<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Er... nobody can take ownership over work that you have written,
Your work
is your own, regardless of whether they own the language you write
it in or
not.
Where is it stated that Micros[hi]t owns C++? when did this happen?
You
can't own something in the free domain? This is like saying that I
own
English and you can't use it unless I say so - it's stupid and
ridiculous.<br>
<br>
Indeed <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B</a> C++ has nothing to do
with
Microsoft. Even in C#, which they developed and where they own key
components of the run-time, code you write belongs to you (though
licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your
compiler license - in exactly the same way some people call GPL
infectious).
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks Richard.<br>
I did see something about Microsoft owning or making a claim on
ownership C++ in the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:avaaz@avaaz.org">avaaz@avaaz.org</a> site who were
raising awareness of the group of corporate nasties trying to
change US political thinking. They had something like 200,000
responses to that event, but I do not know the results.<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php">http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php</a>
, a like group trying to get support for absolute web control. This
is the second such attempt I've seen. I gave support to the first.<br>
<br>
If I can find it all again I'll post the url. I too thought it was
stupid and didn't take much notice when I read it but it made me
think, at the time, what if they own if, case, while and do, etc.
This is why I remembered the article.<br>
<br>
Ad for ownership, I think it depends on circumstances. I have heard
instances of when one writes a work while employed by or under
contract to a company then they do not own their work, the company
does, even if the work was done on unpaid holidays or at home during
unpaid after hours.<br>
<br>
If, say a programmer or developer is employed by a company or
organisation and they write code and say develop a site in their own
time, using open source applications, and contribute the whole thing
to Open source or under GPL, etc, can the company/organisation stake
a claim?<br>
<br>
Also, if a programmer writes code snippets and contributes snippets
to a larger unit, for instance, a kernel or app. From the above
comment, he still owns the code snippet. <br>
If a vast number of snippets from a vast number of coders are
donated free of encumbrance to enhance a kernel or app, how does
that make the whole (Linux) responsible for copyright violation when
no one entity owns it?<br>
<br>
I'm probably waffling on here but it seems that there's more going
on under the carpet than we may be aware of with MS. Mentioning over
200 instances yet I see no one discussing or displaying code
comparisons to show that it is true. Surely it is incumbent on the
complaintant to provide proof.<br>
Roger<br>
</body>
</html>