namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Thu Apr 19 20:29:06 UTC 2001
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>>> Secondarily, I'm saying even if you didn't implement my code, but
>>> followed the published document that describes the spec (which I also
>>> put under this license), you'd have to follow the same rules.
>> This cannot be accomplished with an open source copyright license. This
>> sounds like a job for trademarks.
> On what basis do you claim I can't do this with an open source copyright
> license? What OSD section does it violate?
The problem is not with "open source" but with "copyright license". The
right you mention is just not one of those that a copyright holder has.
If I bake a cake based on the recipe in your copyrighted book:
1) the cake is not a derivative work of the book, and
2) the cake is not a derivative work of some other cake that you baked.
> Developers who didn't particularly care about
> compatibility and used VJ++ because it came free from MS weren't incented
> to mandate compatibility from MS,
That only worked for MS because of their overwhelming market power.
Defying standards is (probably) a losing game for everyone else.
>> This doesn't seem to be at all the same thing. Nobody has to execute
>> a license of Microsoft's in order to implement the same API's as Windows,
>> unless doing so involved creating a derivative work of some copyrighted
> That's precisely what I'm saying. What's the copyright on the
> documentation for the Win32 API as provided by MS?
It doesn't matter what it is. See the cake example.
There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
More information about the License-discuss