ed wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:51:41 +0000
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Should we really reject code from Novell?
>
> yes. as a matter of principle. they are polluting our code base through
> possible agreement with ms.
It depends on which code is covered by which agreements.
Keep in mind that anything published under the GPL would be protected
by the GPL license, and the GPL-3 license.
Code released under LGPL license would also be protected.
If anyone gave Microsoft code to either of these projects, Microsoft
might have the right to sue or press criminal charges against the
individual contributor who illegally claimed that his contribution was
original, but - in the very worst case, Microsoft would have to notify
the manager of the affected code that a violation had occurred, and the
manager could then replace that code with uncorrupted code.
Alternatively, Microsoft may end up having their patent nullified by
prior unreported art. If the prior art existed, and was not mentioned
it the patent application, it can still be nullified.
Microsoft has a number of defensive patents, but even Microsft's
lawyers know that patent nullification isn't worth the risk. A patent
that protects you from predatory claims is better than trying to
enforce those patents and end up not only having your patent nullified,
but also having the patent awarded to an original creator such as
Richard Stallman.
The "First to File" rule means that the patent can't be reassigned to
an earlier inventor, but it doesn't mean that the prior art can't be
used to nullfy the patent if it was fraudulently obtained by
withholding knowledge of prior art.
> --
> Regards, Ed :: http://www.gnunix.net
> just another unix hacker
> Women are paid $.75 for every dollar a man would make, because Mr. T
> said so.
|
|
