Re: implementing reiserfs in C++ for a new OS

["Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" <gorlando@futuretg.com>]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:

>On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:54:16AM +0200, Spam wrote:
>  
>
>> Take  as  an  example a inventor. If he has an idea that he wants to
>> protect he would need to patent it to protect it. Otherwise only his
>> work  can be protected with copyright. I am not sure that the actual
>> invention can be copyrighted either.
>>    
>>
>
>Who was the guy who invented the telephone separately of Bell
>at the same time?
>  
>
Was an italian, and he did before Bell. His name is Antonio Meucci.

Meucci open the copyright file 5 years before Bell, but don't have the money
to renew the copyright.

This is the story in Italian language:

http://www.stpauls.it/gio97/1797gi/1797gi5c.htm

>The reason Bell got his product pushed to the market was that he
>could patent it first.
>
>  
>
False.

>That's about it, the idea is not protected and the only way to protect
>it is by patents, but hey, where have we seen a patent that did more
>good than keep it at a neutral level?
>
>The way patents are dealt with is that everyone goes out and patents
>everything they can and then get money from the court because they
>"own the idea of a seesaw swing"...
>
>  
>
>> In  this  case  with  Hans,  Namesys and reiserfs/reiser4 the actual
>> written  code  and  documentation  etc  is covered by copyright. The
>> ideas  behind  the filesystems are not.
>>
Also this is false. Also the idea behind is copyright. This is the 
invention and the copyright not the stupid code, in C or C++ ;-)

I want to tell you more. In the year 2000, at Comdex. I introduce the 
FTKernelConfigurator idea, my idea.

I introduce to granroth and other people from KDE. Well, after some time 
appears magically the kernel configurator
inside the Kcontrol.

I suppose they stole my idea, and for me is logical. I don't yet find 
the time, to write the code for FTKernelConfiguator, but I will do.

I know in the past one of the high copyright attorney in America, was a 
causal meeting. I contact him to protect my FTLinuxCourse.

I meet him before Comdex 2000. He comment to me a great true: "Don't 
comment, or they will take".

Easy.

I will finish here with some comments:

    * At first, the truth is ethrnal. It is not important how bastard 
you are and how tricks you apply. The truth, is ethernal, is one, and never
        can be overwrite. You can only hide the truth, temporarely.

    * At second, because here all is clear, public. I expect the minimal 
respect that goes to the owner and inventor. It is a question
       of class and necessary morality. The Stallman GNU Public License 
warrants this morality to the owner.

    * The third and last point is that you can run in false mode, also 
for years, and stole the software, the onwer will re-create
       and will re-invent almost in ethernal mode. The movie 'Tron' 
offers a nice underline mode to these facts.

I expect NEVER to see here again words like 'asshole' or other offensive 
words.

Thanks,
Giovanni.

PS. Poor Capital people :-)

>> They would only be protected
>> by patents.
>>    
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>The only patent that makes any sort of sense to me is, even theoretically,
>is the medical patent. Medicine can take decades to implement so those
>guys will want sovereignity over their work.
>
>But there is the hidden aspect here as well: They would benefit from other
>people having access to the sama data, the same research, the same idea,
>and get it done faster and cheaper. Cut down the need for bootleg medicine.
>
>This is not so far fetched from this case either imo.
>
>Hans mentioned the cute movie script. Studios stealing scripts is not
>really the same thing. The movie does not exist yet, only the script,
>and what the studio is really doing is depriving the writer of his
>deserved compensation for his work. That's not reimplementing an
>existing idea.
>
>As for the poem translated into French, of course the original author
>has the copyright to his work, but the translator has the copyright
>to his translation. The idea is untouched. What if the Greeks of old
>had patented, nay, copyrighted as some people think ideas should be
>copyrighted, the common structures of storytelling?
>
>Or maybe if we couldn't use the material from old mythology, because
>they are the intellectual property of someone else?
>What about those guys who lived 50 years after the Greeks and took
>ideas from them into their own mythos, before the copyrights would
>have expired?
>
>  
>


-- 

-- 

--
Check FT Websites ... 
http://www.futuretg.com  - ftp://ftp.futuretg.com
http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com
	http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com/Certification
http://www.rpmparadaise.org
http://GNULinuxUtilities.com
http://www.YourPersonalOperatingSystem.com

--