|
| Authored by: webster on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
| ... for your analyses and expertise here and above. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
Especially since - if they are using GNU mount - they are
probably using GNU mount compatible filesystems.
I suspect that they have modified the original mount. I
wonder how much you would have to change before it becomes a
completely new work? We might get an answer to the question
about derivative works in this case.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- ... except - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
.
... and the patents therein?
... or do they get a "take back" and restart with pure proprietary
code?
In other words does distributing "stolen" GPL code render the whole
program GPL? Does it alter other peoples' joined
copyright on their code?
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- They get a choice - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 05:13 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
They say they have patent claims that are exercised in Red Hat distributed
software. If those claims are actually exercised by the software that they
stole, then they are in for a whole world of pain.
Firstly, they didn't invent the invention, they stole it as part of the stolen
code.
Secondly, that code exists as prior art in glowing red disclosures before the
date of the patent.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
