. ..thus motivated to invent when a paycheck is on the line.
Labor can be motivated by money. Invention cannot.
True enough, but as Edison noted, invention requires a lot of work. And turning an invention into a product is likely to require a great deal of labor.
..then by chargin for their product they would be causing their econmy to grow.
Simply charging for something does not create wealth, it just moves money around. Money is just a bit of paper that represents something. If there is no something behind the money there is very little point in moving it.
Just charging for something doesn't even move money around; I could charge a thousand dollars to smile at people, but all it would mean is that I wouldn't do much smiling. Charging for something people are willing to pay for moves money around; creating something that people are willing to pay for is the creation of wealth.
Your statement works as well for books and music as for software. Stephen King writes books that people want to read. Thus his output is "wealth". It takes a lot of work to turn his ideas into readable prose, and if he didn't get any return, he probably wouldn't do it. If he didn't have the talent, he'd have to pay somebody to help. That labor may not have much to do with invention, but it is necessary.
(disclaimer: I have never read a novel by Stephen King; I am making no judgment on the "readability" of his prose.)
DiDio's statement makes me question her impartiality or her intelligence, or both.
SCO claims that linux is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and yet doesn't want to destroy it? Of course they want to destroy it. They know they can't, at least insofar as they can't force people to stop writing it, and they can't stop people from using a version once it has the code they claim is copied replaced. But they can hope that this lawsuit will make all enterprise customers too scared to adopt it.
Chris Sontag said in the ComputerWorld interview (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/29/17522 08&mode=thread&tid=123&tid=187&tid=88&tid= 99) that linux "has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand." That's what they're hoping will destroy it. Who wants to depend on an OS that leaves you open to any clown who wants to claim that somewhere in that 3 million lines of code lies something that belongs to him?
I don't know anywhere near enough about IP law to guess how successful they'll be. Probably, however, anyone who shows any kind of infringement can demand at least that all users immediately cease use or pay for a license. Since ceasing use means shutting down your business, it isn't really an option. So how to avoid it? Well, SCO will mention that you could always just license from them, and you'll be safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Labor can be motivated by money. Invention cannot.
True enough, but as Edison noted, invention requires a lot of work. And turning an invention into a product is likely to require a great deal of labor.
. .then by chargin for their product they would be causing their econmy to grow.
Simply charging for something does not create wealth, it just moves money around. Money is just a bit of paper that represents something. If there is no something behind the money there is very little point in moving it.
Just charging for something doesn't even move money around; I could charge a thousand dollars to smile at people, but all it would mean is that I wouldn't do much smiling. Charging for something people are willing to pay for moves money around; creating something that people are willing to pay for is the creation of wealth.
Your statement works as well for books and music as for software. Stephen King writes books that people want to read. Thus his output is "wealth". It takes a lot of work to turn his ideas into readable prose, and if he didn't get any return, he probably wouldn't do it. If he didn't have the talent, he'd have to pay somebody to help. That labor may not have much to do with invention, but it is necessary.
(disclaimer: I have never read a novel by Stephen King; I am making no judgment on the "readability" of his prose.)
DiDio's statement makes me question her impartiality or her intelligence, or both.
2 08&mode=thread&tid=123&tid=187&tid=88&tid= 99) that linux "has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand." That's what they're hoping will destroy it. Who wants to depend on an OS that leaves you open to any clown who wants to claim that somewhere in that 3 million lines of code lies something that belongs to him?
SCO claims that linux is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and yet doesn't want to destroy it? Of course they want to destroy it. They know they can't, at least insofar as they can't force people to stop writing it, and they can't stop people from using a version once it has the code they claim is copied replaced. But they can hope that this lawsuit will make all enterprise customers too scared to adopt it.
Chris Sontag said in the ComputerWorld interview (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/29/1752
I don't know anywhere near enough about IP law to guess how successful they'll be. Probably, however, anyone who shows any kind of infringement can demand at least that all users immediately cease use or pay for a license. Since ceasing use means shutting down your business, it isn't really an option. So how to avoid it? Well, SCO will mention that you could always just license from them, and you'll be safe.