-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This article [ http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp ] sums up pretty well why this is a bad thing. As you can imagine if MS ever releases Windows source code under their stupid non-open open source licence, the consequences could potentially be disastrous for Wine and similar projects (ReactOS). - -- Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHBMfH6iqRtkAADZgRAs62AKDS9lIQU4mAyiZlTNWwo+8WHYGr5QCdHQIp 943/rNrx6OeLL9S5UDAa/ig= =KkLl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 12:00 +0100, Chris Spencer wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This article [ http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191754,00.asp ] sums up pretty well why this is a bad thing. As you can imagine if MS ever releases Windows source code under their stupid non-open open source licence, the consequences could potentially be disastrous for Wine and similar projects (ReactOS).
I have to say I find the legal situation with this stuff to just be beyond ridiculous. I mean if you put 2 programmers, of roughly equals skill level and knowledge, that have never seen each other and don't know of each other into separate rooms and give them the same problem to solve...chances are, the code is going to look alike. So I don't understand why these "Your code looks like my code" arguments hold up legally. I mean this is pretty much the equivalent of Ford suing GM over making cars with wheels because Ford also has wheels and they look alike. I mean sure, if it's a blatant copy & paste that is one thing... But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is trying to do the same thing! I mean seriously, how does any of this stuff have legal ground? Is the US system seriously that screwed up? Stephan
On 10/4/07, Stephan Rose <kermos(a)somrek.net> wrote:
But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is trying to do the same thing!
I mean seriously, how does any of this stuff have legal ground? Is the US system seriously that screwed up?
I shouldn't bother responding.. however.. Let's say you're a huge pharmaceutical company and you manage to develop an AIDS vaccine. At the end of the day you've probably spent billions and billions of dollars and all you really end up with is a chemical formula. That chemical formula then takes several more billions of dollars in order to be tested and certified for use. Should some other company be allowed to just come along and copy that chemical formula after the other company has invested so much time and energy? Most people generally agree that wouldn't be fair. Now, regarding software design, I think there needs to be strict limits on what qualifies as software patents, etc. I would think if Google wanted to show everyone their code it would unfair if someone came along and started their own search engine based on it. Fortunately I'm too dumb to have a solution so I don't have to worry about such things. -Brian
On 10/4/07, Brian Vincent <brian.vincent(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/07, Stephan Rose <kermos(a)somrek.net> wrote:
But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is trying to do the same thing!
I mean seriously, how does any of this stuff have legal ground? Is the US system seriously that screwed up?
I shouldn't bother responding.. however..
Let's say you're a huge pharmaceutical company and you manage to develop an AIDS vaccine. At the end of the day you've probably spent billions and billions of dollars and all you really end up with is a chemical formula. That chemical formula then takes several more billions of dollars in order to be tested and certified for use. Should some other company be allowed to just come along and copy that chemical formula after the other company has invested so much time and energy? Most people generally agree that wouldn't be fair.
Now, regarding software design, I think there needs to be strict limits on what qualifies as software patents, etc. I would think if Google wanted to show everyone their code it would unfair if someone came along and started their own search engine based on it. Fortunately I'm too dumb to have a solution so I don't have to worry about such things.
In defense of Stephan, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the case where two companies independently arrive at the same solution to a problem. In the case of pharmaceutical companies, that means both companies each invested billions of dollars in strikingly similar or exact vaccines. Concerning MS and, say, Mono, the implementation of the .NET interface may be strikingly similar, enough to cause patent concerns, yet they hopefully arrived at the implementations independently. The biggest difference is timing. Who patented first, etc? I believe this is the problem with the US patent system referred to by Stephan. -- James Hawkins
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:38 -0500, James Hawkins wrote:
On 10/4/07, Brian Vincent <brian.vincent(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/07, Stephan Rose <kermos(a)somrek.net> wrote:
But just because code, that implements the same functionality looks similar?? Well of COURSE it looks similar...it is trying to do the same thing!
I mean seriously, how does any of this stuff have legal ground? Is the US system seriously that screwed up?
I shouldn't bother responding.. however..
Let's say you're a huge pharmaceutical company and you manage to develop an AIDS vaccine. At the end of the day you've probably spent billions and billions of dollars and all you really end up with is a chemical formula. That chemical formula then takes several more billions of dollars in order to be tested and certified for use. Should some other company be allowed to just come along and copy that chemical formula after the other company has invested so much time and energy? Most people generally agree that wouldn't be fair.
Now, regarding software design, I think there needs to be strict limits on what qualifies as software patents, etc. I would think if Google wanted to show everyone their code it would unfair if someone came along and started their own search engine based on it. Fortunately I'm too dumb to have a solution so I don't have to worry about such things.
In defense of Stephan, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the case where two companies independently arrive at the same solution to a problem. In the case of pharmaceutical companies, that means both companies each invested billions of dollars in strikingly similar or exact vaccines. Concerning MS and, say, Mono, the implementation of the .NET interface may be strikingly similar, enough to cause patent concerns, yet they hopefully arrived at the implementations independently. The biggest difference is timing. Who patented first, etc? I believe this is the problem with the US patent system referred to by Stephan.
Yup that's pretty much what I meant. Stephan
participants (4)
-
Brian Vincent -
Chris Spencer -
James Hawkins -
Stephan Rose