Date: 08 Apr 2002 09:43:54 -0700 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Abuses of the BSD license? Message-ID: <cubscuywc5.scu@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3CB14B08.91041978@mindspring.com> References: <200204051922.06556@silver.dt1.binity.net> <3CAE7037.801FB15F@optusnet.com.au> <3CAEA028.186ED53E@optusnet.com.au> <3CAED90B.F4B7905@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020406124622.019bfdc8@threespace.com> <3CAF7FB9.3259C392@mindspring.com> <qmu1qmzwkb.1qm@localhost.localdomain> <3CB1196B.403F465D@mindspring.com> <26g026zq9y.026@localhost.localdomain> <3CB14B08.91041978@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > "Proprietary", in this case, means: > > something that is used, produced, or marketed under > exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; > specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is > protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against > free competition as to name, product, composition, > or process of manufacture That agrees with the 10 or so dictionaries I've seen (though most are more general and only imply those concepts by using the word "own"). (One problem: the proprietor need not be an inventor or maker; he often is simply a purchaser of the rights.) > When code embodying trade secrets is licensed to a third party, > trade secrets are different than patents or copyrights, in that > the licensing of the code makes the licensee a propritor as well > (unless the license was written by a total idiot). Not according to your definition above. Those licensees are granted non-exclusive rights, and so don't meet your definition's requirement regarding "exclusive legal right" while only the proprietor has the exclusive rights required by your definition. (It is possible to license away your exclusive rights (so you may be excluded), but that's uncommon and not what you were referring to (see your "as well").) > If you come down to it, actually, the attempts at extension of trade > secret law to attempt to include stautory damages is actually a > bigger threat than software patents. So if you violate my copyright license condition of use that requires you keep my secrets, then I may sue you for copyright infrigement which gives a me better deal in court. And maybe I'll also sue you for the trade secret disclosure too. Interesting. But it makes more sense than being allowed to sue you for publishing benchmark results. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cubscuywc5.scu>