Re: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership

[Ian Malone <ibmalone@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2 August 2012 10:26, Roger <arelem@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi, you have completely destroyed the attributions here, making it
pretty hard to follow the conversation.

Richard Vickery wrote:
> Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written, Your work
> is your own, regardless of whether they own the language you write it in or
> not. Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen? You
> can't own something in the free domain? This is like saying that I own
> English and you can't use it unless I say so - it's stupid and ridiculous.
>

I replied:
> Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B C++ has nothing to do with
> Microsoft. Even in C#, which they developed and where they own key
> components of the run-time, code you write belongs to you (though licensing
> of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your compiler license -
> in exactly the same way some people call GPL infectious).
>

You replied:
>
> Thanks Richard.
<etc.>

>
> Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
> instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under contract to a
> company then they do not own their work, the company does, even if the work
> was done on unpaid holidays or at home during unpaid after hours.
>

Commission work (which includes being employed to create code) belongs
to the person or organisation doing the commissioning. Companies
claiming ownership of work done outside working hours is pretty
controversial, but employees in that situation need to be careful
about not using work resources to do it which can muddy the situation.


> If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are donated free
> of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does that make the whole
> (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when no one entity owns it?
>

The story in question has nothing to do with copyright, but rather
software patents.

> I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going on under
> the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over 200 instances
> yet I see no one discussing or displaying code comparisons to show that it
> is true. Surely it is incumbent on the complaintant to provide proof.

Code comparisons aren't very relevant to patent claims. MS are
essentially fishing. If there are patents infringed and MS said which
ones then they could be worked around or dropped as necessary.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
-- 
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org