[linux-elitists] California Copyleft Research Initiative of 2001
Sun Jul 1 13:29:19 PDT 2001
> >>>>> "BM" == Bulent Murtezaoglu <email@example.com> writes:
> BM> The possible MS argument is much easier to state and sell: the
> BM> GPL effectively prohibits a certain industry from using the
> BM> fruits of publicly-funded research.
> So maybe change the copyleft requirement to "public domain."
Only if you can get it written into law a more serious meaning of public
domain. Public domain used to ( I think ) mean what I keep describing.
Now it seems to mean "I can throw this stuff in my stuff and claim I
made it up myself and give no credit at all and sell it as proprietary
> Actually, that'd possibly be better. Since Microsoft seems hip on the
> public domain, ALL RESEARCH must go public domain. Getting an early
> start means that we can take Microsoft execs words and apply them to a
> new idea: all research must be public domain.
Business would just come up with a new word that doesn't start with R,
to cover that.
Although, an interesting definition could be, if businesses want the R&D
tax break, it has to fall under this, and if they want to keep their research
super-secret, they have to pay a higher tax bracket than their corporate
Now THAT is fair. They choose. (watch them send their loudest swimmingest
sharks to feed on that one, tho...)
> When/if they come out with another proposal just limiting copylefted
> code to the public domain, well, they will look like they're
> supporting the California Public Domain Research Initiative.
> Which, hey, good for us either way.
> ~Mr. Bad
I remain skeptical, but I'm an idealist at heart. Schizophrenics are
us. Hey shuddup, let her write the .sig already. No. Yes dammit,
otherwise we'll never get out of this email. Oh - fine then.
* Heather * Disciplined thinking focuses inspiration rather than blinkers it.
-- G.L. Glegg, "The Design of Design"
More information about the linux-elitists