Slashdot Mirror
GPL To Be Tested by Mattel?
radja writes, "It seems people are beginning to notice that CPHack falls under the GPL. According to this article in Wired, Mattel may have a little trouble getting CPHack off the Web." Check out yesterday's article about the win Mattel had recently with CPHack.
"When you have a defective product, you find ways to improve it. Mattel is wasting time, energy and money in a futile attempt to put the decryption genie back in the bottle."
Defective Product is fairly interesting language. It has all kind of nasty implications. Picture this scenerio....
You discover that you childs Mattel(R) brand truck has a defect where a wheel can be easily broken off and swallowed, possibly causing choking. You attempt it to describe the breaking and choking process to others but you are incapible of expressing exactly what is happening. You decide to make a video of the process to better explain what you could not describe otherwise. You put said video on the internet and submit your link to search engines. Several weeks later you recieve a letter to appear in court! You are being sued for 10 million dollars on the grounds that you used their trademark without permission.
You can see the use of technology in CPHack playing the same role. Citizen consumer advocites using some technological media in order to express the failure of a product, and being prosecuted for it.
It seems pretty clear that Mattel is even concerned with ethics or product quality, just apperances. With that type of attitude I don't intend to buy ANYTHING for young children from them.
Read this fast, it will soon be censored by CyberPatrol. :( ...hell I'm going to make that my .sig!
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
"The only reason this will come back to bite them is because they assigned the rights to the general public"
... except, they didn't assign their rights to the general public--`GPL' is not the same as `public domain'.
The GPL entitles the licensee to use, modify, and redistribute the source code, optionally accompanied by binaries. That's it.
The licensee does not have the right to distributes lone binaries or binaries linked against proprietary libraries; the licensee does not have the right to sublicense or in other ways change the license of any part of the software. The licensee does not have the right to do anything that would restrict the future liberty of the software(-users).
The copyright-holder of the software, on the other hand, does have the right to do everything listed above.
What would happen in a situation with the traditional `you can use it, and that's it' license?
With almost any license, licensees get usage-rights, so any statement by almost any author that it has `all rights to the software, exclusively' sounds less than entirely valid.
Once you've given something to someone, under any license that doesn't state `we can revoke this license', you can't just take it back, can you?
As far as simple redistribution is concerned (as in this case), how is the GPL different than any other freeware license?
-rozzin.
But it does say: "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you see fit." Which is what I am doing :)
There is one file -Unit1.pas- which does say "CPHack v0.1.0 by Eddy L O Jansson / Released under the GPL" although the GPL is not included in the package.
Besides the obvious barbies and board games, what else does MAttel make? I don't particularly want to buy anything they're making, period.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
It seems that signing that settlement may have been a bad idea on behalf of the hackers.
If they did indeed sign contracts stating that they were the 'sole proprietors' of all rights to the software then they have clearly done so falsely, as they extended rights to every single person that downloaded it.
What does this mean for them? Will they be subject to (I imagine rather hideous) penalty clauses in the contract. Or will they be back in front of the judge with the old charges plus whatever breaches of contract law they have made?
The fact that the ACLU lawyers were surprised in yesterdays story is a bad sign, surely if the lawyers had seen the settlements they wouldn't have let these guys sign an (IM undeducated O) obviously false statement.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Umm...why the hell would Mattel release any version of the program, closed-source or not? The whole reason they're fighting this thing is to keep it away from the public. They don't want the rights so they can turn around and release it themselves. What would be the point in Mattel giving out the tool that shows the problems with their product?
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
However, the author's signed a contract with Mattel stating they they did not "assign" rights to the CPHack utility to anyone else. :)
This is a problem for those to indivudals, inasmuch as that particular clause ain't true.
Of course, being that CPHack is GPL'd, this may very well be the test case to show just how enforcable our favorite license is
As I understand this, GPL code is *very* similar to land which has had an environmental easement put on it. The owner voluntarily places an irrevokable covenant on his land that prohibits it ever being used for development, agricultural use, whatever. This type of restriction is widely used by small farmers/ranchers to protect their land as cities encroach (preventing forced sales due to high property taxes), and environmentalists who can protect more land for a given amount of money given cooperative sellers (who often set aside a small area for a "wilderness" cabin).
HE STILL OWNS THE LAND. HE CAN STILL SELL THE LAND.
If someone buys the land hoping to put up condos, then is upset to discover the environmental easement on it, it's his own damn fault for not checking the public records to verify no easement exists on the land.
Likewise, anyone "buying" open source code, *or code they merely suspect might be open source*, has the onus on them to check the *public* code to determine if it's been GPL'd. It's not like this is a hidden attribute of the code. They may still wish to buy the code, e.g., to release a subsequent commercial version based on this code, but they can't claim that they didn't know they couldn't retract all distributed copies.
The *only* question in this case is if *one* 1-line comment is sufficient legal notice. It probably isn't. But the same standard would be used on *any* code, commercial or open source. That is why most of us are careful to *always* include full boilerplate on *all* source files, both open and closed source.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
They didn't extend the rights, they licensed the use. It's a very important distinction and one that has just screwed Mattel. The GPL maintains the original authors rights over the software. In fact, the original author may remove the GPL from future versions, but they can't take away the license already granted.
--GnrcMan--
You see, if someone...say, the EFF...were to put the cphack sources up for download, and Microworks were to threaten to sue them... then (IANAL) it seems to me that the EFF would now have grounds to sue _Microworks_ - for violation of contract. And it seems to me the first order of business would be to point out the irrevocable nature of the GPL to the judge and get themselves one of corporate America's favorite legal toys: a restraining order telling Microworks to stop harrassing their licensees...
[...]that this is a basic issue of license in general, and not the GPL?
You understand now? It wouldnt matter if it was released under the BSD license or a use-only license, this is not a test of the license used but of licenses in general.
Think... It aint illegal yet.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
Replying to sorehands, arker, and Ioldanach at once,
sorehands:
"do whatever you want with this" is a pretty broad license--probably all the way to public domain. Someone receiving under this license before the assignment to mattel was publicised could keep doing so.
Additinally, the claim of GPL'ing means that someone receiving before the assignment could take under the GPL (or a quasi-GPL license).
Either license is valid, and wouldn't be revoked under the later assignment.
Arker:
generally, a licensing is not an assignment of rights--especially since the license was exclusive. While licensing, the authors could continue issue under another license (proprietary, perhaps). They can't do this after they assign their rights, which are what had previously let them license.
Ioldanach:
What matters isn't that it was GPL, but the fact of licensure under any license at all. This turns on ancient legal principals rather than the particulars of the GPL.
hawk, esq.
No one, including mattel, is questioning the validity of the GPL - but reguardless of a product or piece of software`s liscense, if it violates copyrights, trademarks and/or patents then That particular product/piece of software can be 'outlawed' and all users CAN be forced to stop using the product.
For example, If I were to, oh, copy the source code of windows from a server at microsoft, then released it under the 'GPL' - and the courts decided to outlaw my software (as they would have every right to do) - then it wouldn't be the GPL being questioned, it would be the Original intelectual property rights of myself that came in question. Since I did not have the right to distribute the software, its illegal for me to do so, under any liscense.
Mind you, what these guys did via reverse engineering is Not what I would consider to be wrong and/or a punishable offense... but the courts have put up an injunction, and that injunction is against the original creators - it nulifies thier rights to distribute the software. Since they have lost the right to do so, then the GPL they granted to the software is itself invalid IN THIS CASE ONLY due to the authors not holding the intelectual rights (according to the courts) in the first place...
man is machine
You can GPL something without signing away any rights. Those who have the code have no copyright on the original code, they simply have a license to view, modify, and distribute the modified and even the original code under the terms of the GPL. They would have copyright on any improvements they made, of cours. So while Mattel may now have the rights to the code (and could thus issue it under a different license) the GPL'd version of the code is out there for good and that license cannot be terminated (barring later court decisions to the contrary, etc.)
The only question that I have is whether it is GPL'd "enough" - as far as I have heard, the customary copy of the GPL didn't come with the software, and there was only a one-line notice that it was GPL'd. Is that really enough to ensure protection?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Mattel could change the code slightly and release it closed-source.
Another thing, Mattel is a US company and the programmers were not US citizens. How is it possible to sue foreign programmers in US courts? Sounds like they're trying to push US law onto people who aren't in the US.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
And miss the whole TQM craze?
OK, maybe TQM is passe these days, but we should have learned at least a few things about product quality.
(1) Understand the user's requirements.
(2) Understand how your actions result in a product which does or does not meet customer needs.
(3) When you aren't meeting customer needs, accept that this is true and find a way to improve your performance.
Basically, it sounds like Cyberpatrol doesn't accurately enforce the policies described to the user, and is easily circumventable. I'd call this a defective product.
When you have a defective product, you find ways to improve it. Mattel is wasting time, energy and money in a futile attempt to put the decryption genie back in the bottle. They can subpoena until their blue in the face, but they are facing an exponential spread of the decryption software which they can only meet with an exponential increase in their legal fees. In the end, it isn't about serving their users, but hiding the defects in the product from them.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They didn't assign the rights, they licenced the use. The GPL is not an assignment of copy-rights, it's a license granting permission to do something that one normally couldn't do. Mattel can certanly prohibit the release of all future versions of CPHack written by Mattel, but they are SOL as far as what's currently out there.
--GnrcMan--
If you GPL something, you can still sell the code to someone under a non-exclusive license, but you cannot transfer exclusive ownership in the way the settlement appears to have done.
I suspect this was done unintentionally however - presented with a settlement document full of legalese, it wouldn't have occured to me to look for this problem. Neither is it likely to occur to most mainstream lawyers who might not be familiar with the implications of the GPL.
The lesson for the rest of us is, make sure you have the right to distribute your code before you GPL it, and if someone does prosecute, make sure they know it has already been licensed to others.
Kind of interesting. I'm a huge supporter of the GPL, but it looks like it could come back and bite these programmers in the ass. Basically, they can "give" Mattel the rights to the program, but anyone who had already downloaded cphack and accepted the GPL owns the rights to their copy of the software and they are free to distribute and modify it how they choose.
Anyone have any ideas how to prevent this from happening again in the future?
kwsNI
Now, since it was GPL'd, take out the password decryption (so they can't argue that you are disabling the product), and publish it yourself if you dare. Then you fight Mattel and their hordes of lawyers. Will you wimp out?
That is of course if it's your position that it is legal! I'm not saying to break the law.
Talk is cheap, unless you are talking to a lawyer, then it's $200/hour.
I see everyone talking about being brave and standing up, now lets see who is full of shit.
Mattel can be beat! I won two rounds against them, I am working on winning round three against them!
It's one thing to talk a tough game, it's another thing to DO!
Fight Spammers!
IAAL, and I think you're overlooking the fact that the GPL is not as other licenses. In general, licenses are not assignments of rights because they don't correct rights, because they are revocable. Commercial software licenses are generally revocable, and contain clauses detailing what is to happen in the event that (for example) Microsoft decides that it no longer wants to license Windows to you under the EULA.
The GPL is not revocable by the copyright holder, and thus, I think, has to be seen as an assignment of rights if the non-revocability is found to be binding. So my analysis of this would be that, yes, this case is potentially a test of the GPL, and yes, potentially (I feel uneasy speculating about an agreement I have never seen) the fact that the software was GPL'd could invalidate the settlement reached by the developers.
--John Montoya
(yeah, I do the streetlawyer trolls, but Im having a serious day today)
I am an attorney, but I"m probably not licensed in your jurisdiction. This is not legal advice. Get that from a lawyer who is licensed in your jurisdiction if you need any.
Everyone take a breath, and slow down. Whether Mattel backs down, or litigates and loses, this will *not* be a test of the GPL.
OK, repeat after me: this is not a test of the GPL.
If this is to litigate, it's going to turn on basic contract law principles
of license and assignments. The *only* issue of the GPL that is even relevant is the ability to redistribute, which is a licenseing issue. If the facts as described in the article are correct, Mattel can't call in the existing copies. But it isn't the GPL that's stopping them; it's the license.
Did I mention that this is a basic issue of license in general, and not the GPL?
hawk, esq.
This is something I've been wondering about. Is it necessary to quote to all the GPL boilerplate in order to have a binding GPL licence on a piece of software? The GPL is a standard piece of text that is well documented in many places on the Internet and I'm sure it has made its way into legal textbooks by now as well. Shouldn't it be enough to simply make reference to it and state that it is applicable to this program? Its not like there are different GPLs out there that might cause confusion. GPL is GPL.
By comparison, when you put a copyright notice on something, all you need is the word "copyright" or the © symbol. There is no requirement to quote the copyright act.
Ideology is for ideots.
What we're loosing sight of here is exactly what ownership is. You don't have to have ownership to use / distribute something. Consider commercial software (that allows you use but not distribution) and shareware (that allows you limited use until you pay a fee and often unlimited distribution). In neither case do you own the copyright to the software - but you are licensed to perform various actions with it.
Matel obviously wanted ownership to "kill" the offending code. But the GPL is a very different kind of license; in effect, it disables this legal tactic. I'm sure Matel's lawyers weren't expecting such a hack to be licensed, much less under such a non-standard license as the GPL.
Of course, Matel's ownership of this code is not without value. They can feel free to re-license it and develop closed improvements to it under that new license. They can lock up a niche market.
That is... until OpenCPHack comes along.
If the program is illegal, then the GPL does not give anyone any right to distribute it.
However the question is, is the program illegal? This has yet to be demonstrated. The illegal assignment of rights to Mattel which had already been assigned elsewhere does nothing to make the program illegal. The legality of the program is unchanged from before the settlement.
Whether the program is legal or not depends on whether the reverse engineering is considered to be legitimate under any of the reverse-engineering clauses of relevent copyright laws in the relevent countries. This has yet to be proven one way or the other.
What I haven't seen is any laws which might make the essay, which is far more damaging than the program, illegal.
Suppose, now, that the cphack authors had included an extra clause in the license. And suppose this extra clause said that no matter what, they couldn't be held liable for writing it. Do you think such a thing would stand up in court? Sorry, but if you break the law, not even a fine print disclaimer will save you.
Although if UCITA is passed, this sort of ridiculous license cluase may well become legal in some cases.