John Souvestre wrote:
> Rightfully so, if that haven't given up that right. If you take it upon
> yourself to illegally build an addition to my house then I own it, not you. If
> fact, I'll probably sue you for doing it. Are you going to claim that I'm
> exploiting the trespass laws?
>
> By the way, don't cut my grass either. You might think it's an improvement but
> perhaps I don't. :)
The problem is that equating software to physical property is
problematic. Physical property, such as the house, has concepts like
trespass that don't work in the IP realm. Software, on the other hand,
has concepts like reproduction rights that don't translate well into the
physical property realm.
Patches aren't like an addition to a house. Patches are like an
electrical switch that has been improved to prevent a house from burning
down. The fix is its own body of work because it required the original
screw up to be noticed, recognized and repaired. Just because it
applies to a specific electrical setup, doesn't mean that it should
become the IP of the original electrical system designer.
> Software is property. The owner calls the shots.
And that's what I'm saying... The owner of the patch code or an
enhancement should retain control over that code. Simple concept.
I'm not arguing that a patch and enhancement writer should have rights
beyond the code that they actually write.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST