hartr@redhat.com wrote:
> 3) Following this look at the proprietary code, you contiunue hacking
> away on the Linux kernel. Can you guarantee that you are not using
> some technique used in the proprietary code?
IANAL .. but, the "technique" is not protected by a licence. The right to
use software source "as is" or a binary compiled version is controlled by
licence.
The "technique" would have to be protected by a patent.
Who is to say Microsoft and other proprietary firms are not reading open
source and garnering ideas for their own use. They can legally do that unless
a patent applies to the ideas they are snooping through.
Regarding MS's "opening of CE" ... the source is not "open" if it has
encumberances attached.
I'd like to address this issue with the shoe on the other foot. Who is to
say proprietary firms are not illegally (i.e. against licence) copying
open source and then proprietising it within their own closed software
solutions. I don't believe there has yet been a test case in the courts
for such an action.
_____________________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services Pty Limited
"The only thing is certain: Russian petty computer hooligans are
very slovenly, while FBI agents are very persistent in hunting
them."
- Pravda
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:07 EST