• [^] # Re: Et aller, encore un cliché ...

    Posté par . En réponse à la dépêche [débat] Pourquoi Sun rejette la GPL. Évalué à 2.

    > Plus serieusement, aux US si tu ne posséde pas une pile de brevet, tu es une cible pour les prédateurs qui eux possèdent une tonne de brevets

    C'est vrai. D'ailleur Red Hat et Novell ont des brevets. Mais eux, contrairement à Sun, ont promis de ne pas demander de droit d'utilisation pour ces brevets dans le cadre de projet libre.

    > Je pense que dans ce contexte Sun est et reste favorable aux brevets. De la à dire "pro-brevet à fond" ... là on est dans la caricature.

    Red Hat a des brevets "défensifs" mais Red Hat milite contre les brevets logiciels.
    Red Hat a des brevets mais Red Hat développe en GPL (ce qui "invalide" le brevet dans le source GPL).
    Que fait Sun ?
    Sun reste pro-brevet.
    Sun utilise a inventé une licence (CDDL) brevet-friendly.

    Sun est pro-brevet et le dit :
    http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040930(...)
    I Believe in IP

    I believe in intellectual property. In my view, it's the foundation of world economies, and certainly the foundation upon which Sun Microsystems was built. Copyright, trademark, patent - I believe in them all.

    ...

    Now, a few weeks ago, the CEO of one of the more popular open source companies called and asked me to support their stance on the invalidation of software patents. I listened closely, I respect the guy and his company. But this was the same CEO who forbade Sun from shipping his open source technology with Solaris based on a curious interpretation of the GNU Public License. And based on rabid enforcement of copyright. He was looking for broadscale support for invalidation of software patents - not spurious patents, not the kind that are acquired for litigation, but the whole concept of software patents.

    And so I asked - "I'm not sure why you're asking my support to invalidate what Sun's stockholders have invested tens of billions of dollars to create, when you'd cringe if I told you to give away your largest asset, your copyright and brand." His answer, "You just don't understand." He was right, I didn't and don't. And we're going to agree to disagree. He and I, and I with a vocal minority of folks on the 'net who feel software should have no patent protection (leaving copyright and trademark untouched). I do not support that view, any more than I believe any other field of endeavor should be subjected to such a double standard. From drug discovery to academic work, the protection of IP is part and parcel of what incents inventors to invent, and investors to invest.