Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-16 Thread Joel Rees
ro$loth has never passed up an opportunity to bully. >>> >>> -- >>> *From:* Digimer >>> >>> *To:* Community support for Fedora users >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 12:54 PM >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: criminal use of

RE: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership

2012-08-02 Thread Patrick Kobly
IANAL, and I suspect you are not either. YMMV - employment law and intellectual property law differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. -Original message- From: Dave Ihnat Sent: Thu 02-08-2012 07:43 Subject:Re: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership To

Re: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership

2012-08-02 Thread Ed Greshko
On 08/02/2012 07:04 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > Hi, you have completely destroyed the attributions here, making it > pretty hard to follow the conversation. Which is good. Since this is kind of useless on this mailing list. -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to b

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-02 Thread Digimer
*From:* Digimer mailto:li...@alteeve.ca>> *To:* Community support for Fedora users mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 12:54 PM *Subject:* Re: criminal use of linux Legal fights with companies sitting o

Re: criminal use of linux [not]

2012-08-02 Thread M. Fioretti
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 12:27:25 PM +0100, Ian Malone wrote: > On 2 August 2012 11:36, M. Fioretti wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 08:13:33 AM +0100, Ian Malone wrote: > > > >> licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your > >> compiler license > > > > Ian, > > could you provide

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-02 Thread Jack Craig
portunity to bully. >> >> -- >> *From:* Digimer >> >> *To:* Community support for Fedora users >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 12:54 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: criminal use of linux >> >> >> Legal fight

Re: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership

2012-08-02 Thread Dave Ihnat
Once, long ago--actually, on Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 07:26:02PM +1000--Roger (are...@bigpond.com) said: > Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written, > Your work is your own, regardless of whether they own the language > you write it in or not. True, unless: 1. You contractu

Re: criminal use of linux [not]

2012-08-02 Thread Ian Malone
On 2 August 2012 11:36, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 08:13:33 AM +0100, Ian Malone wrote: > >> licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your >> compiler license > > Ian, > could you provide some concrete example of this? > This is the from the Visual C++ Express

Re: was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership

2012-08-02 Thread Ian Malone
On 2 August 2012 10:26, Roger wrote: Hi, you have completely destroyed the attributions here, making it pretty hard to follow the conversation. Richard Vickery wrote: > Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written, Your work > is your own, regardless of whether they own the la

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-02 Thread eoconno...@gmail.com
uot;Christopher Svanefalk" To: "Community support for Fedora users" Subject: criminal use of linux Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 6:26 am Best, Christopher Svanefalk On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Richard Vickery wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Joe Wulf wrote: Correct... Mic

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-02 Thread Christopher Svanefalk
Digimer >> >> *To:* Community support for Fedora users >> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 12:54 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: criminal use of linux >> >> >> Legal fights with companies sitting on the kind of cash MS has is a >> nearly impossible battle

was criminal use of linux [not] -now: ownership

2012-08-02 Thread Roger
Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written, Your work is your own, regardless of whether they own the language you write it in or not. Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen? You can't own something in the free domain? This is like saying that I

Re: criminal use of linux [not]

2012-08-02 Thread M. Fioretti
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 08:13:33 AM +0100, Ian Malone wrote: > licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your > compiler license Ian, could you provide some concrete example of this? Thanks, M. Fioretti -- http://mfioretti.com -- users mailing list users@lists.fedorap

Re: criminal use of linux [not]

2012-08-02 Thread Ian Malone
On 2 August 2012 07:01, Richard Vickery wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Roger wrote: >> >> Is it Criminal use of Linux, or more like criminal use of the world's >> worst copyright and patent. >> My take on this is that as Microsoft owns C++ anyt

Re: criminal use of linux [not]

2012-08-01 Thread Richard Vickery
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Roger wrote: > Is it Criminal use of Linux, or more like criminal use of the world's > worst copyright and patent. > My take on this is that as Microsoft owns C++ anything written in C++ like > code falls under copyright. > Er... nobody can

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Richard Vickery
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Joe Wulf wrote: > Correct... Micro$loth has never passed up an opportunity to bully. > > -- > *From:* Digimer > > *To:* Community support for Fedora users > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 1, 2012 12:54 PM > >

Re: criminal use of linux [not]

2012-08-01 Thread Roger
Is it Criminal use of Linux, or more like criminal use of the world's worst copyright and patent. My take on this is that as Microsoft owns C++ anything written in C++ like code falls under copyright. I'm probably way of centre here but it certainly seems that way. Maybe this n

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Joe Wulf
Correct... Micro$loth has never passed up an opportunity to bully. > > From: Digimer >To: Community support for Fedora users >Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 12:54 PM >Subject: Re: criminal use of linux > >Legal fights with companies s

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread EGO2.1
On 08/01/2012 01:10 PM, Frank Cox wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:49:01 +0200 Christopher Svanefalk wrote: Why is this not being brought into a courtroom, rather than companies just paying licenses? Cost. License Fee: $1 Legal cost to fight it in court: $2 Chance of winning in court: < 100%

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Frank Cox
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:49:01 +0200 Christopher Svanefalk wrote: > Why is this not being brought into a courtroom, rather than companies just > paying licenses? Cost. License Fee: $1 Legal cost to fight it in court: $2 Chance of winning in court: < 100% (Note: 99.% is still < 100%) What c

RE: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Patrick Kobly
-Original message- From: Christopher Svanefalk Sent: Wed 01-08-2012 10:48 Subject:Re: criminal use of linux To: Community support for Fedora users ; > Best, > > Christopher Svanefalk > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jack Craig

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Digimer
Microsoft put a lot of money into that legal fight. SCO lost, so apparently they decided to take another kick at the can, but more directly this time. They're using classic FUD to scare people into paying royalties on software when there is no legal precedent backing MS' claims. They simply h

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Christopher Svanefalk
Best, Christopher Svanefalk On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jack Craig wrote: > Typical M$ thinking, and within recent history, SCO!! > Thing did not go very well for SCO in the end. Why is this not being brought into a courtroom, rather than companies just paying licenses? > > Litigation,

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Jack Craig
Typical M$ thinking, and within recent history, SCO!! Litigation, a sure death trap... On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Skunk Worx wrote: > Uh oh... > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/**2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_**deal_amdocs/

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-08-01 Thread Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I
On 08/01/2012 12:02 AM, Skunk Worx wrote: Uh oh... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/ "Microsoft has claimed since 2007 that more than 235 of its patents are violated by the open source operating system Linux, while critics claim Redmond has a cynical eye o

Re: criminal use of linux

2012-07-31 Thread Roger Barraud
AKA Extortion, Racketeering. On 1/08/2012, at 4:02 PM, Skunk Worx wrote: > Uh oh... > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/ > > "Microsoft has claimed since 2007 that more than 235 of its patents are > violated by the open source operating system Linux,

criminal use of linux

2012-07-31 Thread Skunk Worx
Uh oh... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/25/microsoft_patent_deal_amdocs/ "Microsoft has claimed since 2007 that more than 235 of its patents are violated by the open source operating system Linux, while critics claim Redmond has a cynical eye on the project as another source of revenue."