[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [OS:N:] Why Microsoft was right about Linux



Chris Spencer wrote:
This article is of course wrong about GPL = Open Source.  Gates is right
though.  A GPL is an "an intellectual-property destroyer."

Weird. I've released a bunch of projects under GPL, yet they still are my intellectual property. I still own the code and can do with it whatever I wish, including selling it for money, telling people "hey, you, I don't like you! You can't use my code!" and such.


It is my code and I can do with it whatever I wish, including releasing (and re-releasing) it under a license of my choice. GPL puts no prohibitions on the use of my software, but severly limits what other people can and can't do with the code itself. All licenses do this, whether open-source or proprietary.

The only way you can "destroy" intellectual property of a work is by placing it in public domain. While there is a (c) somewhere in the code, someone still owns that code and you can't use it if your use of it violates the license under which this code was given to you.

Regards,
--
Konstantin ("Icon") Riabitsev
Duke University Physics Sysadmin
www.phy.duke.edu/~icon/pubkey.asc

Attachment: pgp00005.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]