Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights

 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
On Jul 24, 3:55*pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm
>


And you made a posting here on virtually the SAME topic on 2 July
2010.

Can't you remember what you previously posted here?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2010
On Jul 25, 12:18*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> <unsnip Peter the Whiner's wanton censorship>
>
>
>
> > Giveaway software published by open source developers is assumed by most
> >> users to be "free" -- no cost and unencumbered by any any licensing
> >> restrictions. But clearly that's not true. No cost? Yes, because the
> >> software has zero value on the open market. But open source software
> >> remains
> >> the exclusive property of the developers who created it, just like any
> >> other
> >> software. And apparently that's placed most end users of open source
> >> software in a bind..

>
> >> "More than 65% of respondents who believed that they were not
> >> distributing
> >> open source software were in fact providing software to customers,
> >> partners
> >> or others outside the organization. In addition, only 22% of companies
> >> were
> >> using any tools or services to determine whether software contained open
> >> source, despite the fact that 84% use open source software."

>
> >>http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm

>
> >> As confused as the Larry D'Loserites are about property rights, this is
> >> hardly surprising.

>
> > And you made a posting here on virtually the SAME topic on 2 July
> > 2010.

>
> Yes. It's hot topic. *Many companies are haviung to come to grips now with
> the unexpected costs of complying with open-source licensing.


Have you any idea what the 'unexpected' compliance needs and costs
are? They would be fairly minimal unless the organisation in breach
thinks they can ignore the matter or decides to weigh in for a fight.

>
> > Can't you remember what you previously posted here?

>
> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?


The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see. The
matter has peen previously fully discussed on its merits - simply read
the thread you kicked off on 2 July.

Yes, you continue to deliver personal attacks. So why cannot YOU
discuss things on their merits instead of resorting to personal
attacks.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2010
peterwn wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> > Can't you remember what you previously posted here?

>>
>> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
>> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
>> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?

>
> The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see.


It appears that impossible's understanding of usenet etiquette is as
deficient as his understanding of software licence compliance matters.



 
Reply With Quote
 
peterwn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2010
On Jul 26, 2:00*am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed)....

>
> >> > On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> <unsnip Peter the Whiner's wanton censorship>

>
> >> > Giveaway software published by open source developers is assumed by
> >> > most
> >> >> users to be "free" -- no cost and unencumbered by any any licensing
> >> >> restrictions. But clearly that's not true. No cost? Yes, because the
> >> >> software has zero value on the open market. But open source software
> >> >> remains
> >> >> the exclusive property of the developers who created it, just like any
> >> >> other
> >> >> software. And apparently that's placed most end users of open source
> >> >> software in a bind..

>
> >> >> "More than 65% of respondents who believed that they were not
> >> >> distributing
> >> >> open source software were in fact providing software to customers,
> >> >> partners
> >> >> or others outside the organization. In addition, only 22% of companies
> >> >> were
> >> >> using any tools or services to determine whether software contained
> >> >> open
> >> >> source, despite the fact that 84% use open source software."

>
> >> >>http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2010/06/30/4879060.htm

>
> >> >> As confused as the Larry D'Loserites are about property rights, this
> >> >> is
> >> >> hardly surprising.

>
> >> > And you made a posting here on virtually the SAME topic on 2 July
> >> > 2010.

>
> >> Yes. It's hot topic. *Many companies are haviung to come to grips now
> >> with
> >> the unexpected costs of complying with open-source licensing.

>
> > Have you any idea what the 'unexpected' compliance needs and costs
> > are? They would be fairly minimal unless the organisation in breach
> > thinks they can ignore the matter or decides to weigh in for a fight.

>
> The costs of compliance include, but are not limited to, developing a
> compliance system and the processes to implement it, staffing oversight, and
> training. Businesses that are in compliance need have no fear of being sued.
>
>
>
> >> > Can't you remember what you previously posted here?

>
> >> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
> >> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
> >> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?

>
> > The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see.

>
> Not in the the post you made, because you censored my comments! This is the
> signature technique of the Larry D'Loserites, who are are afraid to have a
> discussion that involves more that selected snippets of someone's remarks..
> Sheer cowardice on your part!
>
> > The
> > matter has peen previously fully discussed on its merits - simply read
> > the thread you kicked off on 2 July.

>
> > Yes, you continue to deliver personal attacks. So why cannot YOU
> > discuss things on their merits instead of resorting to personal
> > attacks.

>
> I've made no personal attacks. End the censorship and I will stop describing
> you, quite accurately, as *a wanton censor.


If 'Peter the Whiner' and 'Larry D'Loserite' are not personal attacks,
then Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny must really
exist.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Peter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>peterwn wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> "peterwn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> > Can't you remember what you previously posted here?
>>> Yes, and I remember that you censored my post then, just as you have now.
>>> What's the matter? You can't debate this issue on its merits. You have to
>>> doctor posts like all the other Larry D'Loserites?

>>
>> The allegedly censored parts are on the thread for all to see.

>
>It appears that impossible's understanding of usenet etiquette is as
>deficient as his understanding of software licence compliance matters.


... and the surprise here is ... what exactly ?
Suggest leaving it to play in its sand box alone (ie without replying).


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights -- Part III AD. NZ Computing 2 08-12-2010 07:31 AM
Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights Judges 13:18 NZ Computing 6 07-30-2010 12:10 PM
Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights AD. NZ Computing 7 07-27-2010 07:50 AM
REVIEW: "Intellectual Property and Open Source", Van Lindberg Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor Computer Security 0 01-05-2009 06:15 PM
Project survey: Commercial Companies and the Open Source Community praz Python 0 03-13-2006 06:48 AM



Advertisments