|
Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written,
Your work
is your own, regardless of whether they own the language you write
it in or
not.
Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen?
You
can't own something in the free domain? This is like saying that I
own
English and you can't use it unless I say so - it's stupid and
ridiculous. Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B C++ has nothing to do with Microsoft. Even in C#, which they developed and where they own key components of the run-time, code you write belongs to you (though licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your compiler license - in exactly the same way some people call GPL infectious). Thanks Richard. I did see something about Microsoft owning or making a claim on ownership C++ in the avaaz@xxxxxxxxx site who were raising awareness of the group of corporate nasties trying to change US political thinking. They had something like 200,000 responses to that event, but I do not know the results. http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php , a like group trying to get support for absolute web control. This is the second such attempt I've seen. I gave support to the first. If I can find it all again I'll post the url. I too thought it was stupid and didn't take much notice when I read it but it made me think, at the time, what if they own if, case, while and do, etc. This is why I remembered the article. Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under contract to a company then they do not own their work, the company does, even if the work was done on unpaid holidays or at home during unpaid after hours. If, say a programmer or developer is employed by a company or organisation and they write code and say develop a site in their own time, using open source applications, and contribute the whole thing to Open source or under GPL, etc, can the company/organisation stake a claim? Also, if a programmer writes code snippets and contributes snippets to a larger unit, for instance, a kernel or app. From the above comment, he still owns the code snippet. If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are donated free of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does that make the whole (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when no one entity owns it? I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going on under the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over 200 instances yet I see no one discussing or displaying code comparisons to show that it is true. Surely it is incumbent on the complaintant to provide proof. Roger |
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
