Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: the web client interface was RE: Two linkquestio
 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@t...] > > >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> 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
