[App_rpt-users] Allstar Node

David McGough kb4fxc at inttek.net
Thu Dec 27 01:14:14 EST 2018


My reasoning is simple--if private intellectual property is
unintentionally released, which scenario is least damaging:

1. A binary blob that can't be easily reverse engineered and can only be 
used in a very specific, limited scope way.

2. A source code file that once disclosed can be copied by anyone 
in the future, for ever more. Something like:

		void my_secret_spy_function() {
			//
			// patented or licensed algorithms
			//
			//
		}


I would argue that #1 would be the least damaging to an unknown owner's
intellectual property rights. At least an attempt has been made to limit
the damage to any intellectual property, while waiting for the dust to
clear.

Twenty two months ago, I fully expected a new copyright owner to emerge,
once Jim's Estate was settled---easing many of my concerns.  Those were
the claims being made at that time.  Now, with the records of what has
actually transpired, I really don't know what to think.


It's pointless to argue semantics any further.


73, David KB4FXC



On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Willem Schreuder wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, David McGough wrote:
> 
> > So, what happens if a supposed copyright owner shows up 10 years from now
> > and says:  "That code or function (or whatever) was never GPL2 and should
> > never have been released!" ---and they have reasonable proof?
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the argument.
> 
> Are you saying that it is not appropriate to share the source, because you 
> are not sure that the it is covered under the GPL?  In that case, are you 
> not opening yourself to greater liability by continuing to modify and use 
> it, if you are not sure whether it is covered by the GPL or not.
> 
> The whole point of the GPL is that once the code is released under the GPL 
> that there is an explicit grant to EVERYBODY to do with the code as they 
> see fit, the only restriction being that you must continue to share the 
> source.
> 
> It seems to me that if you comply with the GPL, you have a reasonable 
> argument that you acted in good faith and you can claim innocent 
> infingement, regardless of who the original copyright holder is.
> 
> If on the other hand it is true that the GPL does not apply, you are quite 
> right to worry about modifying and redistributing the code.
> 
> I apologize if I misundertood your argument, but I am not following.
> -Willem
> 
> ================================================================
> Dr. Willem A. Schreuder,  President,  Principia Mathematica
> Address:  445 Union Blvd, Suite 230,  Lakewood, CO  80228, USA
> Tel: (303) 716-3573   Fax: (303) 716-3575
> WWW: www.prinmath.com   Email: Willem.Schreuder at prinmath.com
> _______________________________________________
> App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at lists.allstarlink.org
> http://lists.allstarlink.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit http://lists.allstarlink.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users and scroll down to the bottom of the page. Enter your email address and press the "Unsubscribe or edit options button"
> You do not need a password to unsubscribe, you can do it via email confirmation. If you have trouble unsubscribing, please send a message to the list detailing the problem. 
> 



More information about the App_rpt-users mailing list