[odf-discuss] Request for Digg help

[Ian Lynch]

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 02:39 -1000, marbux wrote:

> On 5/28/07, Ian Lynch <ian.lynch at zmsl.com> wrote:
>         If a commercial software company released its source code to
>         public view
>         
>         A. It would be impossible to stop competitors from legally
>         copying it
>         B. There would be no advantages and only disadvantages to the
>         company 
>         C. The company would certainly go bankrupt very quickly
>         D. It could use a license to control how much freedom there
>         was for
>         others to make use of the code.
>         
>         D is correct, it might not be our moral preference but it
>         reflects the 
>         situation as it exists legally in most (all?) countries.
> 
> I think it is the best answer of the choices isted but is not entirely
> true, i.e., it errs on the side of over-generalization. For example,
> in the U.S. and Europe, you can't use copyright to stop someone from
> reverse engineering your software for interoperability purposes.

Given that this is a simple question aimed at getting typical 16 year
olds and their teachers to understand the relationship between copyright
and licensing with no background in the graduate level law, the best
answer is all that is needed. If I ask a physics question based on
Newtonian mechanics in high school I don't expect an answer to worry too
much about say air resistance never mind more complex realities such as
special relativity.  

>  And in many nations, IP laws are not enforced. 

Question is whether its legal or not, the enforcement is another issue
entirely. But this question at the moment is only likely to be set in
the UK at present.

> The point being that the ability to use a license to control how much
> freedom there is for others to make use of the code is not absolute.

No, but it is an option and a pretty standard way of trying to do it in
principle. BSD, GPL, LGPL, Shared Source etc all provide different
freedoms. Enforcement in different circumstances goes well beyond the
scope of a level 2 test. (A) is really a simplified version of MS's
shared source making it clear that just opening up the source code for
view does not necessarily make it Free software. They could specify look
but don't copy in the license. They might or might not be able to defend
it in a court of law but clearly M$'s lawyers believe they would have a
strong case or they wouldn't risk it. 

>  However, I'll agree that the ability comes much closer to absolute
> control than absolute freedom.:-) 

The point is really that if we want principles understood for beginners,
some compromises have to made between simplicity and detail. If we make
every test so complex no one can pass it we won't get many customers :-)
Level 2 tests are a level below university entrance which are a level
below first degree so you have to take into account who its aimed at.

Ian
-- 
New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications
www.theINGOTs.org

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.