29 Nov
2004
29 Nov
'04
2:44 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:14:34AM -0500, Joe Hartley wrote:
they are certainly very close, but it does seem to me that strictly
speaking they are not identical. I'm not qualified to say for sure tho.
and perhaps it acts as a behaviour modifier to the copyright owner if
they perceive that 'their' idea (or its expression), belongs to
mankind and that they are merely given temporary stewardship of it?
[ok, enough bullshit from me i think!]
best regards
--
Tim Orford
check out Darl's rant yourself:
http://www.sco.com/copyright/
thanks for the explanation:-)
I must admit that i havnt been following SCO or Groklaw for the same
reason i dont play Neverwinter Nights. Some things are just *too*
entertaining!
just to be
clear, i'm making an esoteric distinction between the
ownership of a copyright (which can be bought and sold), and the
ownership of the "expression of an idea" itself.
Hmmm, a very fine hair to split. The "expression of an idea" can be
copyrighted, and if it is, then they become one and the same.
[...]