[olug] I'm one of the nails in SCO coffin...

[Bill Brush]

They're very similar, but if it was just trademarks Disney wouldn't be
spending millions lobbying to extend copyrights.   Trademarks don't
expire (or at least they can be renewed), copyrights do (and can't be
renewed).

Don't confuse copyright and licensing.  GPL is licensing, not copyrights.

The way a it was explained to me, is that a copyright is for a given
work, and derivative works.  If someone takes your work and makes
derivative of it without your permission you can sue them to cease and
desist.  Under GPL works that are copyrighted to the originator are
licensed to anyone who wants to use or modify them provided they
include the source code.

That is my understanding anyway, no doubt there are subtleties I am
missing, but without an NDA, you can post source code belonging to a
third party, and providing you don't try to pass it off as your own,
or make money off of it, there is precious little they can do except
ask you to stop.  If they don't ask you to stop, then they have given
their tacit approval for their source code to be made public.  Under
the law everyone has to be treated at least nominally fairly, so they
can't ask one person to stop and not another without opening
themselves up to challenge in court.

If you would like for more clarification I have several lawyers I can consult.

Bill

On 8/23/07, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 23 August 2007, Bill Brush wrote:
> > In order for copyrights to be held they must be protected and
> > enforced, which is why Disney is so rigorous about protection their
> > cash cows.
>
> I thought that was just trademarks? Is Linux now public domain then, since the
> GPL is never enforced?
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>