Subject: RE: [hackers-il] Re: Linux Socket Filter

From: Chen Shapira <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:29:10 +0200

> As you understand, I can not give you a source - it belongs 
> to Mercury, or
> even tell you what I had done - algorithms are copirighted, 
> but here what I
> can tell:

The other way around: You code is copyrighted by mercury, by your contract.
Algorithms can't be copyrighted, only actuall code, but they can be
patented, only your's isn't.
On the other hand you are forbidden by contract from giving information
away, and your algorithm can easily be counted as information.
On the extra hand, I believe there's a Radware employee on our list, and
they are ofcourse offical competitiors, so carefull :-)

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:05:34 +0200

> they are ofcourse offical competitiors, so carefull :-)

This discussion is taking a silly, and rather ugly direction (ugly, because
you're taking a huge mass of free software, make a small patch to it, and then
start acting like it's some sort of patented piece of genius). Nobody was
asking you to divulge proprietary information. I don't see how using existing
features of Linux properly can be construed proprietary...

Anyway, just a reminder: I also work for Radware. If that means that you
should hide stuff from me, then feel free. Personally, I don't understand
how it is exactly that Radware competes with Mercury, but never mind...

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |   Wednesday, Dec 20 2000, 23 Kislev 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Always go to other people's funerals,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |otherwise they won't come to yours.

---

From: Omer Mussaev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:23:09 +0000

> features of Linux properly can be construed proprietary...

copirights are ugly issue by definitions. Rules and regulations can be
beneficial for product, and can ruin it completely. I preffer to avoid that
issue and not expose my employer or myself to dangers of courts.

However, from my employers point of view,  inside the code there is  more than
using existing features properly: there is an API, which can be used to understand
whats going on inside the product and thus help competitors (that is my employers
point of view, again).
Moreover, by freeing the code, a competitor can find some set of
conditions where that particular mechanism fails, and start a FUD
against a company.

Whether there are ingenious algorithms or not, by writing module myself
from scratch I guarantee that the code is not GPLed, and by making it
closed source, I just go with my employers policy.

Question whether that policy is good or bad or ugly just does not interest
me, since all programs written by me when at work belong to employer and not
to me. I just can not make it GPLed, even if I would consider GPLing the
code. On the other hand, since I did some research on the matter I think
that I can freely tell you what I found in kernel or at Net. And that what
I had done.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]

--
Omer Mussaev 054308250 mailto:[email-masked]
  Mercury Interactive / APM core technologies R&D