[Foundation-l] Creative Commons publishes report on defining "Non-commercial", Is Wikpedia non commercial?

[jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:47 AM, jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com
> <jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Basically I am worred about these student versions of windows
>> "infecting" open source projects with illegal contributions.
>>
>> Just a crazy idea that has been following me.
>
> Rest assured, it is simply a crazy idea.  Microsoft has intellectual
> property right to their own software and codebase (so you can't copy
> parts of Windows and call it open source), but they don't have any
> follow-on rights to works wholly created by their users.
>
> If I create a novel in Microsoft Word, then Microsoft has no rights
> that novel, even if the copy of Word I used was completely stolen.
> They could sue me for the cost of the lost revenue if I am not using a
> properly licensed copy of their software, but they would have no
> direct claims over the intellectual works I created using it.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
That is what I was looking for.
Thank you all for you time.
Thank you for humoring me.
Thanks Robert.
mike