[ros-general] Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT

[Rick Parrish]

KJK::Hyperion wrote:

>> I also don't see anything illegal
>
> in the license you say "you're free to redistribute", to the patent 
> office you say "they're really not". I know patent are enforced only 
> if and when the holder asks for it, but this is stretching the law 
> pretty thin 

Let me explain. Handing someone a software license and saying you are 
free to distribute *this* code is not the same as handing them a patent 
license and saying you are free to use this patent.
One operates under copyright law - the other under patent law (no, IANAL).

One possible wording for the software license is a penalty clause where 
the violator must share their patent portfolio.

The patent protects the feature set implemented by the code. Suppose a 
big corporation wants to add this innovative feature (which could be 
anything) to their product but they don't want to be encumbered by some 
open source license - so they reverse engineer it. That avoids the 
copyright but not the patent. You could even license the patent with 
proceeds going to ReactOS, the EFF or similar organization.

This is a very rough idea but I hope I've gotten some people thinking.

On a side note, I should point out - for the record - that I am very 
much against the ideas of software patents. However, sometimes you have 
to fight fire with fire (while wearing asbestos gloves).

-rick