Hacker isn't just some random writer for byte. He wrote The Beos Bible which has a pretty in depth coverage of the BeOS including descriptions of the internal workings. I think it is naive to say that he is just repeating what he has read elsewhere, because he has had far more contact with the developers of Be than most users have with their OS, open source or not.
Comparing RedHat's release of some proprietary software, such as Netscape and Real Audio, and their desire to use an open-source desktop is not really valid.
The desktop is a more central component of the system, whereas user applications like netscape just perform a task. People don't write applications based on netscape, but they do write apps based on the desktop.
I think Red Hat had a legit concern that if people wrote free software based on QT (the old non free QT at least), then the software wouldn't really be free because it would be based on code not freely available.
I think from this perspective it makes sense for Red Hat to take the stance they did.
I am in law school, so take everthing I say with the biggest grain of salt you can find.
The way it was described to us, attorney-client privilege is used to protect against disclosure of communications between attorneys and clients. It is designed to encourage the disclosure of information by clients to their lawyers.
The information protected by this privilege extends to other avenues such as attorney work product, which covers things produced by the attorney for the benefit of his client.
There are other types of privileges also, such as doctor/patient and husband/wife, which operate pretty much the same. However, there are some variations in the level of secrecy.
Here it is tough to see in what manner they are claiming the privilege. It seems implausible that the NSA would refuse to produce documents based on the attorney-client privilege of the persons from whom the documents were snooped, because there are other fundamental constitutional liberties protecting those rights.
Most likely they are claiming the attorney-client privilege based on the idea that the intra NSA communications are privileged. It still seems inappropriate to cite attorney-client privilege unless there is some legal representation involved, and it is likely that they reall mean to claim some broader privilege.
This doesn't make much sense. If MS can only defend patent infringement suits with their patents, why would they ever register patents?
When you register a patent you are telling the whole world exactly how to accomplish what it is you are doing. To cripple MS in their use of patents would be to give away their algorithms, if not their source code.
I understand RMS doesn't like patents and he might think that this would be a good way of treating MS's patents, but the chances are the court would only implement his scheme for future patents, and if so, MS would not get any future patents because it clearly would not be in their interest to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Hacker isn't just some random writer for byte. He wrote The Beos Bible which has a pretty in depth coverage of the BeOS including descriptions of the internal workings. I think it is naive to say that he is just repeating what he has read elsewhere, because he has had far more contact with the developers of Be than most users have with their OS, open source or not.
Comparing RedHat's release of some proprietary software, such as Netscape and Real Audio, and their desire to use an open-source desktop is not really valid.
The desktop is a more central component of the system, whereas user applications like netscape just perform a task. People don't write applications based on netscape, but they do write apps based on the desktop.
I think Red Hat had a legit concern that if people wrote free software based on QT (the old non free QT at least), then the software wouldn't really be free because it would be based on code not freely available.
I think from this perspective it makes sense for Red Hat to take the stance they did.
I am in law school, so take everthing I say with
the biggest grain of salt you can find.
The way it was described to us, attorney-client privilege is used to protect against disclosure of communications between attorneys and clients.
It is designed to encourage the disclosure of information by clients to their lawyers.
The information protected by this privilege extends to other avenues such as attorney work product, which covers things produced by the attorney for the benefit of his client.
There are other types of privileges also, such as doctor/patient and husband/wife, which operate pretty much the same. However, there are some variations in the level of secrecy.
Here it is tough to see in what manner they are claiming the privilege. It seems implausible that the NSA would refuse to produce documents based on the attorney-client privilege of the persons from whom the documents were snooped, because there are other fundamental constitutional liberties protecting those rights.
Most likely they are claiming the attorney-client privilege based on the idea that the intra NSA communications are privileged. It still seems inappropriate to cite attorney-client privilege unless there is some legal representation involved, and it is likely that they reall mean to claim some broader privilege.
jordan
This doesn't make much sense. If MS can only
defend patent infringement suits with their patents, why would they ever register patents?
When you register a patent you are telling the
whole world exactly how to accomplish what it
is you are doing. To cripple MS in their use of
patents would be to give away their algorithms,
if not their source code.
I understand RMS doesn't like patents and he might
think that this would be a good way of treating
MS's patents, but the chances are the court would
only implement his scheme for future patents,
and if so, MS would not get any future patents
because it clearly would not be in their interest
to do so.