Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual propertyrights

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by peterwn, Jul 24, 2010.

  1. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    peterwn, Jul 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "impossible" <> 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.
     
    peterwn, Jul 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peterwn

    Peter Guest

    Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual property rights

    peterwn wrote:
    > On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >> "peterwn" <> 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.
     
    Peter, Jul 25, 2010
    #3
  4. peterwn

    peterwn Guest

    On Jul 26, 2:00 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "peterwn" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > >> "peterwn" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:....

    >
    > >> > On Jul 24, 3:55 pm, "impossible" <> 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.
     
    peterwn, Jul 25, 2010
    #4
  5. Re: Most companies using open source violate intellectual property rights

    In article <>, Peter <> wrote:
    >peterwn wrote:
    >> On Jul 25, 12:18 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    >>> "peterwn" <> 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). :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 26, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    380
    Liza Smorgaborgsson
    Jan 30, 2006
  2. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Intellectual Property and Open Source", Van Lindberg

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jan 5, 2009, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    640
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jan 5, 2009
  3. AD.
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    446
    Sweetpea
    Jul 27, 2010
  4. Judges 13:18
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    441
    Gunnar Gren
    Jul 30, 2010
  5. AD.
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    326
Loading...

Share This Page