suppose i made a software library which is perhaps
licensed AGPL

now the thing is this doesn't actually stop corporates from clean-room implementing their own version that they can do whatever they want with and imo that is kind of not good

so i am thinking.... could it actually be a viable thing to get a software patent for your thing. despite software patents being evil. can you have a software patent that coexists with an AGPL licensing for your package such that derivative works are allowed under the AGPL same-license terms but clean-room reimplementation to avoid that isn't allowed

Follow

@haskal hmm I think this is what some audio/video codecs already have, and it could make it difficult to fork/make other foss implementations?

@f0x a necessary sacrifice. any clean reimplementation runs the risk of being made by a company for evil or being permissively licensed which would allow the above

@haskal mhh, maybe you could even grant patent permissions to anyone who licenses it under agpl-3.0 too

@haskal @f0x But fuchsia is not a reimplementation of Linux?

Also, regarding software copyright, one thing that comes to mind is ReactOS and what they had to do to make sure they don't violate MS copyright...

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Pixietown

Small server part of the pixie.town infrastructure. Registration is closed.