Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dbolack" data-source="post: 9030456" data-attributes="member: 23117">As one of those horrible people, it's nice to see desires continually misrepresented. I will not speak for others in the camp absolutely as I'm sure there are other motivations...My view was that 1) The "mechanics are inherently open" was based on a ruling on a very simple rule rather than a complex system of rules and there is some doubt that a case involving complex rules might receive similar treatment. Given that a) other industries have similar ideas ( simple things are not protectable but novel combinations MAY be ) and b) courts have been tossing precedent and settled law left and right lately. And 2) That it is not unreasonable to - in a license - say "Yes, legally you probably can use this outside of this agreement but in this agreement, you agree not to unless otherwise permitted. Eventually, it became clear that not only was this not a design choice for the license, but there was no room for voices that did not absolutely agree ( much like dealing with GPL zealots ), on our merry way we went. The general lack of respect for mechanics labor was also not endearing.I hope the ORC does well for its audience. Some of us aren't the audience though we tried hard to be.</blockquote>