RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > I disagree. I believe that the fundamental error made by the author
> > is to confuse a patent use license with a copyright distribution
> > license.
> 
> Irrelevant when the patent is used to control the software 
> that would otherwise be distributed under
> the copyright distribution.

On the contrary, it is like the difference between constraints on
a compiler and constraints on the code produced with that compiler.


> > A patent is not a source code. A patent does not do anything on
> > its own. Source code does. Patents are a completely 
> different form of
> > intellectual property.
> 
> True, but if the patent is used to control the source code, 
> the difference is trivial and irrelevant.

This is a very complex legal argument, calling it trivial shows a
distinct lack of comprehension.


> > TO THE PROGRAM
> 
> So what?  A standard is irrelevant if there is no program 
> that implements it.

Plans are irrelevant if no house is ever built to them. But that
does not mean that a plans are the same as a house, the fact that
a plan is copyright and certain rights on the distribution are 
reserved does not mean that the copy is encumbered.