> Thank you so much for your kind and courteous explanation.  But I have been

You're welcome.

> That being the case, and I admit that I came in late on this thread, I fail
> to see why it would be controversial.  I read the SCO letter and it made a
> great deal of sense to me because I do not believe that anyone should be

Yes, but if you have read the previous news about SCO, you will find that
pretty much *all* their points are bald-faced lies.

> compelled to open their software (technology).  I am a staunch advocate of
> individual rights and copyright protection as well as patent protection.  I

As am I.

> have some designs that I will not patent because that will put them in the
> public domain where others may be able to discover the basis of invention.

Strange. I won't patent because it costs too much for far too little.

> I once was asked by Singer, et al to design a better autofocus that Kodak's.
> It was easy. I pulled their patents and decided to go a different route that
> would surpass the Kodak design. But that does not suggest that patent laws
> should be abrogated because a trade secret is viable.

Yes. However, if Kodak had used a trade secret, it would have been *much*
easier to merely copy their design.

> If I am to understand you, the controversy is that ones right to publish
> freely without consequence is being infringed upon.  If someone steals the

Yes.

> source code from someone else and publishes it at large, I see that as
> infringement and I cannot see any way to justify it.  According to the SCO

I agree. Theft is still theft.

> letter, that is a salient part of their argument.  Some significant pat of
> their source code was usurped.  I do not know if this is a fact.  But I am
> persuaded that protection against such theft is warranted.

SCO's argument is that *some* code that is in Linux came from their sources.

However, they have never disclosed even the files that were supposed to
have been "stolen".

There are lawsuits in progress which will force discovery of this. Because
of SCO's handling of this and refusal to give out information, it is assumed
that they are attempting to boost their stock prices. The information that
is requested is, at their own admission, already in the Linux code. Therefore
it couldn't hurt them to release the information *unless* it would destroy
their position.

> I appreciate your clarification, that open-software means anyone can give
> away their work without fear of being impugned or maligned.  But I wonder
> why that should even be a question when it has been a practice since I was a
> new physicist with a small company in Silicon Valley.   I have been laboring
> under the assumption, based upon what others have represented as their view,
> that all software should be "open."  I can only conclude that there is room
> for clarification on both sides of the issue because some are indeed
> advocating that legal protection of software rights be removed that it is a
> compelling force.

Yes, and since you have been a software engineerer for years and you don't
know much about open-source, imagine how legislators will take this.

> As you have stated, however, these must be the extremists, or fringe
> elements of the idea.

Unfortunately yes.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jay@sprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.