Re: Proprietary Software term

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> On 18/08/18 21:18, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> "Undocumented proprietary format" doesn't express the intent which
>>> > "lock-in" does. As David pointed out, patents can be used to protect
>>> > a proprietary format, only I don't think that, for example, the exFAT
>>> > filesystem is, in his words, a "strange case".
>
>> A filesystem is not a file format.
>
> What's the difference? As soon as you take the Unix "everything is a
> file" approach, your filesystem IS a file format.

A filesystem organizes files.  A file format organizes data.

> I run VirtualBox - all my filesystems really are files.

No, they are mapped to files.  The files then represent filesystems.

> Etc etc. Once you start digging, it's all a distinction without a
> difference ...
>
> (take a look at file containers, like zip, vorbis (or is it ogg), mp3
> and mp4, etc. What IS the difference between a file and a filesystem?)

You are changing the topic.  The topic was the difference between a file
format and a file system.  To be viable for patent protection, you need
a technique transferable to other use cases.  Container formats could
contain patentable elements.  XML could have had elements covered by
patents (don't know whether that is the case).  LilyPond's input is
quite free form.  It would be hard to jam any patents on that.

zip has been defined using patentable techniques (like
https://www.google.com/patents/US5051745) but the implementations are
usually unencumbered.

At any rate, there is a wide range of applicability for patenting
generic _organization_ of data but not so much for patenting the
_meaning_ of one layout of data.  That makes file systems a lot more
prone to patent encumbrance than file formats.

A compression layer is good for a lot of trouble either way though LZW
(like in GIF) has by now run out of protection IIRC.

-- 
David Kastrup