Yes, in saying an idea is patented I was technically incorrect - in theory, an idea can't be patented, an invention is only patentable if it 'teaches' how to im

Yes, in saying an idea is patented I was technically incorrect - in theory, an idea can't be patented, an invention is only patentable if it 'teaches' how to implement it. Nevertheless, what is patentable is still a lot more abstract that an actual implementation. So we have: idea > teachable invention > implementation (where '>' is 'more abstract than') The GP seemed to by conflating the invention and implementation, in asking what difference the licence of made. That was the distinction I was trying to draw. Duda put the invention in the public domain, not an implementation - it's not clear you can apply the MIT or Apache licenses to an invention at all.