|
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
Please post corrections hear.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Please include a link to the article you are referencing.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
Please post comes documents here.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
I've been aware of FileZilla for a long time, and I'm pretty sure it's not a
Mozilla project. (I'm also a longtime Mozilla contributor.)
https://filezilla-project.org/
There's no mention of Mozilla there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 06:21 PM EDT |
An example came to my mind to drive home how a company restricting an external
interface like that would disrupt things and is so obviously wrong. Bank
electronic transfers and ATM interfaces I'm sure rely on some documented specs
for communicating, an "API" if you will. I suppose those were
probably jointly developed by a few of the large banking institutions to
designate how those transfers are to be communicated by software so they will be
recognized. If those banks that developed it said they control to rights to use
those interfaces, that is collusion among competitors (big legal no-no) to
stifle competition from entering the market. (Or if it was one company, it's
still an anti-competitive monopoly) If a credit union or small bank startup
isn't allowed to use those interfaces to do business electronically, they
basically can't exist in our culture. No one will use a bank that can't do any
electronic transfers or access ATMs.
If they disclose those instructions for communicating with them, they don't have
a right to prevent people from using that information. That's another reason
this seems so very wrong. It's being referred to under copyright, but it's
really a restriction on use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
Has anyone other than the usual suspects (Microsoft and Apple) filed an Amicus
brief supporting Oracle?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
If Oracle obtains copyright coverage of APIs, that establishes a
walled garden for each vendor which will take b2b agreements to
enter (increased cost of business). FOSS would probably establish
a Creative Commons style approach to re-establish the balance
within the FOSS walled garden. Proprietary software vendors would
likely not want to expand the scope of general access to their
APIs because anyone could become a competitor with tighter
restrictions on the use of their own APIs.
--GregB
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 03 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT |
So many bright people and none of them know Latin. It should read
"Amicorum" instead of "Amici's". And then again,
"Amici" is a plural, so even if they wanted to demonstrate their
ignorance, it should have read at least "Amicis' ".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|