Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> [Non-member submission]
>
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Al Billings wrote:
> > Rik wrote:
> >
> > > > CYMM SAYS: If MS were a real monopoly; it would be poor
> > > > marketing. Now, with Open Source, this strategy seems to be
> > > > plain stupid. "Intellectual property" as a concept has gone
> > > > wayyy too far. The pendulum is about to swing the other way...
> > > > it's a built in negative feedback loop.
> > >
> > > Except that they're using patent law (and trade secret law
> > > extended to infinite patent law?) to try and remove open
> > > source software from the marketplace.
> >
> > Who is? In what case?
>
> Oh, and I almost forgot about the Kerberos case ...
>
> As you surely know, Microsoft copied Kerberos into W2K
> and extended it a little bit.
>
> Then it published documents about their extension, with
> a click-through license that you have to promise to not
> try to implement their extension in order to be able to
> read their document...
>
> The case was documented on sites like Slashdot (which is
> down at the moment ... I'll provide the exact URL later).
SO they took a piece of freely available information and MODIFIED IT to make it
proprietary information.
If I take the words to "Mary had a little lamb", and set them to my own musical
score, that would be my own creation. This sort of thing is identical to the
well tested 'sampling' standards used in music copyright law, where you can copy
x amount of other protected work, or you can take unprotected work and modify it
x amount and make it protected work.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:55 MDT