gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy


From: ZnU
Subject: Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:02:15 -0500
User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X)

In article <4981ff85$0$21795$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
 "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:znu-8E1E21.12513029012009@news.individual.net...
> > In article <4981a3de$0$21807$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, 
> > "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
> >> news:znu-D89E5D.21301628012009@news.individual.net...
> >> > In article <4980ee5f$0$21796$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, 
> >> > "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > I agree with you that harm to third parties is irrelevant as a 
> >> > legal consideration.
> >> >
> >> > But Party B clearly is harmed, despite there being no money 
> >> > involved.
> >> >
> >> > Say Party A and Party B both have an interest in having an 
> >> > Ostrich Farm Management application developed, which they both 
> >> > intend to use. So they sign a contract: Party B will write 
> >> > modules to keep track of issues related to bird mating and 
> >> > feeding, Party A will write the module to connect the 
> >> > application to the International Electronic Ostrich Exchange, 
> >> > and and they'll all trade source code so they can independently 
> >> > develop and maintain the entire application afterwards.
> >> >
> >> > Party B finishes his modules first, and fires the source off to 
> >> > Party A. When Party A finishes his modules, though, he refuses 
> >> > to share the source with Party B.
> >> >
> >> > No money has changed hands at all during this process. Yet Party 
> >> > A has clearly violated the contract, and Party B has clearly 
> >> > been harmed as a result.
> >> >
> >> Not so clearly, I think.  First, you ignore whether or not Party A 
> >> is distributing the improved modules gratis.  If so, Party B is 
> >> receiving any benefit anticipated from the mutual effort.  Is that 
> >> an "irreperable harm"? The JMRI case has hinted that the SCOTUS 
> >> has somehow established that there has to be real, not just 
> >> statutory assumed, harm.  If both parties have obtained what they 
> >> expected, then where is that proof of actual harm?
> >
> > Even if Party A is distributing binaries at zero cost, and so Party 
> > B still has access to the completed application, Party B doesn't 
> > have access to full source code for that application and therefore 
> > can't separately develop and maintain it. Having access to source 
> > code is clearly something of value.
> >
> Not so clear.  If Party A does further development and releases it 
> gratis, Party B is again whole and has suffered no harm.  If Party B 
> has source from PartyA, they may or may not decide to do more work, 
> but that is their own concern.  PartyA has provided whatever benefit 
> could accrue.  PartyB would have to show that they are prevented from 
> doing some undefined thing, which I don't see any court caring about. 
> PartyB may never do anything, so they are not harmed.

The idea that it's valuable to have access to source code under a 
license that allows modification is not nearly as abstract as you're 
trying to make it out to be.

-- 
"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them
‹ that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer
apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too
small, but whether it works [...]"        -- Barack Obama, January 20th, 2008


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]