Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 02:50:40 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Peter Vereshagin <peter@vereshagin.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix Message-ID: <20110617025040.fbbf4c8b.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110617000708.GR5630@external.screwed.box> References: <4DF9174F.50708@danskdatacenter.dk> <4DFA03A3.8090500@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20110616152941.GL5630@external.screwed.box> <201106161154.06300.rsimmons0@gmail.com> <20110616162032.GN5630@external.screwed.box> <3d43539af0e60964a0406b8df304f16c.squirrel@www.magehandbook.com> <20110616182011.GO5630@external.screwed.box> <20110616184620.GB68867@guilt.hydra> <20110616192133.GP5630@external.screwed.box> <1B9EDB7CFB3ABCAA2E566153@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> <20110617000708.GR5630@external.screwed.box>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:07:08 +0400, Peter Vereshagin <peter@vereshagin.org> wrote:
> And does FreeBSD Foundation own its FreeBSD UNIX then? If it does, did it pay
> for it? Does it certify its FreeBSD as a UNIX and how much does it pay?
Basically, the main page says "based on", this states a
fact and does not say anything about ownership or a
certificate ("is a certified UNIX").
> Is there a way to define what
> set of bytes can (or not) be the identification and/or copyrighted material? I
> supposed the length can be such a criteria, no?
I think basically you own the copyright about ANYTHING
you create. In how far this is to be considered a
"creational act at a certain level" is still debatable.
> How is it possible to sell the what you do not have?
In a licensing context, you don't sell something material.
You give permission to do something, usually for a certain
fee. So you could say you "sell the right to do something".
Selling things you don't own... big business in banking
and stock trade. :-)
> And if you have it that means you hold it and it means you own it.
Not neccessarily. Even if you have power over something,
it doesn't imply that you own it (like a rental car), as
just by having power over it it doesn't become one's property.
> For example, you can pass that as an inheritance and change that something
> according to your needs. Isn't it what the ownership is, by definition?
Ownership focused on the creational act maybe (the changing).
Wow, it gets complicated... :-)
> I believe Unix was such a word in 19[67]0s?
> How about that same 'Morphtkdlfgjfjdsksjfnmvmdkedkfjgjg' from this thread? is it?
> How much the trouble must it be? What units it can be measured? For example, no
> any monkey of those performing typewriters theorem:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
>
> no any single monkey of them I believe shall not have any trouble at all with a
> task?
As soon as commercial interests enter the field, money talks.
When you can use a name, even "as simple as UNIX", has the
power to make the big bucks, control over it is important.
> DS> A longer work, a story or a section of code, is much more original, so you
> DS> can take out a copyright on it.
>
> But in scientific world, the cases are known when the whole theorems are being
> invented simultaneously.
In this world, the "winner" writes history, so inventions get
attributed to the person who first made it public.
> 'story or a section of code' is a somewhat less original.
Depends on the story and the code. Of course, implementing
a bubblesort algorithm in Java isn't any original, but still
the coder owns the copyright for this portion of code. It's
debatable in how far this code can be distinguished from
example code, e. g. if he uses the same style and identifiers
as in a public example.
> There are many modern languages I believe with a very long words. German
> probably isn't the best instance to showcast but is a good hint.
It is. Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitaensmuetzenhalter.
And you can construct even longer ones. In Russian, there's the
most famous gOCTOnPNME4ATEJIbHOCTb (dostoprimetshatyelnost).
> It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else I believe.
Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone
can't express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the
media in Germany - "honorable" academics (now politicians) got
convicted having copied massive amounts (>50%) in their thesis,
without STATING that they copied them (proper quoting with
identification of the source).
> I mean why anyone should just care about who made the copy of the bytes from
> one place to another?
The media industry cares a lot. As soon as they can profit from
every byte copied, still stating that those are "their bytes"...
> Words themselves --- aren't they a national property? Those are my in the exact
> moment I use them, but it's only the right to use them, not the ownership,
> right?
I would say that as soon as you use words (that live in "public
domain") to form your thoughts (which _you_ "own") into
sentences, you will be attributed the creation of those
sentences, so yes, I would even guess that this can be seen
as an immaterial ownership.
> DS> A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or
> DS> company.
>
> Fiction.
> If product is unique then people use to mark it with different name(s)
Not neccessarily. If products are similar, people will use one
stereotypic product name to address all products of that kind,
just thing about the Walkman (which is a product by Sony), which
got the "default name" for any portable cassette player.
> Fioction too. Nothing allows me to control what other people do. And it's not
> only me to be able to allow.
> Rich and armored people are allowed, of course. But this is not because of the
> law. They can make the law to allow them do what they just use to do without
> it. But this is not because of the law. This is because those are powerful.
Those people use the trick of "responsibility". This means they
"take responsibility" for things that don't affect them theirselves,
while others have to carry out their orders and have to live with
the results.
Basically, law is made by man. Not by "man in general" (everybody),
but of a subset that thinks to be "responsible"...
> DS> Another example: If you wrote a program, you'd probably want to say who
>
> No I don't. It's just not important to me. Why should I want to?
Because you CAN - and in the same statement, you are free NOT to
care about it. Software publishing and licensing terms are very
different, considering today's software. On one hand, there is
code without mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then
there is the "rape me" BSD-style licenses, the "contribute back"
GPL licenses, and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not
take code into mind, but restrict the users in what they are
allowed to do with programs. Keep in mind that _those_ are not
licenses as the previous ones - they are a _contract_ that you
implicitely sign (by using, by opening the package, by buying
the software or the like). It's _highly_ debatable in how far
those kind of contract is legal in some places of the world.
> Sounds to me if I told a buyer how he/she must cook a potato that I sell. And
> restrict any other receipt to be used for it. I can add also that I can control
> and will reliably know the what they will do with my potato. People would find
> me crazy, run away and never buy from me. ;-)
Oh, MICROS~1 seems to have big success with their EULAs that
basically contain the same content as you just mentioned. :-)
> From the what I can see on the software I issue I'm certain that nobody cares
> about the both. But I don't care about that nobody cares: that means everything
> works as needed ;-) Why should I ever care about my conditions and why should I
> want the people to know who wrote it?
This _may_ be interesting when it's about making money. However,
there are licenses that exactly allow that (take for free, modify
without telling anybody, selling under a new name).
> People should better know many better
> things than (god damn it) software and dedicate their time and memory on those.
> ;-)
People are 110% occupied with their software, how should they find
time to use their brain? :-)
> And, it's easy to be turned down from a privilege to a charge to face: for
> example, some of the code is as bad as porn and as immature as a child.
And to _not_ make that obvious, code is kept secret, and just the
compiled results, wrapped in a shiny package with bells and whistles,
is sold. :-)
> So we
> can easily take its author and sue him/her due to a child porn.
In traditional EULAs (and in many free licenses, too), the author
or the owner deny any responsibility for what their work might
cause to others. It's "take it as is, or do NOT take it".
> Profit in the
> sake of the state! Ain't it a good aim for every kind citizen...
It's the basis of whole econimical, social, financial and clerical
societies...
> So as for me it's just no problem if you claim that code I release is yours.
If you _allow_ this (by not restricting the use with the means of
usage or licensing terms), it's completely okay, valid, and legal.
> It's even cool: that means how much you like it. And, name it different way,
> please. That means if this code is a violation of the law than that differently
> named code is too. ;-)
This might get interesting if you release a new revolutionary
cryptography framework in a country where the government doesn't
like that the citizens keep things secret. :-)
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110617025040.fbbf4c8b.freebsd>