Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 19:11 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>>That was, I think, the concern of the OP.
>
>
> Again, the mark in trade.
>
> If you signed an agreement for private code that forbid your company
> from showing any lineage to the original owner, that's 100% different.
> Specific, written agreements between two parties are far more
> enforceable because they are explicitly defined.
>
My company didn't sign any licenses to use its own code.
>
>>I have said nothing about Red Hat. I am not frustrated.
>
>
> Okay, that's just what most of these have boiled down to in the
> past. ;->
Point taken.
>
>>I'm not a lawyer. I only know that I was at a company which used
>>a term in source comments which another company later trademarked.
>>We were forced to change those comments in source to remove the
>>use of the trademarked sign. This was in source which was not
>>distributed (except to contractors who helped maintain it, under
>>NDA).
>
>
> Did your company have a written agreement? Most companies put extensive
> trademark restrictions in written agreements to prevent their company
> from being blamed by changes in the derivative.
>
My company signed no licenses to use its own code.
[snip]
>>Why would anyone be frustrated with the Red Had(R) Corporation?
>
>
> It's just come up a lot of times on this list. After hearing a lot of
> people bitch and moan about Red Hat(R) Linux because they used a Cobalt
> product, I had absolutely 0% problem with Red Hat when they put an end
> to it after Sun forced them. I still hear about how "bad" Red Hat(R)
> Linux was, or how "uncontrolled" it was, based on the Cobalt products.
>
Well, I've never felt anything like that. I've had only cordial
relations with those people. (I used to use Blue Hat at one time.)
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
