Re: [Gzz] Contingency plans

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Oh, but this is common with patents: the claims start very broadly and
then narrow down. The point is that if anything has existed before
the patent that would have been covered by a claim, then the claim is
not valid.

You see, claim 1 just about applies to multidimensional spreadsheets as well.
Of course, IANAL, but ...

Likewise, the most narrow claims usually don't cover anything else.

The middle claims are the important ones. Which ones have prior 
art and which don't.

> 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 :-( :-(

That would be nice, but it seems we can't really expect much cooperation
from Ted :(

> >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.

Indeed.

> >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.

Could you talk with him?

        Tuomas