> The point is that the GPL was elaborated *after* a number of 
> episodes in which public domain code appeared in someone's 
> products for a lot of money and nothing could be done about it.

What is 'elaborated' in this sense? 

> Not only that but patents were issued on certain items afaik. 
> This not only had PD removed from PD but others effectively 
> prevented from using it too. Very clever. 

You are mixing things up.

> Note that most people who relinquish code into the PD or publish it 
> without a proper license would be very surprised 

If they licnese it without a 'propper' license they should not be
surprised when their code is used as allowed by the license they did
use, which is not necessarily the way they intended it to be used.

> So some clever people got together and decided to find a way 
> that would 
> defeat further attempts at doing that, if possible using 
> their own tools 
> (the tools of the misappropriators, i.e. the fear of being sued and 
> assorted legal shenanigans connected to license and patent law). So
> they made a legal document conceived to thwart further tries at this. 

You got the order of events all wrong. There was no PD software as we
know it know at the moment Stallman created the GPL.

> So the GPL is a 'low cost' patent disclosure if you want. 

no need for GPL for that, *any* publication is a 'low cost patent
disclosure' in the sense that it can be used as prior art lateron.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist