14 Aug, 2008, Davion wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0

I think all that can be said after reading this is…

15 Aug, 2008, Guest wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Ah, good stuff. I wonder what kind of negative spin the code communists over at the FSF are going to put on this since it seems to contradict the intent of the GPL :)

In reading the article, I found this a bit weird:
The ruling has implications for the Creative Commons licence which offers ways for work to go into the public domain and still be protected.

I'm always left to wonder why people insist on calling it the public domain when that's clearly not what they meant. Public domain literally means you cede *ALL* rights to the public. It's a very specific provision of copyright law. I think what the reporter actually meant was that CC offers ways for works to be publicly distributed and still be protected. You don't' stand a ghost of a chance of filing for protection of something that's been legally declared as public domain.
15 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Fully agreed: public domain means something very specific; people really shouldn't use it when what they mean is publicly distributed.
15 Aug, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Interesting article Davion, thanks for sharing.
29 Sep, 2008, Vassi wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
That is stellar, perhaps it will encourage more giant companies to do more with open source. Microsoft, for instance, has definately been getting their feet wet lately - but more because they have to, than because they think it's safe.