[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
of course closed source companies like ms could violate lots of
copyrights and we'd never know because noone can look at the code....
hmmm...
On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 06:52, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:amyzing@talsever.com]
>
> >IBM is accused of violating an NDA, and allowing code
> >to escape from its own developers into Linux.
>
> Ok. Note that SCO has not said they won't sue others.
> There may be more to this than the NDA.
>
> >Should it be shown that there is SCO code in Linux, Linus and company will
> >remove it.
>
> Ok. It is a cost issue for the Linux users and their customers, and
> a risk to manage for companies to consider when enabling or allowing
> their employees to work on open source. They need to vette the
> project and the employees, so it is another cost item to add to
> participation in open source and a risk to be managed.
>
> >>competitors they think they are de-opting. The second
> >>word in IP is Property.
>
> >Right. Referring to certain privileges awarded by the state, amounting to
> >monopoly in a restricted area, in order to encourage the sharing of
> >information.
>
> Yes. It is a licensing right. Note that this also encourages
> cross-licensing
> agreements and that is a strong incentive to innovate.
>
> >And all of this is really old news already, so why harp on it? FUDding
> >Mozilla on the basis of SCO FUD is enormously irritating, but not much
> else.
>
> It was new news to me. Usually when one of these pops up, this list or
> another will make note of it. This time, things stayed rather quiet.
> When I looked at Google, I picked up a four month old article, yes,
> and considering how Google indexes, things were rather quiet. Interesting.
> Google tells one what people are talking about and what they aren't.
> So it appears that no one is harping. It does look like some usually
> vocal folks are irritable, that's true.
>
> >Mozilla's pockets just got a lot shallower the
> >other day, so it isn't particularly likely that a failing browser company
> >would make a last bid for share price and existence by feeding a swarm of
> >attack lawyers on the blood of the browser.
>
> True. There is little money to be made litigating the poor. On the
> other hand, no one knows who put what from where inside Moz or Linux
> until they look. For the customer of an IBM or Linux, that's a risk.
> It is less of a risk for a buyer of a product owned outright by the
> company that sells it with all licensing and cross-licensing items
> intact.
>
> Before you miss the big picture here, the cross-licensing patterns
> emerging are noteworthy. They protect, they aggregate, and they
> incentivize innovation without loss of licensing rights.
>
> len
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
