Pit Capitain wrote:
> Applying for a new RubyForge project is harder than I thought :-), cause 
> I have to choose a suitable license. I'd like to have a very liberal and 
> easily understandable one like the MIT license [1] for example. But I 
> also want to explicitly exclude companies holding software patents from 
> this license. Do you know of any licenses with similar goals?
> 
> Regards,
> Pit
> 
> [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
> 
> 

Software patents have both positive and negative aspects.  Anyone simply 
preaching that it is all bad or all good are merely displaying their 
ignorance.

I don't think many people look at the pros and cons of software patents. 
  I think many just ride the bandwagon after listening to just one side 
of the argument (mindless sheep).

If software patents didn't exist, many fundamental software inventions 
would not be available to the public because companies or inventors that 
created them would be keeping them as TRADE SECRETS.

Companies merely HOLDING software patents can be any one of the 
following (and IMHO, they shouldn't be treated equally):

1. companies that hold "defensive" software patents because they filed 
it in order to be able to prove they invented it first--just in case 
another company sues them in the future. Or they may have acquired them 
by purchasing another software company which already owned some and have 
no plans to enforce them against others (but hold on to them because 
they represent value and a possible defense against attacking companies).

2. companies that actively enforce their patents to protect products 
they actually produce & sell (ie, a small startup that was afraid a 
Microsoft or other huge company can simply copy-cat their groundbreaking 
new product and crush them before they can even recover their 
life-savings they invested during development)

3. companies that don't produce anything except patents for the sole 
purpose of generating revenues exclusively from licensing. some people 
view this as a form of legalized extortion and i'm not sure i disagree 
with that opinion (this is what harms innovation).

Keep in mind that software patents are granted ONLY if the patent 
application provides SUFFICIENT DETAIL for an average person skilled in 
computer science to successfully create the described invention WITHOUT 
UNDUE EXPERIMENTATION.  This is in addition to being non-obvious and 
novel (no prior art).

This means: 'give the general public a full description of your 
invention, and in exchange we [govt] will grant you a limited-time 
monopoly of about 15 years, after which everyone on the planet can 
copy/make/use your invention without your permission, thereby 
encouraging inventors to not only spend resources to invent but also to 
share with the public'.  If we find prior art, then your patent will 
become unenforceable.  And if people find ways to work-around your 
patent claims, then tough luck because you cannot stop them from making 
your invention.

If software patents are banished, something should be offered in its 
place which would:

1. encourage inventors to spend the upfront time & money to invent 
non-trivial software

2.  to fully describe their new inventions to the general public in 
sufficient detail for others to successfully create the invention