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." www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang), 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
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
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 http://www.google.com/search?q=jacobson+FSF yields "From:
"Jonas Jacobson via RT" <copyright-clerk at fsf dot org>" and "FSF
Assignment Administrator Jonas Jacobson".
Man oh man.