Fwd: qVIX, the GPL, and patents

[codewarrior at cuseeme.de]

From: atdodd at eden.rutgers.edu

I just recently discovered a post of yours to an IETF mailing list at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg03345.html,
regarding Cornell's qVIX/CU30 software and patents.

Yes, in the past the source was available.  I've noticed that the  
link on
sf.net is now broken, honestly that project has not been maintained or
touched in over four years.  There's a good chance that SF may have  
taken
down the files due to inactivity or possibly a lost backup.  I couldn't
say, I haven't been involved with the qVIX/CU30 project since 2000 or so
when I was an undergrad at Cornell.  Yes, I worked with Aron on the
qVIX/CU30 porting project back then.  That really reminds me, I  
should get
in touch with him, I haven't really spoken to him since graduation in
2002.  :)

Regarding the fact that the CU30 algorithm has patents that apply to  
it -
Along with the release of qVIX, Cornell granted a free license to those
patents for any software that used the same license as qVIX.  I'm  
sorry I
cannot provide you more details on this, as it has been a VERY long time
and I don't remember any of them.  In fact, trying to refresh my  
memory of
what CU did with qVIX and the patent issue is why I was running a Google
search for qVIX in the first place.  I do remember that the solution we
found was 100% acceptable to myself (an admitted open-source fanatic),
Eric Raymond (who came to Cornell to speak at around the time qVIX/CU30
was released), and the authors of all projects whom we used code  
from.  (I
recall we had to get permission from one of them because their original
license was "noncommercial use only", but they were willing to change it
to a more proper open-source license for us.  Again, I can't provide you
the details as I cannot remember them.)

Thus, it was anything but thievery - In fact the open-source  
community was
basically given a free unlimited license to the two patents in question
when anyone else using the patents in closed-source/non-free software
would have to pay for them.