On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 03:25:11PM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
I wonder if frags of OSS code can be found in proprietary binaries.
Of course.
Here's an example of MS using BSD code:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357
and another:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 12:34:01PM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:
The RIAA/MPAA and US govt.are working on that. Stand by.
I mentioned the trend, but the point is that's not there yet. There are other
countries, which will take a lot of talking to and threat of economic
sanctions, before it
At 05:34 PM 2/13/04 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
In principle they can prove that the secret didn't have any influence
on
the work, but in practice they're stuck having to prove a negative.
I was hoping the courts would see the impossibility of proving a
negative,
and see true dissimilarities in
Follow the invisible man's rainbow socks in sandals. The real emitter
not the no-knock-knocks wearing Tempest protection and LEDs
in horn-rims.
Hear their beeps, scatter, there's a nab acoming.
Once I almost met a cpunk, then it vanished, lo, it was
a cyberpunk oozing.
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:45:34AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
(in reply to someone else)
Lots has been said about OSS developers not wanting to look at this
for fear that they will be tainted. While it is true that simply
the act of looking at the code is unauthorized and illegal,
At 8:13 PM -0800 2/13/04, John Young wrote:
Hear their beeps, scatter, there's a nab acoming.
H's Baack...
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA
At 02:08 PM 2/13/04 -0800, Eric Murray wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:45:34AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
(in reply to someone else)
Lots has been said about OSS developers not wanting to look at this
for fear that they will be tainted. While it is true that simply
the act of looking
On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 19:02, Justin wrote:
Case law on point? I don't think that is true at all. Trade secrets
that are leaked are no longer trade secrets.
Incorrect. Trade secrets that are deliberately released by the owner are
no longer secret. Secrets that are carelessly released by the
Steve Furlong (2004-02-13 22:34Z) wrote:
Eric is correct in his reply to MV's article. Joe Programmer isn't
necessarily obligated not to look at leaked trade secrets, but if he
implements anything remotely related to the leaked secret, he and his
employers or customers are subject to being
