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@[...].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>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>