cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: Richard Stallman <rms AT gnu.org>
- To: Wyl Newland <wylnewland AT gmail.com>
- To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Cc:
- Subject: What could PIPL mean?
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:51:36 -0500
One of the harmful effects of the term "intellectual property" is that
it encourages people to believe that it is useful to talk about
copyright, patents and trademarks as a single issue. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml.
However, copyrights and patents have very little in common. I think
the best way to handle them is to do them separately. Copyrights
cover specific programs, and it makes sense to handle a program's
copyright with a free software license for that program. Patents
cover ideas that can be implemented in various programs, so I think
the best way to handle them is to sign patent licenses with various
free software organizations.
As for trademarks, the easiest solution is not to claim the names of
your programs as trademarks. But if you have same reason to do so,
there is surely another solution.
I'm sorry that the GNU Project didn't respond to your message. If
you'd still like me to offer suggestions, I'd be glad to. But I hope
that the final result can have a name which doesn't say "intellectual
property".
-
What could PIPL mean?,
Richard Stallman, 02/07/2005
-
Re: What could PIPL mean?,
Evan Prodromou, 02/07/2005
-
Re: What could PIPL mean?,
Richard Stallman, 02/09/2005
- Re: What could PIPL mean?, Steven Ericsson-Zenith, 02/09/2005
-
Re: What could PIPL mean?,
Richard Stallman, 02/09/2005
-
Re: What could PIPL mean?,
Evan Prodromou, 02/07/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.