Fwd: Re: [unios] *NEW* Unios ;)

[Beholder]

Sorry if you see this message twice, wasn't sure if it got out...

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: Re: [unios] *NEW* Unios ;)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:38:34 -0400
From: Beholder <beholder@unios.dhs.org>


On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, you wrote:

> Copyrighting is not the right term, you can't copyright a word.  You must
> have meant trademarked.

I was told that if you put the word copyright on your page, it's name and
content are "owned".  I added a "Copyright UniOS Group" to the main page,
ensureing this.

> Where does it say it is not open source?  Maybe you assumed it because
> there wasn't any source linked on the page?

I've not seen many commercial ventures that choose opensource as the model of
development.  They are commercial, and thus very likely to not be opensource. 
Not that it matters either way.  They are using the name for commercial
purposes, which irks me.  

But as UniOS is a group effort, and "owned" by the group.  I have to say that
if anyone else finds this acceptable then, fine with me.  Speak up and I'll
appologize to the new "UniOS Project" people.  But right now we are nothing
more than a name and some ideas... I feel we must retian something.

I imagine in your case, something like Microsoft Tunes (all the ideas of
tunes at $950 copy + $150 per machine that connects to it) would probably irk
you, and fare a bit.  Especially if they "borrowed" the ideas and then applied
some sweeping IP on them, then told you, that you couldn't use the names or the
ideas unless you paid them.

Maybe it's jumping the gun, but I felt this should be dealt with sooner than
later (later as in, when they have a real product and their laywers e-mail and
tell us we can't use the name anymore).