Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Contact PJ

You won't find me on Facebook

User Functions

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Merchant of Malice - Philosophy | 297 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Merchant of Malice - Philosophy

Authored by: PJ on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 01:26 PM EST

That's exactly why you don't want to use the BSD
license, despite how much corporate entities like
Microsoft love it, unless you want corporate
entities to take your code, add a bit, and thne
close it all off in proprietary restrictions.

And now you know why the FOSS community usually
prefers the GPL. It protected Linux from the
rapacity of SCO Group and its backer Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Merchant of Malice - Philosophy - Authored by: jkrise on Sunday, January 20 2013 @ 02:25 PM EST
- "It would be very quaint ..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST

How about just abstract vs physical?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 21 2013 @ 12:42 PM EST

Software never exists in physical form - therefore it's an abstract concept.

By allowing patents on software, the Law is allowing patents on abstract concepts which the Supreme's say is not patentable subject matter!

A mess in the Law of the Law created by the Legal practitioners.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )