[gopher] Re: Heads up

[MJ Ray <markj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Goerzen:
> > That covers the implementation, but doesn't cover the possibility of the
> > concept of Gopher being put under something which requires licence payments
> > (eg "Intellectual Property" laws in its home country).  Indeed, such a
> Well, I think it does.  In the case of UMN gopher, the GPL guarantees
> that we can do what we want with it as long as it remains GPL'd.

In all cases, the GPL says:

   7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
   infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
   conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
   otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
   excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
   distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
   License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
   may not distribute the Program at all.  [...]

There is the "not limited to patent issues" part in there.  If UMN can in
any way legally claim to own the *idea* of gopher as was feared in the past,
then surely the problem still survives?  If their licence fee idea was based
on charging for the software, there is probably no problem now, but I don't
know the history well enough (as I wasn't on-net at the time concerned).  I
would be surprised if it was software-based, as that would have dropped dead
with the RFCs for the protocol, wouldn't it?

> For gopher technology in general, I think you are speaking of patents.
[...]

As I said, I don't know how they intended to do it.

Thanks for your help in understanding this reported problem.
-- 
MJR