Umm, this is interesting..

[nobodyO at web.de]

Hi,

i don't think that it is patent related because there is not hint that a patent is involved
and a patent is only a commercial right; it's only the right that no other can use the
patented thing commercially.
If you use patents private or otherwise not commercial, you are not affected.
An example is the MP3 patent: Only producers of MP3 players are affected; you
don't need a license to hear or produce MP3s non-commerciall.

Greets


>Being a conspiracy theorist ...
>  
> He could have been head hunted for his work on this, but not willing to partake in opensource his new employer may want the code free from opensource hassle...
>  
> This is also putting oil on the fire of anti opensource lobbyists (right down the alley "with open source there is no one to take to court with disputes" they now can say "see what happens if you go down the road of opensource? In the midle they're able to revoke the GPL and leave you with a fine mess")
> 
> > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:22:12 +0100
> > From: arnoud at engelfriet.net
> > To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
> > Subject: Re: Umm, this is interesting..
> > 
> > Ralf Friedl wrote:
> > > I consider the assumption that he wants to cover his own ass 
> > > inconsistent with the paragraph where he writes:
> > > 
> > > > As sole author of both the atscap and the pchdtvr codebases,
> > > > the licenses under the GPL were granted at my sole
> > > > discretion and the licenses under the GPL are now hereby
> > > > revoked at my sole discretion.
> > 
> > If the author's concern is patent infringement, the statements 
> > are consistent. He can be sole author of software which infringes
> > on someone else's patent.
> > 
> > Arnoud
> > 
> > -- 
> > Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
> > Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
> > Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/
> >