Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Apple So, how serious is the legal battle between Apple and the various Android phone makers, really? Surely, it's just logical business sense that's behind it, right? Calculated, well-planned precision strikes designed to hurt Android where simply making better, more innovative products isn't enough? Well, no, not really. We already knew Steve Jobs took this personal - now we know just how personal.
Thread beginning with comment 494398
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Wed 26th Oct 2011 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: So I guess that..."
Member since:

Mach was not written BY Carnegie Mellon.

Well, the Mach 2.0/2.5/3.0 code under licence, written *AT* Carnegie Mellon (aka using its resources, human and technical) is own by CMU. As such, the people who worked on it don't own any copyright on it.
As so, claiming that one individual can get the credit for the whole is clearly misleading.

It was initially written AT Carnegie Mellon. Avie initially wrote it as part of his PhD. After a while, he wound up working for Steve Jobs at NeXT, where Mach became the kernel for NeXTSTEP and he further developed it. So YES, it was very much credited to Avie.

You said Apple deserve the credit for Mach kernel. Now you're saying that Avie deserve it (while is only one of the student working on it then), trying to link that hiring a student make you the new owner of what he could have wrote before, himself doing under the umbrella of another organisation!

By this definition, my own employer should be credited for all the code I wrote on my own up to my contract start date.

Or for a better analogy, it's like claiming current Linus Towarld's employer deserves credit for Linux kernel.

That's plenty silly.

Thanks to give credits where it's due.


Reply Parent Score: 2