> Closed Source isn't Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property > merely is what it is. And what it is quite simply is 'property' (in > whatever physical manifestation that takes) generated by one's > Intellect(good old grey matter). Closed or Open source is merely a > legal framework that defines how persons (other then the 'owner' of > said IP) may use the IP in question. > > > Organizations like Microsoft chose to put a heavily restrictive legal > framework around the IP (closed source) whereas FLOSS organizations > tend to put less restrictive legal frameworks around their IP (open > source). And regardless of how restrictive (or not) the legal > framework is, it still exists in one form or another. > > > -Drew but it is very often used combined, when you will ask ATI "why cannot you open drivers" you will hear "because of there are a number of patents which we 'probably violate' so we cannot open source"
For sure. That's the nature of the protective legal framework, namely that it cascades to further derivative works. I also think in that's Ati playing CYA.
and - of course - the second, more dangerous sample could be Microsoft, with all this actions which can cause the "moving on the screen cursor" will be unavailable for other then M$ systems, because it violates their patents, and their engineers and their families will die from hunger if we will not buy their OS
Let's not get started on that 'patent'. I'd prefer the start to my weekend to be peaceful. ;-)
of course, this is very simplified what I said, however this business model is really not so good for the development of culture, technology, --->> whole humanity....
Totally. However, I can also understand the counterpoint of why people might want to put restrictive protections on something they created. The profit motive is a strong driver in the western world and anything that gives me an edge over the competition, "that's a good thing." (tm) -Drew -- [email protected] mailing list
