I will add that a Creative Commons license approach might be of
interest to this community.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2009, at 20:23, Gary Schiltz <[email protected]>
wrote:
Of course, all these arguments are moot with open source licenses.
But then, I wonder how many people actually make money with open
source. I'm on the fence with regards to the whole open source
movement. Opinions?
;; Gary
On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:24 PM, russell standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Miles Parker wrote:
IANAL of course, but in general this situation is no different
form one
where ay someone has an idea, tells it to someone else, and that
someone
else writes a book about it. Ideas can't be copyrighted but
software can;
and implementations of ideas can be patented. (Yuck, though..) Am
I right
No - only the ideas can be patented. The whole software patent brouha
revolves around people patenting fairly obvious software algorithms
for marginally novel uses. But it is not the software itself that is
patented - if I write a piece of software that implements someone
patented algorithm, then I am potentially infringing that patent,
regardless of whether I even know the patent existed.
folks? By default the copyright is with the actual author, i.e. in
this
case the programer, unless there is some specific agreement
otherwise. But
that's just the default situation; if that's not what you want
then you
guys need to come up with an agreement that specifies that you share
copyright and then make sure that the code has the appropriate
notices.
That should be really straightforward.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
