Hyman Rosen writes:
Only if putting the new scheduler into Linux involves enough changes to
the rest of Linux to be considered a significant work of
authorship. Otherwise, Linux + new scheduler is just a combined work.
So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does not create a
After takin' a swig o' grog, 7 belched out this bit o' wisdom:
asstroturfing fraudster Rjack
The Court in Wallace v. IBM, demonstrated it's superior grasp of the
software market. It called Linux an imperfect substitute for a
proprietary operating system.
Your world is a series of
John Hasler wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
Only if putting the new scheduler into Linux involves enough
changes to the rest of Linux to be considered a significant
work of authorship. Otherwise, Linux + new scheduler is just a
combined work.
So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does
amicus_curious wrote
you only copyright the expression of the idea and not the idea itself. If
the idea cannot be protected by patent, anyone is free to clone the idea.
Patents do not protect the idea either---nothing does. Patents protect HOW
you achieve the idea, nothing more--your way and
John Hasler wrote:
So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does not create a
derivative?
I don't know enough to say. Copyright extends to characters and the
right to sequels. Writing an unauthorized story using those characters
is not permitted, and someone who creates an unauthorized
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
My belief is that the GPL is totally unnecessary because what it
seeks to prevent isn't a viable outcome to beging with.
It seeks to prevent a software user from being unable to run,
read, change,
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you must repeatedly spout your case law fragments, at least have
the courtesy to include a public link,
Rjack wrote:
7 wrote:
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you must repeatedly spout your case law fragments, at least have
the courtesy to
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
7 wrote:
Fool! Just what substances are you abusing?
Apparently about 200,000,000 of your synapses.
He. He.
Well, better he just gives them back to 7 since he's gibbering.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
--
The XP could sink Microsoft thread his an absolute gem.
Micoshaft asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Rjack
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Department of Marketing:
7 wrote:
Go study Linux. Great lectures available in google video and
www.youtube.com While there search for terms like Ubuntu, Compiz
and Beryl to see how superior
blockquote
what=One Web Day announcements by Evan Korth
early-warmup-for-main-event=11:00 am Seniors at City Hall
main-event=11:45 am - 2:00 pm - Gathering in Washington Square Park
date-again=for above two events Monday 22 September 2008
amicus_curious wrote:
I would agree that providing source code itself is enough to enable a
user to do all of that regardless of the fact that changes are so
unlikely to ever occur. The GPL only adds a provision to enforce this
on someone who might be unwilling to do so with some improvement
Barry Margolin wrote:
That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.
Did I misunderstand?
I believe that there are people who argue that even the
standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
13 matches
Mail list logo
