what are "the strings attached". This is an important point as previously it has been suggested that the open source movement makes use of patents to protect open source inventions. Finally, I agree with the final point that both software development teams and their commissioning customers need to improve their awareness of the commercial ramifications of the differing ways in which software can be developed. I'm sorry you didn't understand the point of the article. That, however, is a you issue not one of lack of clarity on my part. It seems you wanted to read a GPL article, but the GPL wasn't at issue. Sorry that facts got in the way of what you would have preferred to read. The points aren't poorly made, you just didn't understand what you read, which is a you problem not a clarity problem. You obviously wanted to read about the GPL, but I wrote about a particular situation that didn't deal with the GPL. So the fact that you thought this diminished from the article is conclusive proof you didn't read it carefully or you didn't understand. I don't know which it was, but you took a swing at me so let's just be intellectually honest, shall we? Roland writes in small part: "However, the above are largely commercial considerations which I suggest are slightly different to patentability." I don't quite follow your logic here, as the granting of patent rights would seem to be all about commercializing new and novel *inventions*,