On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 19:23 -0400, D. Jay Newman wrote:
> > Hang on - ideas aren't copyright, only a "work", like a song, a book, a poem, or a web site.  You can hear 
> > "Strawberry Fields" and dig up some ground, plant strawberries and put up a sign - the Beatles can't stop you.  
> > But if you put the words to the song on the sign, you've breached their copyright.  Herbert's web site is 
> > granting permission for people to use his stuff (including software) for non-commercial uses, and this is a 
> > very common thing, especially with PICs.  Wouter's WISP628 is a very similar.
> 
> The problem is that it seems like (and remember that I refuse to visit
> the website *because* of his agressive and non-enforceable "license") that
> the publisher is claiming ownership of all the *ideas* on the site.

Umm, if you haven't visited the site, then how can you form an opinion
on what my "license" is about.

For the record I NEVER say the word idea, here is a relevant snippet:

"All contents on this page remain the property of myself, with exception
to the code for the ENC28J60 chip which is the property of iTooo."

Notice I say "contents". Does contents MEAN ideas? I didn't think it
did, but perhaps to some it does?

> Claiming ownership of his code is his perogative and is fully legal.
> Claiming ownership of the ideas without going through the patent process
> is just silly.

But I'm not. It looks like there is a misunderstanding on your part
about what my statement says.

> > > In your case I couldn't publish your wording or use your exact schematics,
> > > but I could (theoretically, in reality I won't even read your page) use
> > > any ideas you published.
> > 
> > Not *my* case (or my web page) - I said the above in reply to someone else's comments.  You're right, you 
> > couldn't *publish* Herbert's stuff without his permission, but you could use it to build a system using his 
> > designs and software and use it at home - he's said precisely that - but you can't make a commercial product 
> > without his permission.  You keep talking about ideas - ideas aren't copyright (only work which uses or 
> > expresses them) nor patentable (only an embodiment of them is).
> 
> >From the published "license" statement he seems to be claiming ownership of
> everything including the ideas. And you're technically right: only the
> embodiment of an idea is patentable in most cases.

Does my statement above REALLY include "ideas" to you?

If so that's interested, I never read it that way.

TTYL

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist