On Tuesday 06 September 2005 21:33, Attila Kinali wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:52:55 +0200 (CEST) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This is not legal. That's the problem where a layers is needed. > > > > "our work" : code, documentation,... are protected by copyright law. A > > licence is maid for "copyrighted work". > > > > A "good" is not relevant to the copyright law, so you can't apply a > > "licence" on it. Maybe you could find a trick that do the same thing. But > > a judge will never consider a chip as a derivative work of your code > > because a derivative work is from the copyright domain. > > I cannot follow your reasoning. As producing a chip requires > some kind of intellectual property (IP), here explicitly > our IP, we have the right to restrict its use on producing > chips. > The same applies when you build a machine. If you want to > use the plans of someone else, you have to abide the copyright > terms of them.
This is exactly the reason RMS refuses to talk about Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property does not exist. It's a vague catch-all term covering all sorts of things from copyright to trade secrets. We've used the term "IP" in a generic fashion on this list to refer to non-physical products in technical discussions, which seems to have not caused any confusion so far, but let's keep it out of any threads about licencing... Lourens
pgpco8M8QEwVD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
