Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Software filter engines for high end audio and now DSP's
From: Fredrik (aeonek_AT_home.se)
Date: to helmi 17 2000 - 10:59:54 EST
> >only code, it's the ideas behind the code. I don't believe the GPL is the
> >only true license, and it's very unfortunate that this happened. But the
> >blame is mainly with the patoff.
>
> true. but part of the reason why the GPL is important here is that it
> forces reimplementation of an idea without creating patent-like
> protection. If RTLinux was under a BSD license, anyone could make a
> proprietary product with it *without doing any work* to implement what
> Victor and Co. have done. Victor doesn't feel like having his work
> used in this way (and neither do I).
I have no problem with the GPL. I belive the author of a program should have
the right to choose whatever license he sees fit. However, this is not the
case here.
Another question: In Europe, software patents dont exist. What does it take
to violate a US patent here? If i put up a piece of software, patented in
US, on a swedish server, what patent law applies? If someone in the US
downloads the software, there has to be some patent infringement, right? Who
is responsible for it? Me, or the person using the software?
> i don't know patent law either, but i will just note the audio
> connection here: there is a patent on fm synthesis. yet there are a
> number of open source implementations of it.
IIRC, that patent have expired a couple of years ago. And there's always
phase distortion, which produces the same waves, but isn't covered by the
yamaha/stanford patent.
--Fredrik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:23:27 EST