Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Seg, 2006-07-03 às 13:26 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > 
> > Seg, 2006-07-03 Ã s 11:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > > There's no ambiguity.
> > 
> > Sure. Of course not. When I want a passion fruit, I'll only ask for
> > "fruit" in the next restaurant I'm eating. If they bring me a passion
> > fruit without even doubting what I mean... maybe then I will be able to
> > agree with you that "intelectual property" is not ambiguous (although
> > I'll still disagree that it is _property_) :)
> 
> One again, min-RMS: in the context of this thread (and Wallace case), IP 
> means property rights under copyright and patent law (licensed under the 
> GPL). So where's ambiguity?

In the context of _you_ there might be that meaning, because...
   a) temporary monopoly is far different from property
   b) Wallace is not complaining of either copyright or patent
      infringement, but of alledgedly not being able to compete (while
      others seem certainly happy to do so).

> Here's more (I'll add it to 1.1 version of FAQ):

Please, stop vomiting the garbage you eat...

Rui

signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente