Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-21 13:57:37

Paul A Bristow wrote:
> silly software patents that are doing little but enrich some members of the
> legal progression.

C'mon, $$$ licensing aside (it enriches shareholders), unless
prosecuted, RCU patents enrich the LTC guys. IBM's Invention Achievement
Plateau Awards and all that. :-)

Ha! Note that under SCO's crackpot theory (inspired by the FSF's
crackpot theory regarding "based on" copyright derivation a la
"Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of
the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a
GPL'ed class.", IBM does
(kind of) own RCU but can't publicly disclose it (due to nonsensical
reading of AT&T contracts, ignoring side letters, etc.) because it's
sorta "UNIX derivative" method and/or concept and/or code infected by
viral SCO's license on ancient SysV stuff that it was in contact (is
"based on") and hence got contaminated (same as with FSF's
contamination theory***).

And since patenting requires public disclosure... IBM just can't
patent it without owing SCO a petabuck or two in contractual damages
(copyright claim arising from subsequent use of purportedly SCO's
copyrighted material after license termination for breach aside for
a moment).

Man oh man.


Once code is written and placed under the GPL, any code based on
that code and distributed will also placed under the GPL. Thus,
there is nothing a university could do with a developer's code if
it is based on previously GPL'd code anyway. There is no good
reason NOT to assign code to the FSF.

and yields "From:
"Jonas Jacobson via RT" <copyright-clerk at fsf dot org>" and "FSF
Assignment Administrator Jonas Jacobson".

Man oh man.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at