Re: [Gzz] Contingency plans

[Benja Fallenstein]

Sorry for not replying to this earlier. It's been on my mind.

Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> http://bootstrap.org/lists/ba-ohs-talk/0205/msg00093.html
>
> We need to do a plan; I propose to go over the patent 
> and see which claims apply where.

Haven't gone through the whole thing recently, but the first claim is 
already dead on point with our structural views. In the long run I think 
we either need to get a formal patent grant for all GPL'ed software or 
so, or we need to switch to a different structure :-( :-(

We need something like that Open Patent License, V. 2.0:
http://fsmlabs.com/about/patent/openpatentlicense.htm

The patent is here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,262,736.WKU.&OS=PN/6,262,736&RS=PN/6,262,736

> Possibly change the structure
> to e.g. a semantic triple net as used in RDF.

I think using the RDF model can be good, for compatibility. If we can't 
have zzstructure, RDF would be the next best thing. Having something 
very much like RDF but not really would be just annoying, though.

> Nevertheless, most of gzz fits over just about any structure so
> patent stuff should not cause a terrible hiccup...

Moving away from zzstructure seems like much more than a hiccup to me, 
but we need to ensure that Gzz is Free Software.

Essentially, if Ted is unwilling to give us a formal license, we cannot 
use zzstructure. I would not like that at all.

> Nasty
> business, though.

Very.

- Benja