[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:44:28 -0500

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message 85ab99zkw2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85ab99zkw2.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message
"amicus_curious" <> writes:

"David Kastrup" <> wrote in message

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

You keep trying to change the venue from copyright to something else. 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. 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.

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? You cannot copyright the contents of a telephone book, for example. Or a recipe for pork and beans.

In any case, if the author chooses to give it away gratis, then the
option of charging for it is no longer applicable.

Huh?  If I compose and sing a lullaby to a child of mine, I no longer
have the option for charging someone else if he desires a performance
or a copy of the composition?

How confused are you?

Not as confused as yourself, certainly.  Your singing a lullaby is
almost certainly without value and would not be much of an artistic
"work" and might not qualify as subject to copyright.

Nonsense.  If it is worth repeating for someone, it would certainly
qualify.  If it isn't, the question does not arise, so there is no point
in denying it its state.

But you have to show that it is worth it.  Do you have a bona fide customer?

But regardless, your singing it doesn't "fix it in a medium"

I can write it down.

Or you could record it, but that is not what you said.

and so if you want to make a recording and sell it, you can still
charge, although, as I believe, no one will be found willing to pay
for a copy.

It doesn't matter.  If nobody is willing to pay for a copy, that still
does not entitle anybody to disregard copyright and make a copy without
asking me.

Well, that is the question. You are saying that you are the judge and jury, but you are not.

If all you do is sing again, that is up to the person hiring you.  You
would be well advised to get your payment in advance, I would think.

I hope you are being paid in advance for your postings.

What do you think?

reply via email to

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