nanog mailing list archives
Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design
From: Michael Butler <imb () protected-networks net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 07:58:57 -0500
On 02/12/15 07:42, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm keen to see how you might think that fits in to the context?creative commonsi prefer to be paid for being able to think, not for what i once thought. creative commons suits my needs for network designs.
And to compound the (perceived) problem, any IP embedded in a network design is almost always "prior art". It's not a rabbit-hole worth going down - I agree with Randy, imb
Current thread:
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design, (continued)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 14)
- Message not available
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Herrin (Feb 14)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Owen DeLong (Feb 14)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design William Herrin (Feb 15)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Jack Bates (Feb 15)
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 15)
- Message not available
- Re: [OT] Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Larry Sheldon (Feb 15)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Skeeve Stevens (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Randy Bush (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Michael Butler (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Mark Tinka (Feb 12)
- Re: Intellectual Property in Network Design Randy Bush (Feb 12)