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 own English and you can't use it unless I say so - it's
stupid and ridiculous.
Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B C++ has nothing to do with
Microsoft. Even in C#, which they developed and where they own key
components of the run-time, code you write belongs to you (though
licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your
compiler license - in exactly the same way some people call GPL
infectious).
Thanks Richard.
I did see something about Microsoft owning or making a claim on
ownership C++ in the av...@avaaz.org site who were raising awareness of
the group of corporate nasties trying to change US political thinking.
They had something like 200,000 responses to that event, but I do not
know the results.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php , a like group trying to get
support for absolute web control. This is the second such attempt I've
seen. I gave support to the first.
If I can find it all again I'll post the url. I too thought it was
stupid and didn't take much notice when I read it but it made me think,
at the time, what if they own if, case, while and do, etc. This is why I
remembered the article.
Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under contract
to a company then they do not own their work, the company does, even if
the work was done on unpaid holidays or at home during unpaid after hours.
If, say a programmer or developer is employed by a company or
organisation and they write code and say develop a site in their own
time, using open source applications, and contribute the whole thing to
Open source or under GPL, etc, can the company/organisation stake a claim?
Also, if a programmer writes code snippets and contributes snippets to a
larger unit, for instance, a kernel or app. From the above comment, he
still owns the code snippet.
If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are donated
free of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does that make the
whole (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when no one entity
owns it?
I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going on
under the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over 200
instances yet I see no one discussing or displaying code comparisons to
show that it is true. Surely it is incumbent on the complaintant to
provide proof.
Roger
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
