5 ms·

So it's open source but patent encumbered? How well does that go together?

syntaxing 8y ago
Yeah, I'm confused about that as well. Are these defensive filings? Are they going to do what Tesla did with their patents?! So many questions!
captainbland 8y ago
I guess pretty good if you live somewhere where intellectual property laws are only loosely enforced.
colechristensen 8y ago
A basic intent of patents is the "open sourcing" of design. You get a limited-time monopoly on your invention in exchange for publicly publishing how it works so others can use it when your patent expires (or before then others can use it by coming to a licensing agreement). There could be a movement to give patents a much better name and work as intended for the public good, unlikely as it sounds.
- asdsad1234 8y ago
  Open sourcing your design gives other people a chance to work on your project, improve it. If you design gains traction then you will earn way more from patents.
- kragen 8y ago
  This is based on a casual misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "open source". It does not merely mean, as the name suggests, that the source code is available; rather, it means that fairly broad rights to study, use, copy, and modify the source code are granted to the general public. You can correct your misunderstanding by reading the Open Source Definition, written by the group of people who coined the term "open source," immediately after they coined it, to clarify what they meant: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Patents, on the contrary, specifically deprive the general public of rights they otherwise enjoy, granting a monopoly on them to the "inventor" (or rather the assignee), in exchange, as you note, for publication. They do, as you say, have one thing in common with open source, but in their principal characteristics, they are precisely the opposite of open source, both in theory and in practice.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    The OSI doesn't get to own the definition of open source regardless if they were involved in the initial usage of it. It is clear we mean different things as we use term and arguing about what it should mean is pointless. Patents and "open source" (whatever your definition) share some goals. Specifically, to get design details published in a way accessible to the public. Both patents and OSI Open Source restrict freedoms, but in different ways.
    - kragen 8y ago
      The OSI has had to deal with charlatans attempting to co-opt the term "open source" since its inception, using dishonest arguments like the one you are deploying here; this is no different from trying to sell water with chalk dust as "milk" or gold-plated tungsten as "gold". It is possible that what you are doing falls within the ambit of US federal fraud statutes, depending on whether you are in a position to receive money for it. However, the Hacker News readershp is savvy enough to understand the difference; here, you have failed and you will continue to fail. Aside from the issue of passing off whatever sad scam you're wanting to pass off as "open source" in order to take advantage of the goodwill earned by genuine open source, it is entirely and transparently false to claim that "OSI Open Source restrict[s] freedoms." Copyright, patent, and trade secret laws restrict freedoms; open source just gives some of them back.
      - colechristensen 8y ago
        Your reply is ridiculous and not what I would expect to find on HN.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        kragen’s comment went over the line, but he’s correct in saying that “open source” has a well-established meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
      - gpm 8y ago
miohtama 8y ago
Patents are national, so I guess there are many countries where they do not apply.
agumonkey 8y ago
If someone gets inspired and find alternative ways to do things, do patents apply ?
vortico 8y ago
Open-source licenses usually just deal with copyright. Patents are another obstacle to overcome if your company/organization/hobby has a need for building salt reactors, but overcoming copyright is a push in some direction.
- Xylakant 8y ago
  APL explicitly deals with patents and contains a patent grant clause. Same EPL, AFL and a few others. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... for an overview

Yeah, I'm confused about that as well. Are these defensive filings? Are they going to do what Tesla did with their patents?! So many questions!

captainbland 8y ago

I guess pretty good if you live somewhere where intellectual property laws are only loosely enforced.

colechristensen 8y ago

A basic intent of patents is the "open sourcing" of design. You get a limited-time monopoly on your invention in exchange for publicly publishing how it works so others can use it when your patent expires (or before then others can use it by coming to a licensing agreement). There could be a movement to give patents a much better name and work as intended for the public good, unlikely as it sounds.

asdsad1234 8y ago
Open sourcing your design gives other people a chance to work on your project, improve it. If you design gains traction then you will earn way more from patents.
kragen 8y ago
This is based on a casual misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "open source". It does not merely mean, as the name suggests, that the source code is available; rather, it means that fairly broad rights to study, use, copy, and modify the source code are granted to the general public. You can correct your misunderstanding by reading the Open Source Definition, written by the group of people who coined the term "open source," immediately after they coined it, to clarify what they meant: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Patents, on the contrary, specifically deprive the general public of rights they otherwise enjoy, granting a monopoly on them to the "inventor" (or rather the assignee), in exchange, as you note, for publication. They do, as you say, have one thing in common with open source, but in their principal characteristics, they are precisely the opposite of open source, both in theory and in practice.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  The OSI doesn't get to own the definition of open source regardless if they were involved in the initial usage of it. It is clear we mean different things as we use term and arguing about what it should mean is pointless. Patents and "open source" (whatever your definition) share some goals. Specifically, to get design details published in a way accessible to the public. Both patents and OSI Open Source restrict freedoms, but in different ways.
  - kragen 8y ago
    The OSI has had to deal with charlatans attempting to co-opt the term "open source" since its inception, using dishonest arguments like the one you are deploying here; this is no different from trying to sell water with chalk dust as "milk" or gold-plated tungsten as "gold". It is possible that what you are doing falls within the ambit of US federal fraud statutes, depending on whether you are in a position to receive money for it. However, the Hacker News readershp is savvy enough to understand the difference; here, you have failed and you will continue to fail. Aside from the issue of passing off whatever sad scam you're wanting to pass off as "open source" in order to take advantage of the goodwill earned by genuine open source, it is entirely and transparently false to claim that "OSI Open Source restrict[s] freedoms." Copyright, patent, and trade secret laws restrict freedoms; open source just gives some of them back.
    - colechristensen 8y ago
      Your reply is ridiculous and not what I would expect to find on HN.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        kragen’s comment went over the line, but he’s correct in saying that “open source” has a well-established meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
    - gpm 8y ago

miohtama 8y ago

Patents are national, so I guess there are many countries where they do not apply.

agumonkey 8y ago

If someone gets inspired and find alternative ways to do things, do patents apply ?

vortico 8y ago

Open-source licenses usually just deal with copyright. Patents are another obstacle to overcome if your company/organization/hobby has a need for building salt reactors, but overcoming copyright is a push in some direction.

Xylakant 8y ago
APL explicitly deals with patents and contains a patent grant clause. Same EPL, AFL and a few others. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... for an overview