> The open source community has helped to create Microsoft, they take your
> work, and add it to their own.
Thats a load of crock...
Sure it they may benefit from them, but it hurts them if not more then the
same. Explain how Linux has helped them? There is a ton of open source
projects out there, (not just ones under gnu license) and out of those I dont
see how they could possibly benefit in general from that. As a matter of a
fact, it can also be said that some open source projects have also benefited
from Microsoft, Microsoft has spent a lot of money researching user interface
design, and the GNOME team has even mentioned creating their environment
similar to windows, KDE is said to work just like windows (it was recommended
over GNOME for people who are used to windows).
Another thing, microsoft leaves its MFC classes open source (to a point),
there maybe other cases where it does the same thing in other libraries. This
is not open source where you can modify and redistribute, but it is there to
help people find bugs and to learn how to use MFC better.
> Clearly violating the GNU license.
Well, it would be nice if you point this out more *clearly*, I doubt if this
was the case that RMS would sit idly by twidling his thumbs, GPL and LGPL are
his work, he would be on their case as he has done even to people who use his
license on their own code in the wrong way. (I recall some issue with
trolltech that came up).
Now, some time ago, I heard strong criticism about the BSD license, and they
point to the ftp.exe in windows that had the BSD license in it, it was
obviously being used and chances are with out any contribution to the
programmers. But that is the flaw of the BSD license. Does this ftp.exe
actually help windows? I dont think so, I didnt even know it existed until I
read that flaw in the BSD license.
> Screw 'em, I've learned my lesson, my design is new and unique, so I'm
> patenting it.
What lesson? The lesson was not yours to learn, or at least I dont hear you
saying that you released source code under GPL or LGPL and microsoft violated
you, but think about this, what makes you think microsoft wont screw the
patent if they screw your copyright?
> Otherwise NFS and AFS
> will be enhanced with MY unique features, and I'll get jack shit out all the
> effort I've spent. I've WATCHED it happen to others, and I'll be damn if its
> going to happen to me.
That sounds more reasonable. You want to make money for your "effort"
*period*, thats all she wrote, end of story, no excuses need to be said about
it.
If you want to patent it, I have no problem with it, we have patents on all
kinds of crazy stuff as it is, shot someone patented using a laser pen to
tease cats :P. Just dont come in here saying that GPL wont work, hell
*copyrights* would not work for what you want to do anyway, they just protect
your specific work, it does not prevent others from looking at your work and
coding it their own way, that is what patents are for. As a matter of a fact
there is no reason you could not patent and then copyright the open source,
patents force you to reveal your work anyway (that is what patents are about
public disclosure in exchange for a monopoly).
Now, if you want to get into a debate on whether patents are good or not in
general, I'd be more then happy to go there, even though we both know it wont
change your mind and it would be rather pointless.
Leyland Needham
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
