free sco unix

[Polytropon]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:20:43 -0400, Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> wrote:
> According to what I recall of my 'business law for managers' classes: As 
> long as we don't claim we own it, and only *referring* to the company who 
> does or it's products, no.  It's an identifying mark: You can use it to 
> identify.

That's correct, and you can see an evidence directly on
the FreeBSD main web page:

	Based on BSD UNIX(R)

This indicates that the name "UNIX" is a registered
trademark (which is registered to its owner).



> It's extremely hard to claim a copyright on a single word: You have to meet 
> an orgininality requirement that a single word is going to have trouble 
> meeting.

There is another important term, but I'm not sure how to
translate it properly. In German, it's "Schaffenshoehe",
refering to the "level of work you put into creating it".
This finalizes in patent law. To make sure nobody can make
money out of "trivial patents", such as patenting the
word "or" and forcing everybody to pay a license fee for
using it, there is a certain barrier that prohibits
copyright claims on "too simple things".



> A longer work, a story or a section of code, is much more original, so you 
> can take out a copyright on it.  This means you have the right to say who 
> can and cannot make copies.  (Mostly cannot...)

Correct, those are the "licensing terms" common to software
licenses, but they basically apply everywhere where permissions
to do something are granted, or vice versa.



> But if you give someone 
> the right to make a copy, they still can't say that *you* made that copy. 
> (But they must say that the words are yours, unless you've given them the 
> right to do otherwise.)

This topic is currently in the news in Germany: "Intellectual
theft" - where you claim other's persons words (and work) to
be your own, i. e. quoting without indicating so.



> (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is 
> often an example.  It's just a list of names and numbers.)

Interesting, never tought of that, but sounds obvious.



> A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or 
> company.
> 
> A copyright is a license/right: It allows you to control what other people 
> do with your work.  (Or some of it.)
> 
> They are two very different, if somewhat confusing, things.
> 
> Another example:  If you wrote a program, you'd probably want to say who 
> can sell it (or give it away) and under what conditions.  That's copyright. 
> (Even if your conditions are just 'don't take off my trademark'.)
> 
> You'd probably also want people to know who wrote it, so you'd put your 
> name on it.  That's a trademark.

Thanks for making this important difference clear.



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...