free sco unix
peter at vereshagin.org
Fri Jun 17 00:07:31 UTC 2011
You can't take no for an answer, freebsd-questions!
2011/06/16 18:20:43 -0400 Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> => To Peter Vereshagin :
DS> > CP> UNIX, the name, is a trademark. We can use it all we like here,
DS> > speaking
DS> > Do we need a license to use it? ;-)
DS> According to what I recall of my 'business law for managers' classes: As
DS> long as we don't claim we own it,
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?
> and only *referring* to the company who
DS> does or it's products, no. It's an identifying mark: You can use it to
No, I can't. I use 2 things: paper ID and a face.
The difference is those are not the set of the bytes. But both the trademark
and a copyrighted mnaterial are. Well, use to be. 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?
DS> I don't need a license to talk about Peter Vershagain, as long as I don't
DS> claim that *I* am Peter Vershagain. ;)
But who knows if you really are. I'm not, for example. ;) If you claim that you
are, and I claim that I am not, which of us is presumed to prove the own point?
DS> If I wanted to say that something I was selling was something you had made
DS> or endorsed, I'd want to pay you for a licence to use your name in that
How is it possible to sell the what you do not have?
And if you have it that means you hold it and it means you own it.
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?
DS> Your name isn't copyrighted: Anyone can copy it. But we can't *claim* it.
Is my name that bad that we can't claim it?
Is your name that same bad?
what's the matter about my name, anyway?
DS> > CP> about the UNIX trademark, its applicability, who owns the trademark,
DS> > and CP> so on. We just can't claim *we* own it, misapply it to things to
DS> > which
DS> > So it's just enough to reserve a copyright on this word usage and we will
DS> > have just another reason why we can't claim we own it ;-)
DS> > Sorry my confusion, it's just a new thing to me and it seems as absurd as
DS> > those ideas.
DS> It's extremely hard to claim a copyright on a single word: You have to meet
DS> an orgininality requirement that a single word is going to have trouble
I believe Unix was such a word in 190s?
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:
no any single monkey of them I believe shall not have any trouble at all with a
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
'story or a section of code' is a somewhat less original.
How much longer such a work must be?
For example redskin Indians may had the one word or at least very few of them
to mean the whole speech.
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.
Why me again? I know I can not take out any right like this because it's never
implemented in terms of reality for any single regular someone, although it's
not a fiction for the big organizations but a nice tool to point and shoot.
> This means you have the right to say who
DS> can and cannot make copies. (Mostly cannot...)
It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else I believe.
> But if you give someone
DS> the right to make a copy, they still can't say that *you* made that copy.
Do you mean anyone cares about who exactly handmade everyday cosumerics?
I mean why anyone should just care about who made the copy of the bytes from
one place to another?
This can be a machine, or a network of them, without any human intervention, by
And they even can belong to absolutely nobody. Why not?
DS> (But they must say that the words are yours, unless you've given them the
DS> right to do otherwise.)
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,
DS> (And note that a pure list of facts can't be copyrighted: The phone book is
DS> often an example. It's just a list of names and numbers.)
So if 'roses are roses are roses' were written nowadays they could not been
sold and thus become famous and thus to be a culture contribution?
Is it of any good to be so restricted and morally poor like that?
DS> A trademark is a mark: It marks a product as having come from a person or
If product is unique then people use to mark it with different name(s)
If it isn't but producer force the product to have its own name then it's a lie
If it isn't and producer use it then trademark is not needed. Same about roses
goes here, ain't it cool? ;-)
DS> A copyright is a license/right: It allows you to control what other people
DS> do with your work. (Or some of it.)
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.
DS> They are two very different, if somewhat confusing, things.
And sound yet absurd imho.
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?
DS> can sell it (or give it away) and under what conditions.
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. ;-)
> That's copyright.
Problem about legacy systems: the rights easily become a duties. No, thanks I
don't want to take it out ;-)
DS> (Even if your conditions are just 'don't take off my trademark'.)
DS> You'd probably also want people to know who wrote it, so you'd put your
DS> name on it. That's a trademark.
>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? People should better know many better
things than (god damn it) software and dedicate their time and memory on those.
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. So we
can easily take its author and sue him/her due to a child porn. Profit in the
sake of the state! Ain't it a good aim for every kind citizen...
So as for me it's just no problem if you claim that code I release is yours.
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. ;-)
73! Peter pgp: A0E26627 (4A42 6841 2871 5EA7 52AB 12F8 0CE1 4AAC A0E2 6627)
More information about the freebsd-questions