| 1 |
> it's stupid to say : open source (as GPL, LGPL, FLOSS etc..) is not |
| 2 |
> necessary as we can just buy "open source" (but closed in fact) |
| 3 |
> software. because of - closed source is "IP" (intellectuall property - |
| 4 |
> watever this means, abstractive and poor words) and NOBODY exept the |
| 5 |
> owner CAN modify it, change etc. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Closed Source isn't Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property |
| 8 |
merely is what it is. And what it is quite simply is 'property' (in |
| 9 |
whatever physical manifestation that takes) generated by one's |
| 10 |
Intellect(good old grey matter). Closed or Open source is merely a |
| 11 |
legal framework that defines how persons (other then the 'owner' of |
| 12 |
said IP) may use the IP in question. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
For example, say I was the person who came up with the idea of sending |
| 15 |
data down a wire using packets. The concept of the packet is my IP. I |
| 16 |
then create a physical manifestation of my idea in the form of a |
| 17 |
document outlining how my idea works. Assuming I don't destroy the |
| 18 |
document and leave it forever locked in my mind I now have to make a |
| 19 |
choice about what legal framework to place around my IP to 'protect' |
| 20 |
it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Organizations like Microsoft chose to put a heavily restrictive legal |
| 23 |
framework around the IP (closed source) whereas FLOSS organizations |
| 24 |
tend to put less restrictive legal frameworks around their IP (open |
| 25 |
source). And regardless of how restrictive (or not) the legal |
| 26 |
framework is, it still exists in one form or another. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-Drew |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives