On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 06:12, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:47:15PM -0500, James Drabb wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 22:32, fred smith wrote: > > > Whatever would you want that for? > > > > > > not to mention, if you've ever seen it, you're tainted and anything you > > > write could be claimed by MS as derivative. > > > > While I am not a lawyer, I do not think that is how copyright laws > > work. You could not use the source code verbatim, nor could you use > > ideas from the code that was patented. However, you could use ideas > > from the code that is not covered by a patent. Think about how > > copyright really works and not how the RIAA/MPAA/MS/etc want you to > > think it works. You can go over a buddies house and watch a movie he > > purchased by you did not. You can listen to a song on a friends CD > > player that you did not pay for. > > But not make a new song based on that one. You can make a parody song that uses the same music and just changes the words to something similar (e.g. Weird Al) > > > You can read a book and write a > > similar story. > > Not *that* similar. And I hope you don't use the same characters. You can if it is a "parody" > > > You can create you own version of a popular piece of > > artwork. > > People have been convicted with copyright violation just by creating a > similar product to existing ones, without ever getting access to the > original. > > > I can write a book with a theme very similar to the LOTR with > > trolls, hobbits, elves, etc and it would be legal. I think copyright > > laws prevent the distribution of works that you do not own or have a > > right to distribute. That is why the RIAA has not sued anyone for > > downloading music, but for uploading music. > > > > As long as you did not sign an NDA with MS, I don't think they would > > have any legal recourse against someone who viewed their code and then > > used ideas from that code that are not covered by a patent. > > No legal recourse? Where did that someone get *their* copy? By violation > of copyrights, right? > > Anyway, I thought people here respected copyrights. How can the same > people that cry against ilegal use of GPL code by some corporations take > so light views on copyright when talking about Microsoft's (supposed) > code? > > I'm not saying you have just a view, but this is a public list, and from > these posts I had that view. I just hope to correct that view for any > public out there. > > > As I said, I am not a lawyer and can be way off base here : ) > > Neither am I. > > Regards, > Luciano Rocha -- Rick Eversole <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
