RMS Seeks Anti-Patent Information
SubtleNuance asks: "Free Software's venerable leader has made an open appeal to the Internet community. RMS seeks information about instances where Free Software projects were impeded by a software patent. You can read his open letter at Linux Today. RMS specifically seeks 'cases where a free
program has been withdrawn from use or interfered with'. Surely the /. community can come up with a few examples to aid Mr. Stallman's arguments. Parties with specific information are to send an e-mail to patent-examples@gnu.org "
Lessee..:
GIF encoders/decoders
MP3 encoders (are decoders covered?)
RSA encryption (expired, but that's besides the point)
DeCSS probably doesn't fit, as it wasn't a patent.
Is CueCat patented? Probably not.
-Mark
while I can't think of any off the top of my head (i'll be looking for examples in a bit), I think this AS is definatley front page material..
why would you omit this from the Front page Cliff?
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
now add that to the list.
I think the biggest one of the group has been the GIF patent and how it has been treated. (Thanks Unisys, Compuserve!) It quickly became THE standard for images, and only once it was popular did they mention anything about their software patents. If that was known from day one, GIF would have died a quick death.
GnuPG fails to fully implement RFC2440 due to the IDEA patent. While IDEA is specified as a PGP cipher, GnuPG can't implement it.
For a long while, the RSA patent was also an obstacle to GnuPG, OpenSSH, and just about everything else out there that needed public-key crypto. The expiry of the Diffie-Hellman patent (in 1997) helped some, but there were still a lot of obstacles.
I was always under the impression that patents could be used for non-profit. Perhaps the gnu license doesnt allow for this in particular? If it doesnt, wouldnt be an idea that until this stupidity is overturned that there was a license available to allow for the inclusion of patented "whatevers" in freely available software. I understand that this would mean that that software would then limit the useage of the software, but like the existance of the FWTK it would allow it to at least be used by those who want to use it.
meridian at tha.net