MS souce code 9860
On 26 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, Daeron
Gee, and what does using code you're not licensed to use consbreastute? Copyright infringement. One would think with all your research you might have noted that being in breach of the license removes your right to copy the software.
To quote Peter... "Idiot".
I'm not talking about Microsoft, or the GPL. I'm talking about ANY case of someone accusing another of violations.
on July 25 2005 19:44:24 GMT billwg Well you do get a great deal of benefit from...
No. How you leapt to that conclusion is quite baffling. We're talking about demanding that someone turn over source code just because you suspect them of violating your copyright. There is no such clause in the GPL, nor did I mention it in connection with this even ONCE in my post. The only place i mentioned the GPL was referencing them as successful copyright infringement cases where source code access wasn't nevessary. So why not get that bug out of your butt stop tripping off to fantasy land.
Ooooh Mr "I used a search engine to come up with a dissertation on patent law, but I don't really understand the basic issues so i'll pretened I do" has made another mistake here.
If never Far to much emphasis is being placed on the notion that copying code is some kind of shortcut to success and that the copier gets a huge benefit from doing...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, B Gruff wrote on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:56:15 +0100 s-fear-bullcrap-g Well...
The DMCA doesn't apply to cases that violate the law. You can't hide behind the DMCA to protect you from being discovered. The DMCA protects you if you have a legal right for protection. Infringing someone elses copyright doesn't give YOU the right protect that infringement.
Of course that's too much for someone like you to comprehend, and you'd rather just spout bullpoo you don't understand.
We're not talking about the GPL. We're talking about proprietary code, as the original author made clear. Of course you'd rather continue to cloud the issue.
We're not talking about the GPL. We're talking about proprietary code.
Beats me. I wasn't talking about SCO or IBM. Your comments are superfluous.
It annoys the poo out of me when people sit around and try to devise ways to f*** up an already f***ed up system even more. It peees me off people that have no understanding of copyright or trademark act like they know the answer to the problems they don't understand in the first place.
I can't count the number of times i've had to correct people in here about the differences between patents and copyright, yet people continue to use them interchangably and make stupid statements like the original author of this thread.
"Yes, let's force companies to turn over their source code to prove they're not violating patents". Stupid.
Linux Advocacy from Newsgroups