On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:30:14PM -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> (1) Software patents and interface copyrights are used to revoke creators
> rights (copyright holder need not be aware of a patent in order to have
> information process patent infringement claims revoke their copyright - a
> real
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform)
My most recent submission to the Canadian government on copyright policy
includes a reference to that document among others. No need to reference
the Google version when the original is s
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[... questions ...]
http://google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10109131121160.13573-10%40calcutta.flora.ca
(Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform)
"[...] In order for us to move forward we need to reject the
concept of ideas as property [...]"
You
Sorry I am adding more non-licensing messages only the next day. I'm
trying to keep my messages to a minimum. Will stop posting if an OSI
person tells me that it really is too far off topic.
In an email message I wrote to the "patents are your friend" comment:
> Patents may be IBM's and your fr
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
> Copyright law on the expression ... protects ...
Right, *expression*. And that's why patents are your friends.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg5.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg7.html
http://sources.redhat.com/ml
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote:
> I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition
> that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect?
Of course they can.
> In my opinion, I do not believe that they IBM's model has a long-term
> future. IP inextricably co
(Will try to make this quick -- I don't want to dominate this thread, and
won't post any more today in the hopes that others have interest as well)
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ken Brown wrote:
> I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition
> that they can make money with both IP
Ken Brown wrote:
I'd like to know this too. This intrigues me. Is IBM's proposition
that they can make money with both IP and open source incorrect?
I'm meeting some IBM people at LinuxWorld next week. I'll ask them. :)
- Robin
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-
open source in general.
kb
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:44 PM
To: Russell McOrmond
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
>
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising
> the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying
> against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy
> circles?
That's not a question, it's an argum
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Russell McOrmond wrote:
> [...]
> > IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing
> > the rhetoric of "technology neutrality" that is the most
> > common political phrase used against Open Source software.
> > The problem is, softw
Russell McOrmond wrote:
[...]
> IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing
> the rhetoric of "technology neutrality" that is the most
> common political phrase used against Open Source software.
> The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than
> laws, acts of parl
12 matches
Mail list logo
