revOnline and Open Source

[Richmond]

On 31/07/13 16:49, Robert Mann wrote:
> Oups! i'm surprised. I thought the opposite would be true :: if nothing
> specified, it's deemed "public knowledge"?
>
> As far as patents are concerned, once a mechanism is documented on line, it
> is deemed to be public knowledge and thus no more patentable (one could do
> it but anybody knowing the prior publication and proving it would be able to
> challenge the patent).
>
> Now it is true that copyrights protect the actual "wording" you use in a
> document, and is applicable to softwares. And copyright applies whether or
> not you actually put the copyright logo name and year.
>
> On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack,
> then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge.
>
> Clearly it would simplify to be able to add at the publication step a
> corresponding OSS declaration.
>
> I strangely assumed so far that contributions at revOnline were for the
> common good, thus freely re-usable common knowledge. Are there any other
> folks around who though so?

yes; Me!

Richmond.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/revOnline-and-Open-Source-tp4668100p4668171.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode