Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Aug 2007 21:37 UTC
Permalink for comment 263895
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Not the same thing that your discussing. If the UNIX copyright had been in OIN , then OIN would have been at the basis of the defense of everyone involved against SCO.
Sigh!
OIN is for patents, not for copyrights.
There was (and still is) ample defense of Linux against charges of copying from Unix simply by virtue of the fact that there is no Unix code in Linux. There is no need (in terms of defending Linux) to have Unix code released under the GPL.
You have completely no idea what your talking about at all , here! Do you really think that Unix copyright being made GPL as part of OIN would not be the #1 news , for MONTHS ? Do you have any idea what technology are under it ? and what it's controlling ? What it really means ? What ramification to all other OS it as ? NO ... so please , really , zip it.
Zip it yourself.
(1) OIN is for patents, not copyright.
(2) Unix code is already open source insofar as Unix 32V (ancient Unix) and the BSDs go.
(3) There are literally hundreds and hundreds of textbooks which explain in detail how Unix internals work. Here are just some of them:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Unix+internals%22&ie=u...
(4) Linux is not a copy of Unix, so it doesn't matter anyway.
You seem very, very confused about the difference between patents and copyrights.
Read up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Limits_and_exceptions_to_cop...
"A copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — this is called the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy."
"Another example could be if a book is written describing a new way to organize books in a library, a copyright does not prohibit a reader from freely using and describing that concept to others; it is only the particular expression of that process as originally described that is covered by copyright. One might be able to obtain a patent for the method, but that is a different area of law."
I know exactly why GNU/Linux was created ... it is your understanding that is under question.
It is all here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Manifesto
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
I think you are very much out of touch here. Linux has all the drivers, not Unix. Linux is steadily eating Unix's lunch.