Around 06:02pm on Sunday, July 08, 2007 (UK time), Les Mikesell scrawled: > That's the way it worked in the days before software (which you can > represent as a large string of bits or a number) was allowed to be > patented. The argument for permitting software patents is that the > software also represents a model of a process that could be covered when > running. My contention is that software is only in this covered state > when actually running on a device (otherwise its just a big number) and > that having any license to run the covered process on a particular > device should absolve any obligations to the patent holder even if you > modify that copy or replace it with different software that implements > the same covered (and previously licensed) process. Les, when you say "My contention is..." do you mean that you think that this is the actual case in law, or do you mean you think it should be like that? Steve -- Play Champions - my free football predictions game at: http://www.stevesearle.com/champs/about.html 18:13:37 up 12 days, 21:53, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.06
Attachment:
pgpqQTtYEWPRo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
