-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22 Sep 2003 at 10:39, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
My understanding is that you could write an mp3->ogg converter without requiring a license but you could not write an mp3 player. I don't see the big win here, patents would still be an obsticle and patent infringement suits (legitimate or not) would still be a threat.
Pro-patent lobby groups are targeting the interoperability clause the hardest. They quite rightly realise that if passed it would represent a major blow to enforceability of patents.
Your example is the most obvious, but we can go much further. For example you could write your mp3 player in two parts - one converts the mp3 to wav, and the second part plays the wav - of course you do this internally. You've just got around the patent.
The Free Software amendment would be great, it would encourage companies to release Free Software as a means of avoiding patent requirements. The down side is that I'm not sure this amendment will get majority support.
I STRONGLY oppose such an amendment. The biggest threat of software patents is not against non-commercial software at all because royalties are usually waived (proof is in the US). The single biggest loser from software patents are SME's and most especially technology startups.
I know most free software believers think software is the free property of all mankind but I absolutely urge you not to create a two tier environment. GPL believers may not like it, but there is no realistic business or economic model for making GPL software - RedHat only turn a profit because they do very little of the overall work. No company can possibly make a profit selling the most popular kinds of free software.
The solution here is alternative types of free software, but I'd doubt if the OSI would approve.
Cheers, Niall