Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Dec 1998 01:22:13 -0500 (EST) | From | David Feuer <> | Subject | Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux |
| |
See bottom of page for the message (pine misconfigured right now....).
David Feuer dfeuer@his.com dfeuer@binx.mbhs.edu Open Source: Think locally; act globally. On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Nicholas J. Leon wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Richard Stallman wrote: > > # The US Constitution and the US legal system have an interesting view > # of the question--and it isn't what most people think it is. Their > # view is that patents don't exist for the sake of patent owners. The > # official reason for patents in the US is "to promote progress." > > While I've been following this thread for what seems to be years now, > something has struck me as being missed by most posters. > > We all must remember that regardless of the literature, the United States > isn't a democracy[1]. We are a country ruled by corporations and > businesses. Our laws are in that direction was well as the apparent "will" > of our leaders. > > Patents, copyrights, personal rights, intellectual rights: step back a > second a look at the laws that govern those concepts. There is a definate > pattern. They provide rights in favor of business, and reinforce personal > behavior patterns that benefit them. >
They didn't start out this way....... Oh well.
> Things aren't going to change here, I'm afraid. Though it goes against the > grain of my programming self, in this case we need to think solely about > 'work arounds', not 'bug fixes' because we never will get our way. >
The generic patent workaround: come up with something ever-so-slightly better and patent it. For example: given a patented compression algorithm, if you can come up with a new one that a) compresses files over 5GB to 1 bit less than the original b) adds some implicit redundancy coding. c) runs 1% faster on a PCjr or d) uses 4 bytes less memory.
> <pessimism off> > > My $0.02 ... > > > [1] which, imho, is a very poor choice for a system of government. > Popularity != ability to lead.
So how would you structure the government? It is awfully hard to come up with a system in which the ability to lead plays a major role.
> > G'day! > > -- n i c h o l a s j l e o n > / elegance through simplicity / > / good fortune through truth / http://mrnick.binary9.net > / not all questions have answers / mailto:nicholas@binary9.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |