| |||||||||||
Self-contradictorySelf-contradictoryPosted Oct 20, 2003 14:51 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Self-contradictory by coriordan Parent article: GNU-Darwin: Bounty hunters search for proprietary code The word "proprietary" is derived from the word "property", and indeed, that is its legal meaning. Linux (the kernel) as a whole IS the property of Linus (yes I know other people own bits of it ...). All the word "proprietary" means is "is the property of someone". Therefore, if it isn't proprietary (in a legal sense) it must be public domain - which Linux sure as hell ain't!!! By using "proprietary" to mean "closed source", you are merely abusing the word as per the Microsoft definition (look at your history - it WAS Microsoft that changed the accepted meaning of the word ...) Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
Self-contradictory Posted Oct 25, 2003 19:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Linux (the kernel) as a whole IS the property of Linus (yes I know other people own bits of it ...).That's a bit understated. Linus owns a minority of the Linux kernel he distributes. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about the kernel as a whole as property. There are large chunks of it in which Linus couldn't claim any property rights at all.
|
|||||||||||