The drifted SCO thread has opened a new arena. "IS there a place for a de facto IP freedom realm"

[Monty J. Harder]

On 9/27/07, Bradley Hook <bhook at kssb.net> wrote:

> Restated: The *license* is not a contract, but agreeing to the license
> creates an implied contract.


That's better.  The reason why I bring this up is that the FSF says that a
license is not a contract, and MS seems to say that it is.  I assume their
reason for doing so is to try to muddy the waters when it comes to
"Intellectual Property".

In any jurisdiction where IP issues will ever be handled in a manner
> reasonable for these purposes, IP rights are of real value.


There are at least four different kinds of "Intellectual Property":
1) Copyright
2) Patent
3) Trademark
4) Trade Secret
Each of these has its own law.  Throwing them together and calling them by
the same name tends to conflate them, rather than improving understanding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20070927/3b9b6226/attachment.htm