Re: [ox-en] RedHat and Fedora and SuSE and Novell
- From: Martin Hardie <auskadi tvcabo.co.mz>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:47:16 +0200
We were having a conversation late last week about the term, in shorthand, "IP
Graham said some thing like "just that contrary to what rms is saying patents,
copyright, and design rights do have something in common - they involve the
legal granting of a right of monopoly".
I can't recall anyone telling him he was wrong here, and Seth and I had a
little chat about the term "exclusive rights".
Now has anyone read the Fedora or for that matter Red Hat Trade Mark pages?
Chris posted the link: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/
They are a form of Exclusive rights/ip rights are they not?
How come we feel so comforatble (or some of us do) with these companies
closing up their property in this way?
Felix raised it another way I think on nettime the other day:
"[This is unlikely to be a legal case, though from a semiotic point of view,
it's nevertheless puzzling. Is using images that are released under the GPL
the same than using source code released the GPL? Is including existing
images into new images, in this case, a screenshot of a kde desktop in a tv
series, the same as including existing source code into a new source code?
Felix]
Posted by Jonathan Riddell on Friday 31/Oct/2003, @17:09
from the 24h-to-3.2beta dept.
http://dot.kde.org/1067616574/";
So why is some property/info seen as "wanting to be free" whilst other types
are regarded as fair game for being treated as exclusive property?
Thanks
Martin
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://openflows.org/~auskadi/
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which
would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which is a
virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that
certainly exists or happened."Bishop Otto to Baudolino
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/