[GNUz] Open Source Licenses Are Not All the Same

[Jim Cheetham]

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Viz patents debate / NZOSS, the wider spread of (the harder) 
> Copyleft/GPL can be seen as the best security we have for ongoing, 
> innovative technical progress, from intellectual community (vs 
> 'intellectual property') - true?

No, I don't believe that there are any overlaps between "copyright" and 
"patent" - therefore GPL cannot impact patent claims, or imdemnify 
against them.

The scope of punishment for patent infringement is significantly wider 
than copyright infringement ... it includes the unwitting users of a 
patent-infringing "thing", whereas I don't believe that the unwitting 
user of a copyright-infringing "thing" can be persued.

i.e. if I purchase a book, and the author of that book has included "too 
much" copyright text from another work, I can't be sued - only the 
author of the infringement can.

With patents American-style, the injured party can and usually will sue 
the *users* of an infringing item rather than the offender who created 
it (because they can get more money that way?)

Hence Microsoft goes to Asian industry users, and says "if you install 
Linux, we will be able to persue *you* over the ~300 patent 
infringements that it includes (that we "own")"

It's traditional at this point to say IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. What 
would Nick say?

-jim