewell [mailto:email@example.com]
>> Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>> > Are you sure that this (individual claims) is required? I've seen
>> > comments about US patents where infringement is demonstrated only when
>> > *all* claims are infringed. If you drop only only claim (for example
>> > some details about the implementation technics), and replace it by
>> > something else not covered in that patent, then it is not the same
>> > product, and it is not patented.
>> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that if that were the case, it would be
>> rather counterproductive to list pages and pages of specific claims.
> It may be necessary only because a single claim would cover prior art; those
> claims together are defining precisely the invention by means of
> restrictions, rather than by addition.
> If you need to protect multiple features separately, you need to register
> multiple patents, one for each invention in its own precise scope.
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 20:18:52 CST