It is the Democrats that are in bed with the Trial Lawyers. It is the Trial Lawyers that getting rich out of this industry destroying legal mess that is copyright/patent law.
#1. Open source software kind of does the same thing.
#2. Quite often, Microsoft buys the software rather than developing it. It's usually a pretty good payday for the developer.
#3. Software, like manufactured goods, has a downward pricing slope, that soon reaches near zero. Make your money on the early releases, before the market scrapes bottom.
Re:The Glaring Flaw in Darl's GPL argument
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft has been making the arguement that GPL is 'viral', that your property rights will be involuntarily surrendered if your code is inadvertently mixed with GPL code. IF SCO is successful in the above arguement, look out GPL.
Re:SCO seems uneducated about IP rights
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
SCO attacks on GPL usually include the term 'viral'. I think they are going to try to invalidate the GPL LICENSE as infringing on the property rights of others (i.e. if my code is "infected" with GPLed code, my property rights are taken away).
Spam as advertisement works. If it were possible to tap into the spam servers and attach a NOTICE: that said "replying to ANY spam is is hazardous to your health", perhaps we could educate our way out of the spam problem.
It is the general corporate trend to extend IP property rights to the extreme. I think the SCO position is that they owne ATT Unix that was licensed with the proviso that any derivatives are owned by the copyright holder. Therefore, SCO owns UNIX and anything that was derived from UNIX, anything that works like UNIX, anything that looks like UNIX and (why not go for it) anything that vaguely resembles UNIX.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the Democrats that are in bed with the Trial Lawyers. It is the Trial Lawyers that getting rich out of this industry destroying legal mess that is copyright/patent law.
#1. Open source software kind of does the same thing. #2. Quite often, Microsoft buys the software rather than developing it. It's usually a pretty good payday for the developer. #3. Software, like manufactured goods, has a downward pricing slope, that soon reaches near zero. Make your money on the early releases, before the market scrapes bottom.
Microsoft has been making the arguement that GPL is 'viral', that your property rights will be involuntarily surrendered if your code is inadvertently mixed with GPL code. IF SCO is successful in the above arguement, look out GPL.
SCO attacks on GPL usually include the term 'viral'. I think they are going to try to invalidate the GPL LICENSE as infringing on the property rights of others (i.e. if my code is "infected" with GPLed code, my property rights are taken away).
Spam as advertisement works. If it were possible to tap into the spam servers and attach a NOTICE: that said "replying to ANY spam is is hazardous to your health", perhaps we could educate our way out of the spam problem.
It seems to me that if SCO has ever distributed a Linux ditro with the offending code in it, then they have given there code away and have no case.
It is the general corporate trend to extend IP property rights to the extreme. I think the SCO position is that they owne ATT Unix that was licensed with the proviso that any derivatives are owned by the copyright holder. Therefore, SCO owns UNIX and anything that was derived from UNIX, anything that works like UNIX, anything that looks like UNIX and (why not go for it) anything that vaguely resembles UNIX.