Slashdot Mirror
Cphack, the GPL, And So Much More
yankeehack writes: "This is a new article by Declan McCullagh (Wired Magazine) describing the confusion swirling around the CPHACK ruling of Monday, March 27th. What exactly does Mattel have rights to? And what about those who own a copy of the cphack program currently? Read the opinions of some prominent legal scholars on this issue." ery worth reading.
i could REALLY use some software that blocks everything but porn. i spend way too much time searching thru garbage trying to locate porn.
Proving once again that a BSD license is FREE in every respect, whereas GPL isn't.
Sorry, I am just tired of OpenSource being on the defensive always? So what if Mattel has a well funded legal department? Putting it simply, the British had a well funded military in 1775 and the Americans revolutionaries still beat them. The American lost every battle (almost) but managed to win the war because they never lost sight of the big picture and stuck to their strategy. Lets devise a strategy and go on the offense. Why don't we sue Mattel for trying to suppress software that is GPL'ed? Start educating Law Schools and surely some students and a professor or two will help our cause just for the experience and the bragging rights if they succeed! Sorry to use AC but I am far from my PC. Give me liberty or give me death!
According to the author's homepage, cphack IS NOT GPL'ed. Therefore, it is copyrighted material. No test case at all!
Or won't touch it at all, to avoid getting sued for libel. Anyway, the only proof that the list is not a total fabrication is the program itself; I'd say that the list without the program is not worth very much.
---
This is all assuming that the GPL is, in fact, revocable. That still sounds kind of fishy to me.
It does to me too, I was just explaining the possible legal "logic." Particularly disturbing is the judge warning people about possible contempt of court; not being a party to the court case, how can I possibly be expected to have heard the judge's warning? And in general, gifts are allowed and aren't revocable by the giver.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Copyright law.
Note that this would also endanger multi-author projects like Linux: What if person X, who has various patches in the kernel, sells the rights to Microsoft which then proceeds to revoke the GPL on those patches? They would have to be removed from all distributions immediately.
Maybe a slight change to the GPL could help. A valid, non-revocable contract in the US requires that both parties provide something of value. What if the GPL said something like
"In return for a non-exclusive, non-revocable right to copy, change and distribute the software, recipient agrees to provide valuable feedback in the form of bug reports, feature requests or patches".
--
So if I download and use shareware or regular sofware for a "limited trial license", I'm not obligated to pay for regular license since I didn't pay for the copy I obtained, right?
Unfortunately (or fortunately, for other reasons, in the eyes of the FSF), releasing a modified CPhack as public domain is not possible. The GPL makes certain requirements upon derived works that excludes the public domain (by design). As long as you use the original CPhack as a basis, every derivative work must either be under GPL, or be under whatever other license terms its actual owner (now Mattel) offers it under (yeah, right!).
On the other hand, someone would be free to reverse engineer CPhack based on the principles set forth in the original authors' essays, and release that functionally similar but source-independent version to the public domain.
Buy Text Processing in Python
I don't agree with the reasoning that breaking something open is justified if it is easy to do so. If people are going to reverse engineer things, it needs to be done because they believe the software is infringing on someone's rights.
From a programming point of view, sure, it deserves to be broken if all the crypto is just a bunch of CRC routines. What will be more plausible in court, however, is explaining the political necessity of reverse engineering as the reason for doing it.
It does have kind of strange implications though. Can we just write shoddy code from now on and tell our bosses, "It doesn't matter, our lawyers will handle it when it inevitably gets broken."
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Okay, I have released two programs under GPL, and I also participated in several other GPL projects.
I never knew that I had to sign over the rights to FSF - but according to the WIRED article, it would be better if the authors sign over their rights to FSF, with Pen and Paper.
Okay, now, can anyone tell me how to do it?
I am not residing in the US, and if I sign on a piece of paper, assigning all the rights of my program to FSF, and mail that piece of paper to FSF's office in US, will _THAT_ act be considered as a LEGAL act - or will some scrupulous fella find some obscure loopholes to invalid the foreign source, signed-and-delivered right transfers?
In the same vein, ONCE I sign over the rights of my program to FSF, do I, as the author, LOST EVERY RIGHT TO THAT PROGRAM THAT I WROTE?
That is, what will happen if I want to EXTEND the capability of the program? Would I be in trouble with FSF if I augmented the program AFTER I have transfer all the rights of that program to FSF?
And one more thing, it is a normal practice in many GPL projects (and projects under freeBSD license) to assign MULTIPLE licenses - that is, the same program can be GPLed, and still the author retains the right to COMMERCIALIZE the program at a later date.
Now, in that kind of multiple-licensed program, how would one assign rights to FSF? Would assinging rights to FSF invalid ALL OTHER TYPES OF LICENSES the program currently holds?
I know what I am asking are legal questions, and most of you are not lawyers. But I hope that there will be several of you who are either familiar with the laws, or do practical works in the legal fields, and I hope that you can answer my concern.
Thank you for reading, and I'd appreciate any of your suggestion/comment.
If you feel like emailing me in private, please feel free to do so. My email address is "knife at newmail dot net".
Thank you again.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Did they write the program?--no
They court says that they own the code because the code was created to decrypt their copyrighted information.
So would this mean the samba code is owned by microsoft because it is used to decrypt their network protocol ????
I don't think so. Mattel is just mad and out for blood.
http://theotherside.com/dvd/
Yah. It was a bit of a rant, but I think that at the core, it's basically true: those who haven't experienced the unregulated Internet don't know what they're missing, are all too accepting of the net "as-is" (which is to say, as it is when they first get access), and actively desire greater government interference so that they themselves aren't challenged to think for themselves.
The citizens of USA, Canada and bits of Europe are used to being spoon-fed by the government. We've all been trained to not question the system too deeply, to let the government be responsible for protecting us from our own stupidity, and can't imagine a life of not being coddled.
Little wonder it's influencing the (second-to-last) bastion of freedom. Last-last will be the space frontier: colonies in space will have an interesting opportunity to redefine the social and government norms.
Now, the far more interesting debate has nothing to do with the whys and wherefores of this situation:
It's in deciding how to challenge it, how to work around and through it, and how to get what we want while allowing the proles to have their safety.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
When you enter into a legal agreement transfering the sale of something, generally one records that sale with the county courthouse where the transfer takes place. When we bought our house, we recorded that in the local county clerk's office. Likewise with the cars we've purchased. I don't know if there is a federal thing like this for intellectual property things, but I suppose that it is substantially similar.
That's not to say that I'm defending software licensing in general. I have no interest in copyrighting any of my work, and I see all that legal baggage as being a big minus for any product from a consumer's perspective.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
You might be right, but I see a qualitative distinction between Public Domain and everything else. In the case of Public Domain, you are not placing the work under a license, but rather waiving your right to impose licensing terms. In the case of the GPL et al, you retain the copyright, and are therefore able to change the terms of the license. I would submit that in the case of Public Domain you have waived rights, and there is no possibility of getting them back retroactively. What the courts think may be entirely different, of course.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
If the rights have to be signed over to the FSF for the license to be enforcable, why doesn't someone who has already downloaded it sign them over before Mattel stops them too. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds ok to me. Anybody?
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
"The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it"
I said I am not a lawyer, so take it easy. I could just as easily slam you for your spelling. From all I know, if they gave free license to do anything you want to with the software, someone can assign the rights to the FSF. That would seem to fall under the "whatever you want with it" section in the original agreement to me.
If I was misinformed about the license, then my ideas may be completely invalid. Just trying to add to the discussion...
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
Does the expectation of improved code from others constitute sufficient consideration? Granted, it's not a sure thing, but I think you could argue that in the majority of cases GPLing your source code is likely to lead to an increase in value and utility of the code as you receive bug fixes, suggestions, etc. Is the whole "consideration" thing a specific law, or just a general legal precedent?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Matthew Skala wrote cn_decode.c and cph1_rev.c, but not cphack.
8 /081250&cid=103">scumdamn posting versions of these two files with GNU boilerplate comments</a> in the previous slashdot thread on this subject. It seems that scumdamn was overzealous.
Skala's statement is almost certainly in response to <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/03/2
Just read Eddy's post.
Eddy writes, "I made a mental note about speaking to Matthew, that maybe we should release the whole thing under the GPL... I forgot." He also writes "As far as I'm concerned, the string ["Released under the GPL" in Unit1.pas] weren't meant to be in the distribution, and Mattel got my rights to it." (I assume he feels the same way about the "Released under the GNU Public License" string in Unitl.dfm.)
It seems he wanted to release it under the GPL, but not without Matthew's okay, and the statement was left in inadvertently. From Matthew's site, he certainly doesn't approve. So, respecting Eddy and Matthew's wishes, I shall remove the GPL'd version.
It seems my ISP finally received a notice of injunction today, since the webmaster sent me the following e-mail at 12:10 this afternoon (ET):
I'm sure nobody is surprised that Mattel's recent dropping of Microsystems hasn't had any impact on Microsystems continuing its hollow legal threats. I wonder if they timed the letters to be received on a Friday.
It seems like you're referring to the General Public License terms allowing you to copy and distribute verbatim copies of source code provided:
The copyright holder, of course, has the right to copy and distribute without meeting the conditions of the GPL, since the copyright gives them the right to copy. So Eddy may very well have been able to release CPHack under the GPL, yet distribute it without meeting the above terms.
Now if I want to redistribute Eddy's source on my web site, I do have to meet the above conditions. So, my site has a version of the source code with conspicuous copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and a copy the license. It reminds me of self-repairing DNA in a way. :-)
By the way, if you ran the program, you'd see that in does indeed display a copyright notice. The window's title bar reads "Cyber Patrol Hack v0.1.0 - (C)2000 Eddy L O Jannson". There's also a conspicuous message reading "Released under the GNU Public License".
Actually, I think the reason that most Canadians react so forceably to the US propensity for firearms ownership is that we get along just fine without everyone and his dog owning their own handgun/automatic assault rifle/machine gun or what-have-you. Our *national* annual murder rate is (I am led to understand) equal to the annual murder rate of the city of Detroit alone. If this is the case, then it obviously works for us
You make the same mistake many Americans do in regards to firearm crimes. Yes, America has a lot of murder, and it has a lot of guns. But if all guns were gone tomorrow, if there were not a single violent incident with a firearm, we would still be one of the murder capitals of the world. Half of our murders are committed with guns. That means that half of them are committed with (knives|bats|pipes|rope|bare hands|cars|poison|etc). Even without guns America is violent. Even without guns Japan is the suicide capital of the world, they just have to use poison and hanging more frequently than we to get the job done. But it sure hasn't slowed them down any...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Perhaps the answer is to modify the GPL to include a line to the effect "if any section of this license if found invalid, then the rights covered by that section revert to public domain".
The suggestion about requiring all bugs to be reported would probably be harmless (can you imagine ANYONE ever enforcing it?), but it would result in wholescale license violation, and I can't feel that this would be a good thing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's not clear to me what that "generally" means.
Usually free licenses are given for free as a demo, and because of that reason they explicitly have a termination date, and explicitly state that they can be terminated at any moment at the licenser's whim.
Those kind of licenses are quite a lot, and they are presumably very frequent in literature (I am no lawyer, but I guess that the companies seeing their demo versions being used in production environments could have been quite a few along the years).
About the validity of the GPL: I don't see what's the difference between it and a shrink-wrap-type license. So the DMCA (may it rot in hell) could for once be turned in our favor, adding weight to it.
About the revokability of the GPL: if (as stated by the DMCA) the GPL (being a shrink-wrap-type license) is fully binding, and since it doesn't have a termination clause (the only termination condition covers the case when the license's terms are violated), the copyright holder can do absolutely nothing to terminate it. Maybe it would be a good thing(TM) if the case was taken to court: it would be a field testing of the GPL, allowing the FSF to come up with a more enforceable version if it didn't hold.
IMVVHO CyberPatrol could be maybe sued for false advertisement or something similar, because its new release blocks the cphack sites under every category.
I don't see how the author of the article thinks this. If you look at the appropriate section of the copyright code, it says that the _license_ must be "evidenced". I.E., you must have a signed piece of paper somewhere (you or the copyright owner) saying the license exists. That's all. No transfer to the FSF or anything else seems to be required. Maybe other methods of evidence might be possible, but at least my amateur interpretation would be that an earlier non-specific license can and does override a copyright transfer.
I'm no lawyer though. Get one yourself, yada yada.
Everyone is talking about the American copyright system. How about non-USA and international copyright laws?
Couldn't the software be protected in some other country, so that even if Mattel won the USA case they would still have to do battle in other countries and in the meantime the software could still be available to the countries where Mattel has not won their case?
I believe that we have to take advantage of the international spread of the internet and do the most to protect the LGPL. Also, is there any process whereby the LGPL can be recognised as an official licence agreement by a given country?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If this is the case then how are click through and shrink wrapped licenses valid? I haven't signed anything that says I agree to them. Maybe I'm misreading this?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
8. Burn a Barbie.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm just wondering, and would love feedback, but isn't the issue of coopyright here not based on the US version of the Law, but on the Canadian or Sweedish versions of the law?
This link: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03022e.html is all I could find in a cursory search for articles on the same points of Canadian law.
It mentions:
In order for something to be copyrightable, it mst meet the following criteria:
a) author must be a resident of Canada or treaty country. (which one of the original authors is)
b) the work must be original (which it is)
c) it must have a distribution (which cphack does)
Again, it mentions that in order for ownership to be transfered, it must be done in writing, but I believe that legal interpretations recently have accepted digital writing as writing.
The same document goes on to indicate that in the event of Join ownership, FULL copyright is assigned to each of the authors, unless otherwise specified.
In my ever-so-non-legal opinion, this would seem to imply that the GPL can work very effectively in Canadian law, since by allowing colaborative work by anyone who downloads the program, they would seem to become entitled to full ownership (thus extending the GPL).
Is this even remotely true?
--A
Add a clause stating that, in return for being granted use of the software under the GPL, the licensee agrees to report any bugs that they happen to find, in the course of normal use.
So if I hand a Red Hat CD which is now covered under your new GPL to a friend, he is now forced to submit bug reports to the author, even if he doesn't want to, simply because he booted off the CD (thus agreeing to use the GPL'd software)?
Hold the phone. One of the objections to the GPL seems to be the need for a "written instrument". That is, actual paper with actual pen-marks from the licensor to the licensee. Otherwise the license is "revocable" (presumably by the licensor)
But other shrinkwrap licenses don't have this feature. So that would seem to indicate that the, for example, NT EULA is not binding for MS. So if they wanted to, they could change the license after you bought the software. How's THAT for evil? What am I missing?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
This is from one of the authors of CPHack.
You can check on the other authors page here. He (the other author) says he emailed him (this guy here) to check that this is really him (the co-author)
That last sentance wasn't real great grammer, was it?
If Matel can squash CPHack... Can Microsoft approach Linus with lots of cash & lawyers, and acquire the copyright?
Och! Probably not... but it is a mind-blowing day for the FSF supporters.
My real thought is that Matel should have simply thrown in the towel on CyberPatrol, and gone after the authors of CPHack for damages. The authors really did something wrong, and financially damaging, and irresponsable. The responsible thing would have been to tell Matel that they found a problem, and ask if Matel is interested in how they did it, so it could be fixed _before_ they released it.
Causing harm to another entity is seldom a good idea, even if the other entity did a bad job of protecting themselves. You can be arrested for stealing even if the person stolen from left their window open.
-Jim
Celebrate Excellence!
If a copyright license such as the GPL can be held revokable simply because rights were not explicitly signed over, why should software EULA's be treated differently? (i.e. why is "click here to accept the terms of the license agreement") different?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my point is slightly different, if this person is right the following scenarion could happen, I think.
a) I write something really cool for
b) I assign the rights to the FSF and/or release it under the GPL
c) it spreads everywhere
d) I change my mind, and I REVOKE my previous license
e) now people have to stop incorporating my piece in the gpl'd software I was talking about before.
It seems that this guy is implying that a license can be changed retroactively, and this is what scares me (hopefully I got it right though, I really hope I'm wrong)
-- the cake is a lie
What prevents me from taking the source code changing a variable name here and there and re-releasing it as kcahpc ???? Sign over the rights to FSF??
I still think that the issue is here stealing trade secrets which is under the states juristiction.
It is too bad. They had an oportunity to point out all that is evil in FilterWare and they sold out.
Predestination was doomed from the start.
Well of the four products on the page:
1 - Quicken Family Lawyer
2 - Calendar Creator Deluxe
3 - Chessmaster 7000
4 - Compton's Learning astronomy
The first two certain wouldn'y really be a childs product. The third is either, even though the Chessmaster series of games is typically too much for a young kid to really deal with well. And the last one is almost certainly targetted at young adults/children.
"Community?" Well maybe not. But "consumers" sure thing bud. Even if the product is targetted at kids, it's still the parents who are buying.
Mattel is in the computer business. Go to www.shopmattel.com if you don't believe. Four computer products shown on the front page.
No, there might be a test of whether a no cost licensing is revocable. Not a test of the GPL.
If the owner of the copyright wants to give licenses away which allow distribution and modification of his work under certain circumstances he is free to do so.
If he later sells his rights to the work, then it may be the case that since licenses were not sold, but given, licensees lose their rights. That is why the article mentions assigning copyright to the Free Software Foundation is the best way to keep the software free forever.
Be careful not to confuse DMCA (circumventing access control mechanisms, federal copyright law, already passed) with UCITA (validating shrinkwrap license, proposed uniform state contract law, only passed in Virginia).
Consideration can be a promise to do something there is no legal obligation to do, or a promise to not do something there is a legal right to do. Promises to exchange money, goods,or services are forms of consideration. All parties in an agreement must give consideration in order to create a contract, but courts typically do not look at the adequacy of consideration unless there is evidence of some type of wrongdoing by the party benefiting most from the contract.
IANbyanymeasAL, but it seems to me that according to the bold section, the L/GPL are valid. The user gives up his/her right to publish under another license any modifications to the code s/he writes or may write. The consideration granted is the republication under the L/GPL of any distributed derived works.
Regards,
Bun
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Eugene Volokh's analysis, if correct, applies just as well to most, if not all, free software licenses (when Volokh says "free", he means free of charge, as can be gleaned from the context of his remarks). MIT, BSD (with and without the advertising clause), LGPL, and the GPL. (I haven't analyzed the Artistic license with regards to this issue.)
If the GPL loses in this case, the BSD license will lose as well.
BTW, many versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer were distributed for free. Were they also nonexclusive? Did the license agreement on IE say you couldn't pass the CD around the office? I feel sure it didn't, since MS's goal was to proliferate IE as widely as possible at all costs, but I haven't read the license so I cannot be sure.
If it did not, and at least some version of MSIE was licensed both for free and nonexclusively, then there may be a staggering irony awaiting us. The Internet Exporer license may suffer the same effects as the GPL and BSD licenses. I do not know, however, if Volokh means that just the "irrevocable" part of license would be invalidated (which Microsoft probably wouldn't care about, since they possibly all along planned to start charging big bucks for the browser at some point), or it would apply to the whole license. If the latter, then it would perhaps be in Microsoft's interests, quite ironically, to come to the defense of the GPL in this case, lest it either become open season on IE, or a huge percentage of IE installations worldwide become illegal.
It is very difficult to construe existing copyright law in such a way as to screw over *only* free software licenses -- that's what UCITA is for. So Mattel had better be very careful what they wish for. Big Software would probably be most unhappy with Mattel causing even one clause of their many precious restrictive software licenses to be ruled invalid.
Since Wizards of the Coast, who absorbed TSR, have now been bought by Mattel, I wonder if all this talk of "Open Sourcing" the Dungeons & Dragons game really means anything. If it does, I would urge all employees of WotC to threaten a strike in retaliation for this maneuver. It looks like one branch of Mattel is trying to destroy the business strategy that another branch is trying to employ.
However, unless Volokh was misquoted, I don't think his interpretation will stand -- it is too broad, and would hang a sword of Damocles over free distribution of all sorts of copyrighted works. Companies could send you, unsolicited, free CD's in the mail, then later revoke the "license" and demand an arbitrary amount of money from you in exchange for your continued ownership of such items. I'm sure many other abuses could be thought up.
Then again, who knows? Maybe the judge in this case thinks UCITA is the greatest thing since sliced bread and envisions as wonderful a society where a fee is paid for every word read, and every song heard, each time they are perceived. I suppose ultimately a pharmaceutical company doing DNA research will patent the genes that construct neurons, we will all go about with EEG's strapped to our heads with a satellite uplink, and we will pay a nominal fee for every synapse that fires in our brains.
Long live the American plutocracy!
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
This Wired article seems to be full of misquotations. It is extremely unlikely that lawyers really did spread such nonsense. I'd like to see the full text of the interviews including questions.
That's right - good feelings.
This is what I get in return every time someone downloads a piece of code I have GPL'd (of course, it helps that they notify me that they d/l'd it, and liked it). I get good feelings that someone has found my code useful, helpful, and perhaps has even learned from it.
While this may not feed my family, it still can be considered a "consideration", correct?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
While I've been critical of the way Eddy and Matthew handled the settlement situation, what they did by publishing the essay was not irresponsible. Irresponsible is Mattel's attorney sending legal documents via email that were non binding, used only to threaten people. There are Federal Codes detailing the requirements of service, and email isn't one of them. While the judge gave permission to distribute the TRO via email, there was no mention of the supeona. You just can't serve a legitimate TRO or supeona via email.
CP routinely blocks sites of critics and competing products, and just gets some blocks plain wrong. Mattel knew this, and the essay (which you obviously have not read) outlines how many sites are improperly categorized, across several categories, while Mattel give the impression that the list is current and accurate.
Right now, Beaver College, a real college that has been around for a hundred plus years is considering changing the school's name, in part due to the fact that blocking software prohibits the term "beaver", due to sexual/anontomical connotaions. When CP is used in public settings, such as schools or libraries, the amount of legitimate info filtered is quite vast, while still allowing some undefined porn to pass, unfiltered.
If someone of their own freewill wants to install filtering at home, that is certainly their business. However, in my opinion, based on the URLs filtered, and Mattel's reponse to the situation, Mattel used CP to filter content which might be critical of Mattel, or Mattel's products, under the guise of protecting children from porn.
Mattel is trying to stifle legitimate criticism of the company and the product, by using strong arm legal tactics, while in my opinion, intentionally misrepresenting the facts to both the public and the court. The email supeona was one such method.
Both of those young men were very responsible in breaking the CP list code, and displaying the contents for all to see the hypocrasy of Mattel. Mattel is intentionally misrepresenting CP, in an effort to protect the Mattel corporate identity. As proven by the actions of Mattel against William Silverstein, and against publishers of legal books critical of the Mattel product Barbie, in my eyes, Mattel is an overbearing, greedy company, that will stop at nothing in the name of profits. By abusing the legal system in the way I believe Mattel has, does far greater harm to the public good than a couple of kids cracking a program they sell.
While Mattel is certainly free to sell such a filtering product, and protect it under current US laws, they should not be allowed to misrepresent the fact that much more is filtered than porn.
In my opinion, using the Mattel product Barbie as role model for our daughters, is much more obscene than any porn that one might find on the net.
Dave
The only hope for this political issue to continue is for one of the websites that is improperly blocked by the censorware to sue Mattel for defamation (e.g., blocked as pornographic site) or false advertising. Could be a class action suit.
Otherwise, just let the issue drop and go home...
The boston herald is usually considered to have journalism slightly better than the sun (of "page 3 girl" fame), but not by a significant margin.
Judging from past front pages, they specialise in "man bites dog" and "hardworking family done wrong by state" stories.
You'd do better to read the weekly world news, which is at least is a known quantity.
I understand that it (the herald, that is) has an extensive (and by what I overhear on the T, fairly good) sports section, though.
Interesting that both bilingualism (in Canadia) and firearms (in the States) are issues that are heatedly debated in that country, legally guaranteed in that country, and non-issues in the other country.
Interesting also that sports fans here in the bloodthirsty (supposedly) USA are lambs compared to those of (again supposedly) more civilised europe.
Not that I think we can draw any conclusions from these points, but they fascinate me, at least
download it here or here
You donate land to a city so that the city can build a needed highway on the land. It's a donation, so you don't ask for and don't receive any money. After the highway is built, you change you mind and say you want to put the land to another use. You ask for the highway to be removed, and for the land to be returned to you in its original condition. You claim your agreement to donate the land is not enforcable because you didn't receive any money or other kind of consideration.
He's pretty clear that he just wanted to make his point, and he feels that he's accomplished that much.
So get this straight: it's not GPL!
on
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
Actually, I think the reason that most Canadians react so forceably to the US propensity for firearms ownership is that we get along just fine without everyone and his dog owning their own handgun/automatic assault rifle/machine gun or what-have-you. Our *national* annual murder rate is (I am led to understand) equal to the annual murder rate of the city of Detroit alone. If this is the case, then it obviously works for us. Canadians as a whole seem completely unable to understand the US fascination with firearms. But then you probably don't understand our peculiarities - tea, curling, and the incredibly divisive issue of bilingualism to nane a few. This is probably not the place to discuss this at all since its completely offtopic.
As for Western Canadians liking the US better than Ontario - well, at least in my opinion - I dislike both equally. Washington State is okay, I have visited it several times and always liked the folks I met. The culture there is *almost* Canadian when you are near the border. On the rest of the US I have little or no opinion. On Ontario, well I lived there when I was in the Armed Forces, but I cannot say I liked the place all that much - except Ottawa and Kingston both of which are nice places to live (except for the weather).
All in all I am content to stay right here in Victoria...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I'm glad I'm not the only grumpy old-timer.
We need to enlist the media more effectively. Instead of releasing a program to decrypt the blocked list sites, release the blocked list to the New York Times or Washington Post. Those guys will defend their first amendment rights.
you'd think so, wouldn't you. anyone here see the film about the huge tobacco industry scandal a while back? (sorry, i don't recall the title). the meida is owned by corporations which are just as greedy as the non-media ones. if they even for a moment get the slightest idea that they would be losing money for something they print/publish they'll pull it.
besides that, i think it was foolish for the programmers to sign a contract with this american firm, it would seem that it now makes them vulnerable to the american legal system.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
This isn't strictly speaking true. Nothing in the GPL prevents the sale for money of the licensed sources, and in fact the products so licensed are often sold.
Hopefully the FSF can show a legitimate financial claim on software that has been provided to them under signed license.
-kls
--
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
It isn't a question of what the GPL requires, but of what the law requires. Unsigned contracts have never been found to be binding on either party.
(Well there are a couple of odd exceptions; such as using software that was licensed only for non-server use on a server, when a licensed version for servers was also available. Sorry I don't have the citation handy.)
-kls
--
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Very interesting implication regarding IE.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Ideas bear consequences, fruitful and also destructive. The pernicious idea that all men are not created equal is the philosophic bais which incited the degradations of slavery and the genocidal slaughter of the Holocaust.
Ummm - ok? We are talking about freedom of information, here, not the genocidal slaughter of millions of Jews. Methinks the judge has some kind of issue to work out before he publishes any more rulings of law.
Apparently not if it's done before Mattel notifies the holder of the current license (namely, everyone who has downloaded cphack) of a change in the licensing that bars them from doing that.
--WhiskeyJack
This misses the point. If the copyright to the original source can be obtained, either by purchase or through a lawsuit, then the GPL itself can be revoked. The threat here is that the purchase culture is held to trump the gift culture. If a free-beer license cannot be irrevocable, then GPL, the BSD license, etc. are irrevocably toast.
Think about it. Suppose that Some Villainous Corporation (SVC) sues Linus Torvalds for infringement of their patents. (It's likely to be SCO, for technical reasons, but Microsoft probably makes a better villain.) I'd be stunned if there weren't legitimate infringements. What happens then? Torvalds loses, and has two choices: face the claim that SCO has suffered huge consequent damages based on his product. Oof -- Torvalds is certainly well off, but SVC can claim billions of dollars in damages. So, rather than face that, plus punitive damages, SVC sends an attorney to Torvalds, and says "Look, if you'll simply give us a piece of the copyright, you're fine." (And assignment to FSF won't help; the suit could be brought against them instead of Torvalds. Frankly, FSF is probably more vulnerable.)
You can guess the rest. What GPL? SCV is then free to change the license at will. Poof. No Linux 3.0.
Ahh, but you're looking at the wrong side of the contract! The lawyer has already provided his consideration -- his time and expenses in fighting the suit. The bound party here is the client, not the attorney.
Consider -- if the client wins, then he provides half his settlement to the lawyer. If he loses...well, he owes him nothing. But he hasn't promised to make a gift to the lawyer for no consideration; the lawyer has provided him with (one hopes) valuable consideration.
I have to agree, sort of. This won't test the whole of the GPL, it will test whether or not the GPL leagally means anything.
Sadly, I don't think it looks good for the GPL. I understand that the GLP *ought* to be enforceable, but there's a lot of laws that ought to be otherwise.
Regardless, I don't think the GPL will help these folks out. I laughed hard when I realized what they'd done, but then I thought about it, and it looks more live they've illegally signed an agreement to me. They get points for style though.
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
[ approaching AI ]
No, you misunderstood. Mattel owns the code because they "acquired rights to cphack from the program's original authors". The problem is that it implies the retroactive cancelling of the previous licensing arrangement by the authors (whether it is GPL or public) --which doesn't seem quite kosher.
The Herald article was not labeled so, but must have been an opinion piece. No editor could look at that as objective reporting. It was also in the business section, and -- having just left a business publication -- businessmen are more conservative than almost any other breed of mundanes. Business reporting, unfortunately, caters to this bias. What you say about the media is true. The most liberaterian papers tend to be conservative-liberaterian, like the Orange County Register chain. The best way to get your message across to journalists is to a be a quotable, available source when they need one. The fact is -- and I am as guilty of this as any other reporter -- when a breaking story comes in, we talk to the people we know and trust. Geeks tend to come across as unreliable in many cases. They also are -- probably justifiably -- paranoid about talking to us in the first place. When you see such stories, don't write letters to the editor (Unless it's a really egregious mistake, that's a good way to make an enemy of the reporter. Words printed on the opinion page tend to burn deep). Don't complain about it in a forum where few reporters go. Calm down then write the reporter an e-mail pointing out any wrong information, then offer to be a source when they have to write such stories in the future. Believe me, journalists love a quotable source who juices up a story by pointing out that the establishment is lying. It helps if you have some sort of credentials, but being a joe-Linux-user will still put you above the crowd.
"...virtue springs from iron within, not lead without." R. Kipling
Where did the DMCA story go????
I just refreshed my page, and then POOF! the story was gone. Anyone care to explain where/why it went?
[sarcasm]It must be VA/Andover exercising their "editorial control". I'm discouraged to see that the governed has the Linux companies firmly in its grasp as well...[/sarcasm]
But seriously though. What happened? I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation...
--
What would happen if someone released this code totally anonymously under the GNU GPL license? Can you do that? Just say... get a yahoo mail account and an anonymous sourceforge account, release the new program under it's correct license, do all the work through your laptop and a payphone out in the boonies (ok now I'm getting a little paranoid).
Gotta say I agree w/ you but ...
Take it back a step further (a decade is to short) and take the long view. The network that ARPA developed (with the help of some hellacious (sp?) academics) was designed to withstand a NUCLEAR ATTACK.
It was not designed to be secure (.mil OWNED the bridges, they were more concerned w/ PHYSICAL SECURITY and then mixed in a little KG-?? to obfuscate), it was designed to keep running.We have all heard the aphorism that "the net regards any attempt to censor as an attack and promptly routes around it", but it is REALLY true.
PEOPLE are bridges/routers now. As long as there is one person who can rally other's around a particular cause (anti-censorship is just TOO classic in this case), NO ONE can stop the distribution of the info.
The key fact is that this thing has gone global. What are the odds that an Iranian (or Italian or Austrian or ...) hacker gives a flying f**k what a judge in the US has to say about ANYTHING, much less what they may or may not choose to publish. If y'all haven't noticed, international governments don't play nice with each other. By the time the US State department/(insert three letter acronym here) gets a foreign ISP to buckle under, the idea/information SHOULD have already spread to 20 plus other countries, if the cause in question has any popular backing what so ever.
The Internet is dead. Forget the BS about the value of a network increasing as the square of the connected nodes. We ARE the nodes and everybody (even the "proles") bring something to the net. Long live the people net.
Just a side note from a former .mil who is getting a real kick out of what has become of the Internet. I LOVE it. Didn't really fit in w/ those guys, but Hey, I took the retirement and ran.
No! I'm no Odd Duck!
/)Canard: Fr. duck
Unsigned contracts most certainly have been found to be binding. Verbal contracts are binding if you can clearly demonstrate the terms. Non-verbal contacts can even be binding. I saw an example of a fellow who regularly buys a candy bar from a shop. On a certain day, the customer comes in, sees the owner busy with another customer, picks up the candy bar, waves it at the owner and leaves. There is a contract and an enforcable promise to pay despite the lack of words, written contract or signature.
Shrinkwrap licenses are another example of contract without signature. The ProCD v. Zeidenberg case held that they were valid contracts.
o>Anomalous: syn. irregular
o>Anomalous: syn. irregular
"
I don't know what other mirror sites have experienced, but Microsystems is really taking quite the liking to my site.
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "file:///MSI_C.VOL1/HOTTST.HTM" "Mozilla/4.01a (Macintosh; I; PPC)"
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "-" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)"
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.1" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.1" 200 1685 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt)" /c.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 228 /world1.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 228 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 95; DigExt)"
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "file:///T|/SP/HOTNOT/BREAK/NETCAP.HTM" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "file:///T|/SP/HOTNOT/BREAK/NETCAP.HTM" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "file:///T|/SP/HOTNOT/BREAK/NETCAP.HTM" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "file:///T|/SP/HOTNOT/BREAK/NETCAP.HTM" "Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I; 16bit)" /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "-" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; I)"
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.1" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.1" 200 1685 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Mac_PowerPC)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Mac_PowerPC)" /c.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Mac_PowerPC)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 228
/cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "-" "Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win95; U)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win95; U)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win95; U)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win95; U)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.51 [en] (Win95; U)" /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 /cndecode.html HTTP/1.0" 200 1685 "file:///MSI_C.VOL1/HOTTST.HTM" "Mozilla/4.01a (Macintosh; I; PPC)" /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 /world1.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 228 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.01a (Macintosh; I; PPC)" /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 /binary.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 246 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.01a (Macintosh; I; PPC)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242 "http://137.216.191.250/cndecode.html" "Mozilla/4.01a (Macintosh; I; PPC)" /c.gif HTTP/1.0" 200 242
Looking at my logs, the number of visits from the *.microsys.com domain has skyrocketed. Guess what they are all looking for. Cphack. They don't even bother with the index.html, but go right for the cndecode.html page on my server. Looking at the referral list, it seems that internally some sort of shitlist of mirror sites (C:/blahblah/list.hmtl) or something keeps track of the mirror sites on openpgp.net. So maybe denying access to the domain wouldn't hurt.
From apache:
qamac2.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:46:12 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:46:12 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [29/Mar/2000:08:01:17 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:23:24:34 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:06 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:06 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:31 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:31 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:32 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:38 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:38 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:55 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:39:55 -0600] "GET
debrag.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:14:43:25 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
rodneyf.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:49:51 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:43 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:43 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:44 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:44 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:44 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:44 -0600] "GET
venusmac.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:36:44 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:47 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:47 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:47 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:47 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:48 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:48 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:48 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:48 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:48 -0600] "GET
jimc.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:48 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:57 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:57 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
qamac2.microsys.com - - [28/Mar/2000:10:22:58 -0600] "GET
No sig is worth reading.
This poses interesting problems (ie date stamp tampering, etc) that must be overcome so that Joe Idiot doesn't get ripped off. Just remember that lawyers operate by very similar rules to programmers. They have strict guidlines and protocols that must be followed, its just that their code is open for interpretation... kinda like Pascal and non-local variables.
IAcertainlyNAL, but when you are the liscensee of a GPL'ed program you most certainly do give the liscensor something: you agree not to use their code in any proprietary programs. But that's rather like saying if I give you $5, then you gave me something because I could have given you $10. I'm giving you incomplete usage rights to my code and asking nothing in return, saying you're giving me something because I'm not giving you complete usage rights is rather flaky reasoning. Regardless, just because I give you something, that doesn't mean I can take it back. The only exception is that if I say I am going to give you something (without remuneration), I'm not legally obliged to do so. But cphack was already given (or at least one file of its was). I believe the idea of the dollar exchange is that the giving and receiving of the dollar is explicit evidence of the parties agreeing to the terms of the contract, not that the $1 makes sure the contract is not unconscionable.
The question is did the creators of Cphack ever own their work to begin with?>
Think of it this way: What if I broke into a company stole some of their private files and
posted them on the net under GPL?
Does that give anyone the right to copy and redistribute them?
Certainly not, they belong to the company still because I obtained them illegally
What if I de-assembled parts of Microsoft Word and translated into a my own more readable source code,
posted it on the web and GPLed it? Can we now freely compile and distribute MS Word? Nope.
What the authors of Cphack did was similar. They broke the license agreement of a software package they obtained by reverse-engineering it.
And they attempted to GPL a descriptions of the workings of this companies product.
Maybe not as obviously illegal as the examples above, but certainly similar and maybe the same in a court of law.
So the question is whether the work was theirs and legit to beign with.
Mattel might have screwed themselves already though -- by signing an agreement to transfer the rights to Cphack to themselves they are implying
that the software belonged to the Cphack authors to begin with.
If I was you, I wouldn't kick the dog that was biting me.
Finish fighting your RSI battle first. You deserve to win.
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I think the GPL tells it well enough. if the courts don't think the GPL license means anything then neither does Mattel's or MPAA or any other license.
oops.
From the article: The law requires "a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed." Hmm, too bad they didn't shrink-wrap it, then they'd be covered under DMCA.
The interesting thing about whether e-mail could be considered writing is that this is the very case where the judge allowed Mattel to e-mail the subpoenas out. Assuming that public key verification can be used as a signature (I have no idea about the legal status of that) and that it was used in this case, the argument that it should count could certainly be made. However, since the subpeonas were backed up by hardcopies which were mailed, I doubt that it would carry through at this time. My only qualification for legal ruminations, BTW, is having a friend in law school who talks to me a lot about the subject, so take this for what it's worth.
Perhaps this has been discussed. Is it crazy that Mattel brought on this lawsuit as a publicity stunt. This is the most attention they've received in quite some time I'm sure
I agree with a lot of what you say there....but, it's like your favorite band. Remember that band that you loved, loved to see in small clubs without the big crowds. They rocked. Then they got big and you didn't like going to the big shows because the intimacy wasn't there any more (it happened to me twice). Next thing you know, losers that didn't know shit about their music were suddenly all over the place...singing your songs!! It sucked. The internet's like that I guess. When anything's that powerful, it's impossible and even selfish to keep to yourself (after all, this site today is a result of that). There are always gonna be dorks who try (inadvertently pehraps) to spoil it for the rest but that's why you keep on searching and guess what..if those bands had't have made the big time, they probably wouldn't be playing today. Either that or they would be doing crappy renditions of earlier days. C'mon the internet has given a lot of people a lot of opportunity they never would have had. Ignore the losers and focus on the good stuff.
a little add-on to my post. if the internet hadn't grown like it has (and any good idea for that matter) then we'd still be sitting behind shitty computers with equally shitty modems and no-color screens hacking our way through rudimentary ways to communicate. while we're at it, why don't we block out the phone and electricity for people who we feel have nothing earth shattering to use these advances for. kind of weird that on a topic relating to free speech we found ourselves here...trying to limit what this case stands for by allowing only a select few to have access to this tool for communication.
Unless Jansson and Skala formally -- using paper and pen and a signature -- signed their rights over to the Free Software Foundation, Mattel may be able to sue over a potential copyright violation.
This isn't right. Whoever wrote this seems to think that the GPL works by assigning copyright to the FSF and that the FSF then grants people permission to make copies. It's not like that.
The GPL works by giving the recipients a license to distribute under certain conditions, which works recursively. At no point in the process is the FSF involved. While it is true that in the absence of a signature, the program would not be owned by the FSF, it doesn't *need* to be owned by the FSF in order for the GPL to apply. Although the FSF does like to have the copyright of GPL programs assigned to it, this is purely optional and doesn't affect the GPL itself.
A particularly interesting piece is an off-the-cuff comment at the end of the article which says that free licenses are generally held to be revokable.
This sounds like an extension of contract law, where contracts can't simply be one-sided -- each party has to give the other party something. I could pay you a dollar for GPLing your code, and you would not be able to undo that GPLing without my consent. (You could, however, undo it *with* my consent.)
Note that for a piece of GPLed software with a number of authors, I would think *all* the authors would have to agree to change it from GPL. So Linux is quite safe.
As usual, I'm not a lawyer...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
That's not how copyright law works. Unless the software is explicitly made public domain, it has one or more owners. Everybody else have, at best, a license to the software. Only the owner can sign over ownership. If you have Emacs, you have a license (the GPL) which allows you to use and distribute Emacs under certain conditions. But you cannot sign over ownership of Emacs to Microsoft. Only the owner, the FSF, can do that.
If you didn't, hope.
Personally, I rather like this lawsuit - the worse the judge is (from the Free Software perspective), the more expensive IT departments will get. Suddenly. As individuals, we don't have much power. But your boss' boss' boss probably plays golf with Senators or appeals court judges. If he's been hit where it REALLY hurts (the bank statement), this might end up destroying not the Free Software movement but the Corporate IP movement.
If you can't fight the attack, relax, just turbocharge the backlash. You might not be able to fight Mattel, but someone way above you in your company knows a man who can.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How many of these sorts of things have actually been tested in court? Not Mattel's latest, that was settled. Is this why the DCMA (is that right?) is being put in place - to actually cement in a company's ability to demand unreasonable stuff from consumers? Slipped in under the radar of a poorly informed and disinterested government... What happened to "the customer is always right"?
The consideration isn't the expectation of improved code from others. The consideration is the promise to disclose the source code to any changes you distribute in binary form, and the promise to make the improved source code available under the terms of the GPL.
Consider a contract in which you license a patent for use in your product, in exchange for, say 1% of your gross product sales, if any.
The required public disclosure of functional, useful computer source code is VERY valuable consideration.
In fact, The GPL differs from the BSD license in that the GPL requires such consideration. The BSD license is more of a gift license then the GPL, and could therefore be found to be unenforcable.
This Boston Herald story speaks of the judge's decision. I can't help but think in all of this, knowing that Boston Herald is more regarded as a right-winged newspaper, where's the other side of journalism when it comes to newspapers like the Herald? It barely even mentions in it that the hackers had a purpose other than allowing all the "smut" to get to the "children's fertile and formative minds"...
How can we increase the awareness of the journalists on issues pressing our rights to learn more about insiduous programs like CP? The people who are in authority over deciding the fate of things like this (like judges and senators) need to be briefed on our issues, and they won't go out to wired.com or slashdot.org to appease a non-existant craving for knowledge on why what they're doing may have a larger ramification than they realize. They'll just stick to the newspapers and columns they read anyways...
My point is, though both sides of the story exist, and we all have our personal beliefs laid out, it doesn't do any justice until our representatives and people of power make decisions for our rights...
Just my 2 centz.
--
BlackHat Linux 6.66 (Discordia)
Dan Kissam e-mail: teeheehee@yahoo.com
"We are not always what we seem, and hardly ever what we dream."
Schmendrick the Magician
...In a better world:
Maybe Mattel should partner with WAVE--anyone trying to get around CyberPatrol or run CPHack against it will be automatically reported to WAVE and have 'counselors' show up immediately to 'talk' to this offender of common social values about why they don't NEED to know about breast cancer, safe sex practices, STDs or the like.
*sigh*
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
The path forward is clear to me. We need to come up with a general purpose program that knows about many different encryption methods and file formats, and how to get around them. As part of this program it should have the ability to deal with new methods and file formats with either loadable modules or easily extensible source. It should have automated tools for dealing with all known encryption methods, and all know wrappers to those encryption methods.
As an alternate: We need to come up with a general purpose program that knows about many different encryption methods and file formats, and how to get around them. As part of this program it should have the ability to deal with new methods and file formats with either loadable modules or easily extensible source. It should have automated tools for dealing with all known encryption methods, and all known wrappers to those encryption methods.
The program would be a general purpose tool. It would contain generic tools for analysing and decrypting encrypted data in files, streams, etc. Once a specific format is determined a template could be built to automate the decryption process for that format. The point is the tool is generic, and not specific to any one system. The templates allow the transfer of knowlege of how to deal with specific systems.
Although Wired says that 205e requires a "paper and pen and a signature" for a prior nonexclusive license to prevail over a copyright transfer, the actual wording is "if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed".
The code itself containing the "released under the GPL" comment is a written instrument, so it comes down to whether a handwritten signature is necessary, or if the fact that the instrument itself is the thing copyrighted (or vice versa) makes the signature implicit. The signed instrument merely serves as proof that the license has been assigned, but that seems redundant if the copyrighted work includes the authorizing language.
Ultimately it'll depend on how literally a given judge interprets the law.
For a nightmare scenario, if decided in Mattel's favor it would allow something like Microsoft paying, say, Linus Torvalds whatever it takes to obtain the Linux copyrights and then them shutting down everybody else (who doesn't have a paper signed by Linus explictly licensing the code to them).
Signing over all the rights to FSF is one solution, but then the author has lost control. It might be satisfactory to sign a copy of the GPL (tweaked as necessary) granting FSF nonexclusive GPL rights (which includes redistribution). If digital signatures are acceptable then digitally signing the released code (which includes the necessary comments about GPL) should be all that's needed.
-- Alastair
> I think the program and the paper describing the encryption will be successfully deep-sixed.
Actually, if you happen to have a copy of the paper you can still quote it under the fair use doctrine, whatever the copyright holder says about it.
Of course fair use does not allow posting the entire article, but it does cover citing parts of the article verbatim if you are discussing it or merely want to drag it in to make a point. For instance, if you were trying to convince your local library not to install Cyber Patrol, you could cite the article's claim that the Church of the SubGenius site is blocked in all categories except sex education.
Of course, the established doctrine of fair use does not mean you won't be getting e-mail from Mattel (You can tell it's from Mattel, it's e-mail!), but you could presumably get a clean win on that one in court, and perhaps even a cease & desist against Mattel.
Oh, yeah: IANAL. If you get thrown in the Mattel Jail, sue someone else.
Hell, my telling you about the fair use doctrine might even be illegal under the recent wave of legislation.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
IANAL, but here is a page that gives the purported definition of "consideration" in Minnesota (emphasis mine):
I would think that a promise to provide the code along with any derived software you distribute meets the definition of "a promise to do something there is no legal obligation to do".
Thank you, LWN, for the link. (LWN also mentions the program's author's claim that the program never was under the GPL anyway, though someone posted a purported quote here a few days back giving a one-line claim of GPLhood for the code.)
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> f the license is evidenced by a written instrument
In other words, all that COTS software that you bought off the shelf at CompUSA and are currently running legally, can have its licenses revoked if the original maker sells it to someone else, since you don't have a written instrument for any of it?
Also, what's the whether recorded or not bit referring to?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Generally speaking, for any contract to be enforcable there needs to be a consideration.
So, if I donate computers and associated software to universities with no strings attached, the licenses are not valid, but if I attach strings, the licenses are valid?
That may be the way the law works, but it sure isn't the way it ought to work.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
To whatever extent the law allows, the GPL will follow the OSS tradition of patching leaks and moving ahead. If the courts are unkind to GPL 2.1, we'll merely see a GPL 3.0.
Worst case (it seems) is that we'll have to start providing "written instruments" with each license. Even this may not be as bad as it seems, since much business is already done with legally binding signatures that are generated by machine. (E.g., the signatures on the gazillions of checks issued by big companies every week.) It should be possible to set up a web page for your GPL'd product, where people who want a license just click to get their written instrument. And it will only need to be done once, since whoever sets up the first one will GPL the CGI code for the rest of use to use.
More likely (IMO) is that the courts will not do anything that proves to be a blanket invalidation of "click wrap" licenses. In such a case the FSF will write a click-wrap function that GPL developers could link with their code, and all will be well unless The Man wants to shoot himself in the foot by challenging clickwrapping.
Or until the next law is passed, adding yet another artificial hurdle between "legitimate" businesses like Mattel and people who don't make big enough political contributions, like OSS developers.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The last one is wrong. You can't assume that merely having a lawn is an invitation for someone to mow it. If someone does mow it, you're under no obligation to them, as long as you didn't indicate your desire to have it mowed. If you sat and watched them do it, that's irrelevant. But, on a related note, you don't have to even know about it, if you for instance posted a sign asking for it to be done, someone could do it and bill you, without you ever seeing them.
There are very few contracts that the law required must be written, putting a contract in writing is just for ongoing contracts where a difference of opinion in a small wording issue could be costly. What the law requires is that both parties be aware of the contract, even the implicit candy-bar waving, and not coerced, etc.
If someone sends you something in the mail, with a bill, and you didn't ask for this, you're free to keep the something and ignore the bill. The only time this isn't true is when the something is free, like an AOL disk, but the bill is for a potential service you could sign up for, with the free product they sent.
I think you just said that wrong, because there's an obvious error.
:)
Contracts can be valid without signatures, any time you purchase something in a store, you're entering into an implicit contract (with all the force of a signed paper contract) with the store.
What a contract requires is that both parties be aware of it. I can enter into an unspoken implicit contract for you by waving a five dollar bill while reaching for something you own, if you give me the thing and take the money, it's legally sold. If I just took the item without your knowledge and left money, even way more money than the item was worth, it wouldn't be a valid contract, I'd have stolen the item.
But, the GPL isn't a contract, the GPL is a license, which offers a contract, basically.
I can download GPLed software and use it in *any* way I want, as long as it doesn't conflict with copyright law. The GPL has no force yet. As soon as I want to break the inherent copyright protections, by distributing it, or modifying and distributing it for instance, then the GPL comes in, because it allows that, *if* you agree to certain terms. You signal you acceptance of this offer by using those extra rights granted. If you don't agree, you aren't given any extra rights.
The GPL could include any clause they wish, making you compose a sonnet in honor of RMS perhaps, if it was so written, it doesn't have to relate only to the specific piece of software. This is how it can not only dictate what you do with this piece of software, but what you do with any derivative software. By agreeing to the GPL for one package, you agree to release your later modifications under the GPL. Similar to walking off a car lot with a new car, and the obligation of paying for it later. (Except that the car dealership would probably want to see some ID...
There are a bunch of other things which are required to make a contract valid, but most aren't relevant here. Basically the idea is that both people are capable of agreeing, it's not a criminal action, there's no coercion, etc.
These are two scenarios. If you assign the copyright you can't revoke it. They own it. You also can't change the licence on subsequent versions, because you're constrained by the GPL.
If you don't assign the copyright, but release under the GPL, that version remains under the GPL forever. However, you may change the licencing for future versions at your whim.
--
E_NOSIG
Well, that's the whole point of assigning copyright of your code to the FSF. You can be pretty certain they're not selling Emacs to anyone.
--
E_NOSIG
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, said that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid because users don't pay for the free software.
"Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable," Volokh said. "Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack copyright."
this is a big issue, I mean, if this is the truth then what is the point of doing the usual 'sign the papers to the EFF' thing ? Any day <insert name of evil corporation here> could buy the rights, for example, to a crucial piece of Emacs, and then effectively preventing further distribution until somebody untangles the mess.
And what about the Linux kernel itself ?
this sucks.
-- the cake is a lie
Certainly, we should put the GPL through its paces, sooner rather than later. The sooner we discover whether it needs fixing, and fix it, the more we reduce exposure to risk for Open Source.
Because the GPL is so radical, having direct supporting case law behind it will give a warm glow to the legal arm of the oncoming corporate contributors.
Moreover, the news seem to refer to Skala handing down his rights to Mattel, but they do not talk about Jansson. It could therefore be inferred that it is still legal to distribute Jansson's work alone in its own package, which could be called something like cphack-jansson.
I do not know whether cphack-jansson would be useful or not by itself, but it could be used as the foundation for an overhauled totally legal package.
I think what this is comming down to is the geeks need an international legal/political organization.
Kind'a like the EFF but a lot larger.
I agree completely, and I fully support the EFF, but one of the biggest problems with the EFF making a real difference is the fact that they are a charity as far as the IRS is concerned, which greatly restricts what they can do politically (though "lobbying" is apparently allowed). This is why organizations such as the ACLU and (shudder) the NRA don't allow you to deduct donations. This frees them to do whatever they want politically.
--GnrcMan--
This sounds like an extension of contract law, where contracts can't simply be one-sided -- each party has to give the other party something.
Wait a sec. IAcertainlyNAL, but when you are the liscensee of a GPL'ed program you most certainly do give the liscensor something: you agree not to use their code in any proprietary programs. That can be quite a large restriction--certainly worth more than giving a dollar as you suggest--without taking away your rights to use the software as you wish for your own personal use--which the forced bug-reporting plan someone else suggested would do.
The BSD liscense might be on shakier grounds here; all it does is revoke any implied warranties. But I think the GPL is legally ok.
(I'm sure I don't have to point out that this is a stupid clause in contract law anyways, whether it happens to impact the particular free liscenses we have around today or not. The idea of course is just to make sure that we're not making unfair deals to hide one person's taking advantage of another and calling them "contracts". Well, considering that you can completely circumvent the spirit of the clause by paying $1, and yet it just might apply to some free software liscenses, in which all parties actually *do* understand what's going on, and no one's taking advantage of anyone or hiding anything...yet another case where we find contract/IP law is completely out of sync with actual human interactions.)
here's CNN's latest <a href="http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/29/cy<nobr>b<wbr></wbr></nobr> erpatrol.order/"> article</a>.
Florida the eleventh province? You don't want it. Canada's health care costs are burdensome already, and I don't think the infusion of twelve million geriatrics will help it any.
I will give you that Detroit can be, ehrm, rough (I'm a 'local') but it is hardly full of gun-wielding drug-fiend rapists! Really, the only place that fits your description is the district!! I think our perpensity for calling you the 51st comes from the fact that of any country on earth, you are the most like us. As much as you like to pretend you're not, it's the truth. Example, redneck bars. I can walk into any redneck bar in Canada and, with the exception of 'Budweiser' signs being replaced by 'Labatts', and recieving $3.25 in change from a $4 drink I bought with a five, I would find it indistinguishable. The people are pretty homogeneous. You have the sports fans talking shit about how the Wings/Clippers/Leafs bite, the barflies, the clumps of hourly bitching about the boss, and the bartender that sneers whan you want Guinness or Stoli neat.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Please take a look at my userinfo. I've done such a thing and released it on Slashdot.
If, as it has been reported, that CP has a 60-70% error rate, then why hasn't the ACLU started a class action suit on behalf of those sites being maligned by CP? The ACLU would have a better case arguing the restraint of free speech, and possibe commercial trade restraint when CP is used.
And if you're into boycotting, why not attempt to make CP obsolete? Try putting a keyword on your home page of "XXX" or "sucks". Let's all try to get Cyber Patrol up to a full 100% error rate.
I don't agree with the reasoning that breaking something open is justified if it is easy to do so. If people are going to reverse engineer things, it needs to be done because they believe the software is infringing on someone's rights.
If there is one truth in cryptography, it is that people LOVE to break cryptography. Cryptography not protected by patent can be reverse engineered. Reverse engineering is ABSOLUTELY not forbidden on things only protected by copyright. Even DMCA does not forbid reverse engineering in general.
So we are left with - bad crypto program made to censor the web has crypto broken and poor censoring exposed. And made public domain. There is really no way to undo what has been done.
Short answer, yes.
There are 12 categories the administrator can toggle on and off. There are 2 categories which cannot be disabled. Any site blocked in the latter categories are always blocked. In earlier versions peacefire was blocked for all 12 - "Violence / Profanity, Partial Nudity, Full Nudity, Sexual Acts / Text, Gross Depictions / Text, Intolerance, Satanic or Cult, Drugs / Drug Culture, Militant / Extremist, Sex Education, Questionable / Illegal & Gambling, Alcohol & Tobacco" however it was apparently not on one of the reserved lists, so it would be possible to access it by turning off all administrator changeable settings - but it would not be accessible using the settings any user is actually going to use - if a parent (or other administrator) sets the program to block any of the categories it is listed under (and who would buy the thing if they didn't want to block at least one of those?) then peacefire would be blocked.
I have heard (but cannot confirm for sure at this point) that after this latest brouha they have finally been added to the reserved (not toggleable) list as well.
The reserved list certainly contains some strange choices. http://133.205.62.133/~coga/ for instance, and http://202.26.1.170/~t2m-n/ don't seem to have any objectionable material I can see.
The whole logic of having a "reserved" list is questionable, what exactly is this software supposed to block outside of the 12 user selectable settings? And why do political sites wind up listed under many if not all of those 12 categories, when most are clearly innappropiate? Sexual acts, violence, nudity, gambling satanism and drugs on peacefire?
Of course, if you had read the essay you would have known this already. Better grab it quick, before the Uni turns yellow and orders the prof to take it down.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Very good point.
Here's the section of the law that Wired says might invalidate the licenses already granted:
USC 17 205 E
(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. - A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized agent, and if -
IANAL - #include stddisclaimer.h etc. BUT
I can read. This says that IF the license was in writing with a signature from the original copyright holder on it then it would stand. It does not say that because there is no signature it does not hold - it doesn't say anything one way or the other about the typical software license which no one signs. I couldn't find anywhere else in the code that addresses that issue.
IF this is taken by the court to invalidate the pre-existing licenses in this case the precedent would also invalidate 99% of commercial software licenses along with it, meaning for instance that Symantec could demand everyone who has bought Quarterdeck software in the past to quit using it and surrender all copies, since they bought Quarterdeck. Not sure why they would want to, but they could, if that is the precedent that's set. Very strange.
What strikes me as truly absurd about such an outcome is that (someone correct me if I am wrong here) I believe it is firmly established that the original copyright owner that granted the license cannot revoke it (except as allowed for by the particular license) yet if this is the ruling they would suddenly be able to sidestep the license entirely by selling it to someone else and having them revoke the license? Very strange.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
However...now I must ask...what constitutes
"Payment"?
This ties in very well with the RMS interview
a few days ago when he said that they (they being
corperations) "dislike freedom, they only
recognize the freedom to do things that are
profitable".
However...what if I consider the good feeling
I get from thinking that someone else is using
my program as "payment"? Really...thats all
the payment that I need.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The question is did Mattel get the rights to the code after the settlement, or did the court rule Mattel has always had rights to the code. If they simply recieved the rights to the code at the time of settlement then their screwed because it was already GPLed. If they always had the rights to the code, and the case just confirmed it, then the code was GPLed illegally. The license is invalid and Mattel owns all the code, period.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
The Alice-Bob agreement is a contract only if there is consideration. But what is consideration? Is money the only acceptable form of consideration?
The agreement gives Alice, the skeptic, the high ground. Bob in agreeing to take the alien ship away is saying that Alice is vindicated. Until the alien ship actually crashed, and the consideration - Alice's vinidication - is forfeit. Bob is then entitled to cash in on the forfeit by claiming the ship (since he maintained its existence) for his vindication. It sounds inadequate, but one only needs to show consideration, as your same link shows, not adequency! Consideration (in the form of vindication) goes both ways in this case, right?
This entire idea of consideration doesn't make sense from the betting point of view. Lawyers frequently offer this option: "I'll fight your case for no charge. But if you win, I get 50 percent of damages." Sounds like a good deal right? But where is the consideration to the lawyer when the case is lost? This contract is void! Yet people are doing this all the time, in the USA.
My conclusion is that consideration is an essential point here. But one has to be flexible about what form consideration takes!
This means that there is a violation only when the if clause is satisfied and the then clause not. In the other cases, you have entered into a licence which does not restrict your freedom in any way. Quid Pro Quo is in effect in all cases. If you distrbute and pass the changes back, the original provider gets the changes. Something for something else. If you don't make modifications, or don't distribute, nothing is taken, nothing given.
This makes it different from the alien case you are making an analogy to. Bob should probably have said, "If an alien lands, I'll haul the ship away for you, and cleanup the lawn for you too." When Alice assents to this agreement, she is in effect agreeing to let Bob haul the ship away. How she assents to this agreement (by accepting money or otherwise) is immaterial. The point is that there should be some sign of assent. It seems that "consideration" should be part of the contract, and not confused with the issue of whether the contract is entered into at all.
But IANAL. I maybe naive and just plain wrong.
Note that "as long as Mattel has not notified him of the license change" might be taken to mean "so long as he has not read of the assignment of rights to cphack to Mattel. Those programmers working on new versions had best not be doing any viewing/hearing of news.
It seems to me that we are fighting large multi-national companies on their turf. Even worse it seems that national borders aren't very effective at stoping litigation.
We need to enlist the media more effectively. Instead of releasing a program to decrypt the blocked list sites, release the blocked list to the New York Times or Washington Post. Those guys will defend their first amendment rights.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Does the expectation of improved code from others constitute sufficient consideration?
I don't think so because it's an expectation and not an enforcable promise.
Now that you mention it, the "Open Source" licenses that require code changes to be given back to the original author might pass the consideration hurdle. There I've given a promise to send back future code changes in exchange for seeing the code now and the right to redistribute derivative works. I realize that these types of licenses are deprecated, but they may actually be more enforcable.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
According to this, maybe the GPL is not a contract, but a gift. Does that make any difference? Aren't gifts protected by law too?
Some are. But the gift of a promise is not generally enforcable. If I freely promise to give you my car in 12 months in exchange for no consideration (i.e. a gift and not a contract), you can't take me to court to make me life up to the promise. Similarly, if I promise never to revoke a gift of free software and I later change my mind, you can't sue me to live up to my promise if that promise is a gift and not a contract.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Now, I think that it is the key issue. As a user of GPLed software, I want to be able to rely on the promise that the right to use and redistribute it will not be revoked at a future date. But if the GPL is not a contract because of lack of consideration, I can't enforce that promise in court.
Consideration can take any number of forms. The lawyer's contingency fee is consideration as is the promise of an insurer to pay benefits if an insured event occurs. The presence of a contingency dosn't make the promise devoid of value even if the chance of it being fufilled is remote. The alien example was concocted because I wanted some kind of promise which could plausably be given. The remoteness of the event is not the issue.
The question still remains what form does the consideration for the author of GPLed software take. Good feelings are probably too intangible to count. I think that the old BSD Advertising clause probably would count as consideration as would the requirement in some licenses that modifications be sent back to the author. But I'm failing to find consideration in the GPL.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I think that the commentator is confusing assignment of software to the FSF with the GPL license. Yes, assigning a copyright to the FSF or to any other party legally requires a signed agreement. Granting a GPL license dosn't. I think that the article is inaccurate and misleading on this point.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I think that it may very well have to do with consideration. It's clear that the licensee gets rights from the GPL. The question is does the licensee give any consideration in exchange for those rights.
I've done a web search for legal discussions of consideration and the GPL and nothing pertinant came up.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Let's say Bob does put it in the form of an if ... then ... statement and Alice clearly assents in writing. There still isn't an enforcable contract because there is no consideration.
Alice can't force Bob to haul the ship away if he's reluctant to do so and Bob can't force Alice to turn the wreck (or the monetary value of the wreck) over to him if she disposes of it otherwise.
Consideration has to be an element of any contract. Here's a link which discusses consideration in Minnesota law, but it is general enough to apply to other states. I learned from this page that consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Gifts or promises to make a gift, I believe, are not enforcable. I also learned that each party to a contract needs to give some consideration.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Also, as far as a license being revocable because we don't pay for it. Does this have to do with contract law and "consideration" (legal term for compensation) being required? Well by accepting the license we gain the right to distribute the software, which could legally be considered consideration. Also, the No Electronic Theft Act redefined "financial gain" to include receipt of copyrighted works. Wouldn't it be ironic if we could use that in our favor?
These are just some ideas. A real lawyer needs to look at this.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
What requires a contract to be in writing is known as the statute of frauds. It is different in most states, but generally applies to real estate, large amounts of money, agreements to pay debts of others, and contracts that take more than a year to complete.
Receiving something in the mail and keeping it is a matter of statute. It is different from the guy who mows your lawn, or details your car while you watch.
Fight Spammers!
Phone orders are not signed.
When you buy food at a store, gas at a gas station, you usually do not sign a contract.
If a guy mows your lawn, even if you don't ask, and you watch, you still owe him the money (presuming you did not tell him to stop). That is a contract.
Some contracts are to be in writing though.
Fight Spammers!
Fight Spammers!
If CP was hacked and they said, you can look at the code for $$$, do you think anyone would hear of them?
Fight Spammers!
- Someone who understands crypto coding (unfortunately that's not me) reads the cphack essay but specifically not the source.
- The then use the knowledge gained to write a completely new cphack which (as suggested by DG) just displays the block list (and which is obviously called something else).
Now for the clever bit :-)
- We choose a country where we believe that the laws are most in our favour and justice is reasonably inexpensive (suggestions?). We then locate a volunteer in that country who (a) believes in the cause and (b) is preferably a minor.
- Said volunteer then claims to have written the code, does all GPL related legal hoop jumping and release it to an expectant world.
- Then we sit back and see what those bastards at Mattel do about it.
Obviously, this needs a bit of covert organising in order to work properly (e.g. maximum use of telephone conversations and floppy discs in jiffy bags rather than possibly traceable email).
Perhaps the above is a council of perfection, but if we could achieve at least the first half we would be getting somewhere.
Yes, I have done something positive to help the cause rather than just sitting and complaining. I paid my money to join EFF. Have you?
I ask it because while I think that it is not possible, and if it is possible they probably are accessible, it would be quite telling if they still weren't accessible, no?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
the transfer and without notice of it.
It seems to me that even if the relevant portion is arcane and obscure, it's still the law.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
You don't even need to form a group or file for a test case to fight on corporation turf. Write your government representatives every time something like this comes up. Be polite, remind them that you're voting next election, and keep sending mail. I've worked for pol offices, and if there's one thing that gets through, it's a big box of letters and a ton of phone calls coming in every time a new bill comes up. Granted, I like the idea of a massive worldwide geek political/legal foundation...but in the meantime, it's not like we're all powerless.
Sidenote. If the ACLU was working on the case, it would've had to have been with the cooperation of the authors. They can't just jump in and take things over. Even if neither of the guys was a US citizen, it's in US courts, with a US company, so the ACLU's got an interest in it...and they bring free lawyers with 'em.
I think there's a place in the market for software totally devoid of licences. Provide decent manuals and support for people that actually buy it, but otherwise just sell a damn product.
There, I feel better now.
The licensee of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a license to use and improve the software.
The author of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a promise by the licensee to disclose any improvements or modifications to the software in source code form, when the improved software is distributed in any form.
Such disclosements of valuable intellectual property would not be required in the absence of the GPL.
As anyone who's ever read an NDA knows, program source code, as developed by a company, is generally considered to be valuable goods, and an agreement to reveal what would otherwise be considered trade secrets should count as consideration.
I don't really like the statement:
The law requires "a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed."
because if all this is the case, then why can people be accountable for email that they have written?
I realize that these are in some sense disjoint subjects, but I think that there is a connection between them. if electronic means can't be used to give the rights of a program to someone, then why can email be used as evidence in court? If the courts are going to "grow up" digitally and use email in court, then they sure as hell should allow the use of granting rights and permissions over electronic means.
I know this is somewhat off topic, but it doesn't seem like the court plays by all of the same rules. Either using an electronic means to do something is considered binding, or it isn't...make up your mind!
okay I'm done ranting now...kill my karma.
---
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese."
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese," Wallace.
If you've explicitly waived your copyrights and placed the work in the Public Domain, then there's no question of you assigning your rights to anyone, so the reassignment of rights that took place here is not an issue.
Whilst the GPL gives an excellent defensive edge in terms of keeping proprietarists off our grass and doing an embrace and extend on our software, waiving copyright entirely seems to be the more powerful concept in terms of keeping the software free, especially if this "free licenses are revocable" quip has any truth to it. I mean think about it: any piece of software which is under the GPL or a BSD style license can potentially be changed retroactively to a non-free license. Maybe the current copyright owner can be trusted to keep it free, but what about future owners? If the copyright is owned by a company, then it can be purchased along with the company in a buy-out. The havoc that could be wreaked with this concept is unthinkable, and I'd like to believe that it's impossible, but when it comes to The Law, who the heck knows? Unthinkably daft stuff seems to be the rule rather than the exception in IPR laws at the moment.
Public Domain may not make any guarantees about derived works being free, but if making something Public Domain won't keep the original work free, then nothing will. Here's to the Public Domiain.
And yes, of course, this post is Public Domain (P) 2000.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Sounds like what our friendly, neighborhood Free-as-in-Speech licenses need is a strong shot of "Not-Free-as-in-Beer": more like "Cheap-as-in-Bad-Beer"? :) Seriously, suppose that our favorite licenses contained a clause similar to the following:
Consideration
In return for the rights assigned hereunder, licensee agrees to remit one of the following considerations to licensor:
I realize that this puts a dollar premium on "lurking" in the community -- but it also explicitly states in the license ways non-programmers can become involved... which in the long run is advantageous in-and-of-itself.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Let me offer an example: suppose I have a copy of the cphack source code (which I have extensively modified, but not released yet), which I accepted under terms of the GPL. Mattel has not notified me in writing that they believe they now own the rights to the original source code.
So I assign (still under the GPL) the rights to my heavily modifed code to the FSF.
This would appear to close the loophole mentioned in the article, but would it stop Mattel from threatening to shut down my site(s), have the justice system throw me in jail, etc. because a judge in a different state decided to issue a restraining order in such a way that I am vulnerable to the application of his ruling?
The problem is, there's no law that protects me from Mattel's legal department. Such as a "loser pays" requirement in lawsuits deemed to be harassment.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Let's get to it, people.
========
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
In a lot of ways, the cphack and DeCSS cases strike me as a lot of pointless legal wrangling. Like a misused antibiotic, these cases are going to make things worse for the Mattels and MPAAs of the future, not better.
Given the treatment the authors of cphack and DeCSS have had, the authors security cracking programs of the future would be wise to take pains to hide thier identities. And then what will Big Brother do?
The next DeCSS could be distributed strictly by Napster/Wrapster/GNUtella/Usenet. Then there would not be any one person the Powers That Be can crucify as an example to the rest of us. There won't be a handful of mirrored sites to slap with subpeonas, there won't be a teenager to rake over the coals in the back room at the police station. The program would be everywhere, yet nowhere that's worth going after.
I just don't see what Mattel and the MPAA hope to achieve. They will probably win all the court battles, and yet they will gain nothing.
The DMCA presents an interesting twist in this case.
The story:
Yesterday I was called into the Computing and Information Services dept at my school. They said that under the DMCA, in Copyright cases, they had to remove the materials immediately, as a "good faith effort" or they could be held liable. They further said that even if I was right, they would rather not fight a lawsuit. "We would rather use our money in other ways." So I took down my school mirror of the software, and put one up on Geocities (http://www.geocities.com/novalis_dt)
OK, but consider the implications of the DMCA - you *can't* choose to fight the man, 'cause if you do, they go for your ISP. And *everyone* has someone as their ISP.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
That way, the GPL could be viewed as two-way contract -- one party provides software, the other party provides testing services. (Which would certainly be of value to the author.)
This is all assuming that the GPL is, in fact, revocable. That still sounds kind of fishy to me.
MSK
The whole intent of the GPL has been to make an irrevocable free license. The FSF has gone through a lot of trouble to do this. If this fails does that mean that there is no legal way to do such a thing? That would be truly sad. I mean seriously, how can you tell people that they're not allowed to release software under a free irrevocable license.
The spirit of the GPL is that the license is irrevocable. The authors of CPHack released it under the GPL with this spirit in mind. This is the best irrevocable free license available to my knowledge and the 'irrevocable' part is exactly what makes it work. I can't see how any judge or government can justify saying that such a license is not legally available in the US.
numb
Don't believe me? Look at Matt's own site, http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/:
I did not put any GPL notices on the portions of the package that I wrote, I did not intend my work to be GPL, and I did not lie to the plaintiffs about what rights I owned or could assign to them.
Can we mark this entire news item as irrelevant? Can somebody in Slashdot-land research this issue a little better before perpetuating the theory that this code is GPL'ed? This will NOT be a test of the GPL. Period. Everybody needs to remove their head from the cranial-rectal position and RESEARCH WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT before posting.
The Wired reporter is wrong, as is anybody else who's claiming that the code is GPL'ed. Even if you wanted to claim that the one piece of code that contains the words "Released under the GPL" is GPL'ed, it is doubtful that the courts would agree that the license applies: none of the terms stated in the GNU GPL have been met (no displayed copyright notice, no disclaimer of warranty, no copy of the LICENSE text file).
IT'S NOT GPL'ED!!
The very end of the story raises this thorny issue. Someone states that a non-exclusive license granted without charge may be revocable even if the license states that it isn't.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Generally speaking, for any contract to be enforcable there needs to be a consideration. Money is one form of consideration, but not the only one. The user of the software gets some rights, but does the grantor get anything? In the days of the old BSD Advertising-clause license, the answer is, probably yes. In the case of the GPL, I'm not so sure.
Why is consideration important? To distinguish real contracts that have been entered into from hypothetical ones.
Sally, a sceptic, exchanges email with Bob, a firm believer in UFOs and alien visits to this planet. Sally willingly grants that Bob can have any alien spaceships that crash land on her property. Lo and behold, an alien spacecraft, low on fuel, crashes in her backyard. Several spooky fellows come by and offer Sally $500,000 for the steaming pile of spacejunk and she jumps at the offer. Bob sues Sally under the theory that their emails constituted a contract for Sally to turn over any alien spacecraft to him. Sally's lawyer, having read Slashdot, says "Nuh huh! There's no consideration and hence no contract! Bob didn't pay Sally anything for the valuable residual rights to disabled alien spacecraft on her property." The Judge rules in favor of Sally and dismisses the case. Bob gets an anal probe by some very pissed off aliens.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
The Mattel / MSI press release states, "The company did not file the lawsuit to prevent publication of the CyberNOT filtering list". They also say, "Microsystems did not object to the essay or any of the other material posted by the defendants that was not obtained or derived by violating Microsystems' copyright.".
Since they have said that, I am asking the company if they have a problem if I publish the essay and the CyberNot list. If they are telling the truth in the press release, then they will authorize me to publish it.
Fight Spammers!
Someone in the employ of the ACLU or the FSF or one of the other organizations who are willing and able to actually fight this should:
- Take the cphack source
- Modify it so that it's only use is to display the CyberPatrol block list (to avoid accusations that this is a tool to allow children to access porn)
- Release it under the GPL **PROPERLY**, with the COPYING file, the copyright signed over to the FSF, and the other required hoop-jumping
And then stand and deliver when Mattel comes knocking.
The original CPhack authors have done their bit. Now it's the turn of the Big Boys.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Mattel could be doing us all a favor by pursuing this. We've been waiting for a GPL test case quite a while. This one would even test the 17 U.S.C. 205e issue. Maybe we should consider funding Mattel's legal beagles? :-)
And now for the rant: The logic of this line of argument is detestable, really. Why indeed should contracts be drafted around the concept of money. Whatever happened to quid pro quo? The GPL says: "Use this software as you like, change it as you like. But let's share that change." This is not a commercial transaction. The last time I heard, contracts/licenses covering non-monetary forms of compensation are legal and enforceable. Many free software programmers are NOT in it for the money.
This Mattel Flap and the DeCSS flap have my gears moving on why the geek elite are getting their butts kicked.
It seems to me that we are fighting large multi-national companies on their turf. Even worse it seems that national borders aren't very effective at stoping litigation.
I think this all steams from the fact that we are American centric on this issue. I wouldn't be suprised if the reason guys signed their soul to Mattel was because the ACLU didn't communicate with them.
More so, should the ACLU be in charge of this case? The A stands for American. Sure one of the guys was from Canada and that's pretty much the 51st state, but the other guy?
I think what this is comming down to is the geeks need an international legal/political organization.
Kind'a like the EFF but a lot larger.
Since you accept it by clicking and not signing...
Damn, all these evil thoughts keep popping up.
Fight Spammers!
This whole GPL thing is a tempest in a teapot. See what one of the authors has to say.
whether CPHack is GPL'd, owned in whole by Mattel, or whatever, because we don't need CPHack anymore.
The essay was written. The list was exposed. It is (and has always been) well known that CP is a piece of crap that doesn't do what it's supposed to and does other stuff behind your back if you let it.
Now, if they want to use this as a test case for the GPL, they are only going to wind up hurting the FSF and the Open Source community. The GPL had more teeth when companies took it at face value. To test it is to weaken it.
--Threed
Browsing at +2, or else on my Cell Phone. I see no trolls.
Long live the Internet.
Seriously, the "Internet" as I remember it from over a decade ago, was a small collection of a few thousands of interconnected Universities sharing EMail, a very small Usenet (in those days, one could actually read all of alt.sex... and enjoy actual conversations and discussions), and FTP.
It was mainly a closed system. No riff-raff public allowed in. Certainly no advertising or commercial business allowed. It was a community.
And then, all at about the same time, the Internet became open and Webified.
And that's when it died. When it became affordable, when Joe Moron could easily access it, when it became allowable to conduct commercial business...
One of the drawbacks to our computer age is a near-complete loss of history.
Almost everyone--and I mean that most literally: certainly there aren't more than a few hundred thousand people who date back to ARPANet days--has absolutely no clue why and how the Internet came to be.
All they are aware of is that it has pretty graphics, decent search engines, and you can buy porn from home.
They don't know that there are philosophical and moral battles being played out. They don't know about nor understand the EToy(s) issue; they don't blame the MPAA for wanting to stop theft of artist's songs; they want the government to put a stop to kiddypr0n; they've never known EMail without spam and don't even realize that it could be any different.
They watch network television, for cripes sake!
Face it: the lowest common denominator now has access to the Internet, and he actively *wants* the government to keep him safe and secure.
And those proles outnumber the geeks and old-timers ten thousand to one.
They demand a regulated net. They accept a commercially-driven net. They are afraid of freedom of expression.
They are afraid to step out of the tiny box they live their lives in and realize that when everyone pulls together, we can have a pretty damned special and hopeful world.
The Internet is dead.
Long live the Internet.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
While the implications for GPL in general and reverse engineering, and all of that are Highly Important, there seems to be a general silence about the, as I see it, FAR more dire consequences here.
Not only is Mattel going after the program, it's also going after the ESSAY and the BLACKLIST. Wait a minute here! Is this ruling saying that while the government can't censor, private companies can censor people--even non-employees??? This is especially frightful considering the CyberPatrol practice of blacklisting sites critical of CyberPatrol even if the user is only filtering, say, porn or whatnot.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I thought I'd write a piece about this when it was all over, but now I feel the need to speak up a little. Let's see if I can clarify some things for you.
I've settled with Mattel, through my attorney.
Why we wanted to settle? Well, let's see... As far as I'm concerned, we did what we set out to do; to show that the hash used in CP was not secure, and that the banlist contains lot's of questionable items. Implicitly, we suggest they change to a real secure hash, and take the review-process of suggestions for bans a little bit more seriously. We included the software as proof of concept. Now we move on to other things.
About the licence, copyright and what not. First we must keep our perspective on things. I honestly didn't believe for a second that Mattel would go after us in the courts. At the most I thought that maybe they would contact us in email, requesting we withdraw the files, though I held for more probable that they'd simply update the encryption, making our software void and that'd be it. With hindsight, I guess I'm just really really naivë. I certainly never ment for this to hit the courts (as some seem to be suggesting). This explains in some way why things are so 'murky' as far as licenses go. I can speak only for myself, but my take was that our work would be free for anyone to do whatever they wanted with (I've gotten email saying it was used as a teaching aid, a perfect example of good use, IMHO). So, I wanted something in the essay about this, so I added the part about anyone being allowed to mirror it and so forth. This was a late addition and I informed Matthew about it. I did however make one big mistake, and that is that "GPL" string. You see, when I finished 'cphack' (which got it's name not because it's can be used to 'hack past' CP, but because it is a quick hack, basically written by me top down. I know it's a piece of crap as far as 'engineering' goes, but that is often the case with hacks, no?), anyway, I had finished the software and thought'd I'd write something in the header expressing my intentions as to it's use, distribution and so forth, and so I entered simply 'Released under the GPL'. Now, I made a mental note about speaking to Matthew, that maybe we should release the whole thing under the GPL. For one thing, part of the code was simply my translation of his c-code, so I had to ask him about it, right? Guess what? I forgot. It really didn't hit me until it made conversation on Slashdot, and now I'm not sure what, if anything, I can do about it. All I ever wanted was for people to use the (admittedly crappy) software in any way they saw fit, never having to wonder (or ask) if it was okay by me. As far as I'm concerned, the string weren't meant to be in the distribution, and Mattel got my rights to it.
Now for the titles I've gotten. I have never called myself a hacker. The press have. My sincere apologies to the real hackers out there. I do share most of the mentality, as described in the first third of Levy's _Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution_ and in the Jargon File, but I am not yet one myself. Some have called my a student. I am not a student (well, not officially, I'm on a never ending quest for knowledge, but I don't think that counts). Someone even referred to me -- or me and Matthew both -- as a cryptanalysts! I am not a cryptanalyst, but thanks for your faith in my abilities. If for some reason you have to call me something more than simply 'Eddy', you can use the term 'programmer'.
I am that, at least.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
A particularly interesting piece is an off-the-cuff comment at the end of the article which says that free licenses are generally held to be revokable.
If true, this has huge consequences for the GPL and other open source licenses. I am sure FSF tried its best to make the license non-revokable, but it's up to courts to decide whether this effort succeeded. If there were to be a ruling that the copyright holder can revoke an open-source license granted previously -- oh, boy!
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
The cp4hack was not GPLd, as anyone who took a look at the original source could easily see. They basically released it under a public domain type of license. From the original release
"The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it"
Given that, ANYONE can modify and claim copyright on the software. I see no legal way that Mattel could use copyright law to revoke anyone's use of this software for any reason. They really need the judge to rule that the software is illegal for some reason and thus give a justification for someone to pull it from a web site. As it stands now, Mattel has no leg to stand on.
Let's face it, they wrote a pathetically weak program, and they deserved to have it reverse engineered.
However....we must remember...this can only
be a partial test. Even if it fails to hold up
due to obscure US law...that does NOT mean that
other countries laws and court systems would
do the same.
As long as even one country fully honors the GPL,
almost all countries would honor mattels
copyright...which is why the GPL is important...
without the GPL mattel could stop mirrors in
justr about any country
All one has to do is put up a mirror in a free
country...then its all set. Now comes the
questions....
If a US citizen, residing in the US, puts up
something on a web server that is in another
country...is he bound by US law when that server
is distributing files to US residents?
I really could see arguments go both ways on this.
(somehow I think courts would rule that they
are...tho what would you expect? authoritarians
don't like to give up their illusions of power)
What about links? Would it be illegal for my web
page, in the US on a US server, to link a copy of
the program that is on a non-us server, in a
country where the distribution is deemed legal?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"