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:
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
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 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
Among others, /. is reporting that Win2k and WinNT source code may
have leaked.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/12/2114228
Does anyone here have any good evidence as concerns the truth or
falsity of this claim?
Lots has been said about OSS developers not wanting to look at this
for
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 06:25:25PM -0500, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Windows source would endanger future projects (assuming, of course,
that simple copying---which is clearly illegal---doesn't happen).
Comments?
Why would it? There may be some problems on the margin, but for the
most part I think
