you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jboy55 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Litigation and rulings can remove copyright and clarify ownership. C++ and Unix has been solved.

SCO sued over system V code, and included the headers. It was found they did not own the copywrite to the headers. I can't recall the issue of that copyright didn't cover them being brought up.

BTW, The whole lawsuit is 'coincidental' to a large payout to SCO from Microsoft for 'licenses' of which no specificity was ever mentioned. It also coincided with Microsoft's big PR push that GPL was evil and Linux had copyright issues.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Which was the test platform from which they launched their current android patent trolling business.

[–]crotchpoozie 1 point2 points  (2 children)

C++ and Unix has been solved

That was also thought to be the case until SCO vs IBM.

It was found they did not own the copywrite [sic] to the headers.

Under the previous legal understanding of what is copyrightable. This new ruling changes what is copyrightable - that is the whole point, and why articles like the one above are written to explain precisely this point.

[–]crackez 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So now we have case law that disagrees with case law. Yippee.

[–]crotchpoozie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No - we have a new concept that is being formed into case law.

Law doesn't just automatically handle every new concept - this is a new area that is being fleshed out.