Thank You D. Jay Newman. I am a physicist and engineer when I have to be, and I write code. I would not profess to be a software engineer based upon the incredible and amazing work some of my employees have done. They are the software engineers. That, however, is not important. I believe that this sort of colloquy is intellectually healthy and serves the industry very well. Thank you for your courteous reply. Regards, Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Jay Newman" To: Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:07 PM Subject: Re: SCO lobbying Congress about Linux > > 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. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.