Remember that someone with lots of money and attorneys can sue
anyone for anything and cost that person lots for defence
even if it is a frivilous suit that is dismissed.
The original suit will get headlines; the settlement will not.
ie. more FUD
Larry :-)
ps. If the plaintif attorneys had to pay for the defence cost when they
lost then fewer cases would be filed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Hires <rhires@earthlink.net>
To: <slug@nks.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 10:41 PM
Subject: [SLUG] M$ Contribution to Open Source? (was: Re: Tonight's
presentation)
> If someone from M$ were to contribute to kernel development, I don't
> think it would "poison" the kernel. It could be equally argued that M$
> "gave away" their IP (officially or not -- what a way for an ex-employee
> to get revenge!). Besides, the way the kernel code works, each author of
> each patch or module is responsible for it. If there were a lawsuit,
> only the offending code would be attacked or removed. This is sort of
> like what BSD did. They rewrote AT&T code from scratch.
>
> This is also something that demonstrates that the FSF is wrong in their
> desire to "own" the copyrights to the entire kernel code. If the FSF
> "owned" the copyrights to the kernel code, the M$ could just attack one
> organization. But since so many different people "own" different parts
> of the code, and the code has no official central organization, it would
> be very tough for them to sue. If they did sue, it would be just one
> person -- the one who wrote the code. They can't blame Linus for using
> it necessarily because the comparison could be made that he is simply a
> "common carrier" in much the same way as an ISP or the Telephone
> Company.
>
>
> Russell
> ____________________________________________________
> Without sharing, there would be no Internet
> Without the Internet, there would be no sharing
> Share your code, share your source
> -- Let's build something as great as the Internet!
>
>
> ----------
> >From: Ed Centanni <ecentan1@tampabay.rr.com>
> >To: slug@nks.net
> >Subject: Re: [SLUG] Tonight's Presentation
> >Date: Sun, May 13, 2001, 22:22
> >
>
> > patrick wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday 13 May 2001 09:38 pm, you wrote:
> >> > patrick wrote:
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > > in this day u better have some powerful to replace else with.
> >> > > Linux is quite powerful. i just read the other day that some
> >> > > guy that used to work for microsoft has been messing
> >> > > with the kernal and has has 3x performance increases in
> >> > > some areas with it. he even mentioned wanted to write
> >> > > some code for Linux, hopefully the kernal. isnt that cool
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > NO IT'S NOT!
> >> >
> >> > Microsoft would dearly love to be able to claim that some part of the
> >> > Linux kernel was "stolen" or adapted from their proprietary ideas or
> >> > code. I really don't want ANYONE who has ever seen any part of
> >> > microsoft code to be working on the Linux kernel regardless of their
> >> > motives or expertise. It's just too easy for good lawyers (and MS
has
> >> > plenty!) to create trouble with intellectual property issues. It's
> >> > unfortunate if someone with the best of intentions and who can really
> >> > make a contribution has to be rejected but the danger is real and the
> >> > freedoms we enjoy must be protected by keeping the kernel free from
any
> >> > claim of non-original code.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ed.
> >>
> >> thats very interesting. i didnt realize that microsoft could
> >> actually do that. the Linux kernal is not microsoft product.
> >> so how could microsoft sue. give me some details.
> >> thanks
> >
> > Ask the people who tried to publish "The Wind Done Gone" a parody of
> > "Gone with The Wind"
> >
> > Ed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:29:17 EDT