Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[David Kastrup]

"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:

> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
> 85ab99zkw2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85ab99zkw2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
>>> 85k58d226h.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85k58d226h.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>>>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
>>>>> 85ocxrkkfj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85ocxrkkfj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try reading the GPL sometime.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, is it valid?
>>>>
>>>> That's entirely the choice of the recipient.  If he considers it
>>>> invalid, he does not have a license, and has to behave accordingly.  If
>>>> he considers it valid, he has a license granted under terms.  As long as
>>>> he heeds the terms, there is nothing to fear for him.
>>>>
>>> Well, that is your opinion certainly, but it begs the question.  Is
>>> there any requirment to honor a copyright asserted for something that
>>> has no commercial value?  Is such a copyright valid at all?
>>
>> Certainly.  I can't break into a house and steal arbitrary things
>> without commercial value.  Ownership is not dependent on monetary
>> conversion.
>>
> You keep trying to change the venue from copyright to something else.

You keep trying to change the topic from copyright to money.

> Even so, if you steal nothing of value, you are not prosecuted to the
> extent that you might be if you qualify for grand larceny.

Since when is the punishment of robbery made dependent on its success?

> That is set as a dollar amount.
>
>>> It is much easier to see that source for something that has commercial
>>> value, say Windows itself, is a protected work since the value is not
>>> disputed.  But if it, like Linux, is not sold for a profit
>>
>> Huh?  How do you suppose RedHat is making a living?
>>
> Providing support for people unable to get Linus to work by itself
> apparently.  Basically it is engineering by the pound.  Or hour if you
> prefer.

Well, seems like appearances are deceiving to you.

>>> and, worse, the only people making money from it are those who are
>>> being paid to make it work for some client, it is not so clear.
>>
>> Nonsense.  Copyright is attached to a work, not to its price tag.
>>
> But is it a "work"?  With nothing unique or artistic, can source
> qualify?

If there is nothing unique in it, there would be no incentive to copy,
would it?

> You cannot copyright the contents of a telephone book, for example.

Since when?  Databases can be copyrighted, and particularly telephone
book copycats have been sued out of business here.

> Or a recipe for pork and beans.

Tell that to the recipe book publishers.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum