[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers? (wasRe: Us

From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers? (wasRe: User Interfaces)
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 23:49:27 -0400

I thought I saw a note suggesting something to this effect
somewhere on the FSF website.

Patents cost a bit, though.

And I don't know, but I think they'd probably want to
actually perform the prior art search in that case (despite
the idiocy of logic patents in the first place).

But it would be stellar to give them a taste of their own
medicine with a patent-left on something truly essential to
the accomplishment of their contrary motives, huh?  How
giddy would that be?  Hee hee.

Seth Johnson

"D.I.Freeman" wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
> > Ironically, for a company that goes so far as to
> > patent a UI abstraction mechanism (ultimately what
> > we're speaking of) -- they seem to use style
> > sheets that don't render well in all browsers...
> OOh, is the FSF allowed to have patents? If a FSF
> project or OSS developer came up with something
> patentable, could the patent be issued to the FSF
> (or the developer and given to the FSF) so that it
> is then held as free for anyone to use, and thus
> stop stupid companies from exploiting software
> patents?


[CC] Counter-copyright:

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]