Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Lunacy, Cinema, Parliament
"That's not censorship, mate. This is censorship!" Carnage4Life writes: "After causing a murder trial to be aborted last month CrimeNet has been ordered by the attorney general of the Australian state of Victoria to be shut down. If the site operators refuse to shut down they will face jail time. The story can be found here. In news which can only be considered related, an anonymous kangaroo wrote: "Found a reference to this article on LISNews. Seems the Aussie Parliament pitched a hissy fit when their internet access got filtered. Oh gee, how the fsck do you think the rest of the country feels?" How indeed. That's what happens when you start introducing clashing premises, I guess. Geese, ganders, sauce.
To the moon, Alice -- To the moon! We've frequently linked to NASA photos from Slashdot; what if they said "(registration required)" after them like links to the New York Times? MousePotato writes: "NASA announced today that it has entered into an agreement with Dreamtime Holdings to provide multimedia coverage of astronaut activities. The press release details "creating a state-of-the-art multimedia portal, www.Dreamtime.com, that will, with the click of a mouse, open the door to thousands of images, sounds, documents, blueprints and plans from NASA's currently underused archives. " Interesting to note about it is the fact that they will be using HDTV to give us as well as NASA engineers high quality video." Interesting, too, that billions of space research tax dollars are being used "to create new market opportunities in the multimedia arena."
Does this mean I can watch my -- errr ... "classics" again? The DVD-under-Linux story continues, specifically with an update on LinDVD; soon, the MPAA's claims that there are legal DVD players for Linux users may hold at least a sprinking of water; johnnick writes: "Another update in the DeCSS saga. One of the arguments for DeCSS was that there was no legal DVD decoder for Linux boxes. CNET reports that InterVideo, a licensee of the software that enables DVD information to be decoded, plans to release beta software called LinDVD this month that allows people to watch DVDs on Linux machines."
Microsoft not making a run for the border: Calz writes: "Both Microsoft and B.C.'s Investment Minister have denied that Microsoft is considering moving, as reported in this Yahoo article."
In other news from planet Microsoft, the indefatigable Bruce Perens has this to say about mixed-case licensing:
"Microsoft has been caught in a trivial, easily remedied, GPL violation, which is detailed here. They have been contacted, and their response was, well, dumb.Why do companies get involved in trivial GPL violations? Because the company picks up Free Software as part of one of their products without making a commitment to do the simple, easy, inexpensive things that are required to comply with the Free Software license. Folks, if you can't comply with license requirements as easy as those in the GPL, find other software, please.
One of these examples comes up at least once a month, and I'm going to keep submitting these stories until the situation improves. Maybe that means forever. Today's wakeup call goes to Microsoft corporation, read the account from Tim Burlowski. "
As Bruce says, this looks like a relatively easy one to fix. It could be explained by the complexities of mergers and acquisitions, general confusion, alignment of planets etc, but eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, including as applied to software. Unless Microsoft would like to declare all EULAs null and void ...
Show me the source code for THOSE programs, and then they will no longer be in violation.
Many of the tools the license mentions are GNU tools; the source for the GNU system can be found at gnu.org or any Linux distro site.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That sounds euphonic, too ;) ("jee-pee-yoolah")
However, if that were sufficient, then so would be Microsoft's easily-gettaroundable kerberos spec protected by just such a click license, wouldn't it?
And MS could say "well, we got the code using an unarchiver which never showed us this so-called license thing," which is what a lot of people are saying about kerberos.
I'd prefer unambiguous plaintext, I think. ("These are the terms. Read 'em and weep only if you choose not to follow them.")
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Something that I think would be a nice idea would be a nice idea would be to make a closed surce version of DeCSS (It would unfortunately require a total rewrite to avoid GPL breaches) for windows, and make sure that it was much more secure against piracy than any licenced DVD player. Make sure it is even strict about region coding.
The purpose would be that this could be released without the MPAA being able to make any claim that it could be used for piracy. If it is ruled that this is legal, then the restrictions could be gradually removed.
Off-topic? Not I
Moderate moderation
For the posts are apt
All the GPL can do is require that you stop distributing infringing code, unless you can prove actual damages. Before they would do anything as dumb as argue that they're separate programs, Microsoft would just rewrite the code from scratch.
Then again, I would have never believed that Microsoft would pursue business as usual with the DOJ breathing down their neck. So who knows what they would really do?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I mean, what if I want to build a Linux machine with an Alpha processor? Or what if I want to use LinuxPPC on an Apple computer? In order for something to count as a DVD player for Linux, it ought to be available for all the different platforms that people run Linux on. Otherwise, it's just a DVD player for i386 Linux, which means that DeCSS is still needed.
I guess you can extend this argument to other operating systems, too. Is there a DVD player for BeOS, and *BSD? If not, DeCSS is necessary.
Take care,
Steve
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
could "more teeth" be put in the GPL by creating an archive format that came with a EULA click-wrap that said: "acceptance of this license indicates that you agree to release the source if you incorporate this source in your product. no chance to rewrite, you give all recipients the right to source on demand
The value of that depends on what your primary concern is -- protecting your code from misuse or encouraging others to work with it. If a clause like that were valid, and became standard for GPL software, it would certainly encourage companies to be cautious -- probably to the point of staying as far away from that code as possible.
I understand the need to protect freed code and to preserve the meaning of "free" or "open" but I can't help but think that a lot of the shouting that takes place is counterproductive. If companies keep getting publically flogged every time someone thinks they've violated a license or offer a license that isn't quite what the Slashdot mob is demanding, no sane company is going to want to get involved.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This argument, too, has already been disproven. A COMMERCIAL distrubution CANNOT satisfy Section 3 of the GPL simply by linking to GNU's website. The GPL says this EXPLICITLY in Section 3(c):
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) ( bold is mine )
They need to use sections 3(a) and 3(b) which to paraphrase state:
3a. Put the source code in the distrubution
3b. Make a written offer, good for a min. of 3 years saying you'll give them the source code, at a price no more then it takes to distribute, in a way commonly used for software interchange.
Linking to gnu.org's website falls under 3(c), which is invalid for them, putting source on their site follows 3(b) which is what they need to do. Specially since there is no gaurentee that they have not tampered with source code.
It's a common misconception.
It will never matter. The whole "there's no legal player for Linux" argument was irrelevant from the very beginning, probably created as a strawman by an MPAA sympathiser.
And either way, it's product-tying. They're tying the DVD purchase to the DVD-CCA's license fee. It doesn't matter if you're "forced" to buy a copy of MS Windows (and a Windows player) or "forced" to buy a copy of LinDVD, in order to play your DVDs. You're still having give additional money to DVD-CCA and establish their monopoly position. Making your own player or getting it from a totally unrelated organization should always be an option.
And since they insist that everyone pay that license fee (and agree to those atrocious license terms) and are suing people over it, I will always counter-insist that the player I use be unlicensed. If someone wants to make money selling a commercial DVD player for Linux, they should advetise it as being unlicensed. I bet they'd outsell LinDVD, because a lot of people really do care about this issue.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This doesn't directly answer your question, but... The DMCA makes all protection-defeating software illegal (and DeCSS clearly falls under that, no matter what it's actually used for.)
However, exceptions must be made, if "persons who are users of a copyrighted work are... adversely affected by the prohibition... in their ability to make noninfringing uses... of a particular class of copyrighted works." If there are no legal DVD players for Linux, then that exception clearly applies... but if legal players appear, the argument loses a lot of its weight.
Personally, I think that the DMCA is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech (i.e. code.) But until we can get it overturned, that's where it stands.
MSK
Fortunately, GNU Time Transporter 0.1 was just released, so the world will be saved by Richard M. "Danger" Stallman.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
I believe there is a patent pool involved. Licensing the patents is tied to playing by their rules about macrovision etc. Plus they control the DVD trademark. You can't use it without their permission.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I believe that if NASA is to continue on their ever dwindling federal budget (drug enforcement rates higher dollars and votes, even deeper issues that need to be responsibly re-addressed and handled completely differently than presently managed) they need to do many more things like this. I remember reading a few years back in Analog about an idea where Hollywood and NASA should team up. The partnership would benefit both sides mutually. The entertainment industry has very deep pockets and NASA has financial needs that our country for some reason feels needs to be neglected. This is a very sad statement to ponder as many of our modern conveniences like cellular phones, remote control tv/vcr/dvd's, extended life rechargeable batteries and lest we forget Tang all stem from technologies developed during the Gemini and Apollo programs. Our society now depends on may of these technologies to the point where they are all 'must haves' yet we don't want to fork over more funding to continue because most folks don't realize the origins of where these things came from. We could have and should have at this point established a moon base in the 30 years since we have been there. Why haven't we? Mostly because of money.Imagine if Tom Hanks had filmed his from earth to the moon series in a joint effort where NASA could have benefited financially from it. If a portion of ticket sales (lets say $2) from Apollo 13 were going to NASA and the public was made aware of how this kick back was working the public could help fund these programs. If you really like the movie you could go more than once etc. whatever but you see my point. Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that motion pictures bring in these days (not to mention residuals and royalty monies) there is a huge potential for this to help the cause. The Artemis Project is based on this type of idea. Look into it if you like. It is totally possible to have missions to space that generate a profit and the Artemis folks have carefully thought out most of the issues. Twelve men have walked on the moon and in the time passed since then a whole generation has grown up. If you were born after 1970 you are truly a child of the space age. Shouldn't you be able to experience and contribute to your part of history?
IAAMOAC - so are you
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
Michael.
I always thought it would be an interesting situation to find a GPL violation in Internet Explorer.
"It's part of the operating system, so you have to open the entire operating system."
MS would then reply...
"No!!! It's not part of the operating system. Look, here's an uninstall for it. You can even take it off of your desktop. You can't have the entire source, just the source to Internet Exploder."
Because the decoding is done in hardware. All of this hub-bub is about software decoders. The Creative project (really code given to Creative) for the DXr2 card is nothing more than a device driver.
--
The unsig!
The point if not whether or not there is a legal DVD player for linux now, the point is whether or not there was a legal DVD player for linux when DeCSS was first published.
We all know the answer to that question.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
They should move to the moon! Remember that company selling plots on the moon? I'm *sure* old Bill has enough money to build a simple dome under which to house his money gathering company head quarters. Up there, they'd be free from all these silly government court cases and could develop broken software to their hearts content!
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Does it even matter? They can't say "you can't distribute DeCSS because you already have a DVD decoder." It has a legal use, therefore it can be distributed.
"huhuhuhh, go away. we're like closed or something"
If a legal Linux DVD player comes along in the middle of the trial, that's all very well and good, but it shouldn't affect the trial, right? There was no player at the time the alleged crime was committed...
I don't think the presence or absence of a legal player should have too much bearing on the legal issues involved, in any case....
---
And one which, I hope, leads to an interesting discussion. If the GPL states that you must make available source code for the binary products, do you necessarily have to be the source of that source code? Could Microsoft just like to the GNU web site and say, "Here's your source code!" I realize in this case the EULA states that it can be found on a particular site, but could someone simply link from there to GNU web site or, as the MS employee did, just tell people to go there?
I don't know. To me this seems a little unfair. You can take someone else's code and sell it and not actually do any work yourself, but on the other hand, isn't that what it's all about?
Good that they are mad! They should be! And they should also realize that, under the law, they are no different than you or me. They are not 'law enforcement'. They are parliament.
So.. if they think they have the right to chose what to see and read.. so does the rest of the country!
The GPL says you must make source available upon request for a period of 3 years, or to avoid this, ship source with binaries.
I would venture to say that, if it is available from gnu, and it is totally unmodified, that is fine.
If GNU becomes unavailable, then MS would have to provide it themselves.
Specifically, the well-known Independant JPEG Group libjpeg, which requires a credit (it's under an old-style BSD license with the advertising clause).
And as for how "integrated" IE really is, check it out under Wine.
There has been some concern of late here about American fugutives coming to Canada in order to be spared from having to face a US death penalty. However the prospect of American corporations doing the same is somewhat unsettling.
It's a good thing that Microsoft is staying put and facing the music. I would really hate to see Canada become the Mos Eisley of the corporate world with lawless excutives roaming the streets.
Ideology is for ideots.
A EULA, or shrinkwrap agreement, limits how one can use software. It doesn't limit how you can copy the software, because it doesn't have to. Copyright law itself limits how you can copy the software. Handing your CD to a friend to let them install it on their system is not so much a violation of the EULA as a violation of the vendor's copyright. There are a few tricks one can use to "get around" the EULA; I'm not sure how well any of them stand up in court.
The GPL does not attempt to limit how you can use the software. Arguably, it doesn't limit your ability to copy the software; in fact, it enhances it.
Any GPL software is copyrighted, either implicitly or explicitly. Either way, standard copyright rules apply--you can't just make copies and hand them to others. The GPL gives you rights to copy software for others, given that you take on certain responsibilities (such as shipping source with binary).
There is no getting around this. You are not required to agree to GPL terms. If you don't, you must follow standard copyright law. If you decide to ship GPL'd code, your only defense against a copyright violation charge is that you are shipping the code as allowed under the GPL. If you aren't shipping the code per the GPL license, you are shipping the code in violation of copyright laws. No shrinkwrap, no EULA, no DMCA--the law that keeps you from copying the software is the same law that keeps you from copying books or music for other people.
--The basis of all love is respect
Normally the saying is "beating swords into ploughshares." However in this case they are converting efforts from the government in the form of Nasa, to efforts in technology in the form of multimedia companies. Therefore beating ploughshares into ploughshares... get it?
After all, how long is it since you have seen any acknowlegements to the origins of their *bsd-derived tcp software? Was it ever displayed prominently?
The only reason that microsoft got caught here is that they finally violated gpl rather than bsd, and got caught. Since gpl requires a source release, the violation is more obvious. BSD license does not require source release, just acknowlegement, and as such violations are harder to prove. (IIRC someone was able to find hidden bsd copyright strings in some of MS's tcp software at one point. Hidden, mind...)
It's very funny that microsoft can say you agreed to something you are bound to by opening the box to your computer, even if you turn it on and immediately boot to a linux cd therefore never seeing the agreement, but they are not bound by that agreement themselves (which says you can get a refund). You can also be bound by an agreement that only shows up if you use a certain procedure in windows to open a file, rather than using a cross-platform method. But microsoft is never ever bound by anything. In that they have always been consistent. When they ignored the agreements they made with the Justice department around 1995, when they violated their agreements with apple and almost every other company they have ever "partnered" with, they were just being consistent.
Microsoft has always been and will always be an outlaw company who takes advantage fo the fact that here in the US we are used to allowing wealthy corporations to be above the law.
The GPL'ed source code is available at http://www.interix.com/tw/main_contrib.ht ml.
I think that the irony of Parliament's protest against filtering cannot be emphasized enough, considering that effective Jan 1, 2000, they put their entire nation, public and private, on a mandatory filtering system
According the the Australian EFF, in the area of 'adult images' (one area which the parliament protested filtering). All 'R-rated' content must be subject to age-verification, no 'X-rated' sites are permitted in Australia, and all foreign 'X-rated' sites must be blocked regardless of the age of the viewer.
So basically, 'pornographic content' shouldn't be available to the Parliament (or anyone in Oz) in the first place. Blindness - a fine starting point for future reasoned debate!
A Real-World example of uninformed debate
-----------------------------------------
A friend recently returned from Costa Rica and said their War on Drugs is based on a survey that saud a quarter of voters 'felt drugs are a serious concern'. Concern, possibly, but not a problem, according to external public health agencies. Costa Rica has an extremely low drug usage rate -- about 1%.
Unfortunately, only in the past year has there been any real discussion of the facts (some local doctors held a public forum). Until now, 'drugs' were considered a 'dirty' subject that everyone just naturally opposed.
Costa Rica is a wonderful country, with a stable government, low cost of living, good medical care and a large expatriate USAn community - a great place to retire - but it has real infrastructure deficiencies that would benefit from the resources devoted to this misguided policy. I'd hate to be in an ambulance dodging their crater-sized potholes!)
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
I can't help but see some similarity between MS's treatment of the GPL and their treatment of Mac-format floppies... When you're the 364kg gorilla, what you acknowledge determines what the rest of the world acknowledges.
On the bright side, maybe this will form the kernel for that GPL test case we've all been waiting for. If MS really can get away with this, best that we find out soon...
- Michael Cohn
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
They said "you can get source from gnu." However, the problem with that is threefold. The most important part is taht gnu necessarily does not have Microsoft's changes. Also the GPL says you must distribute source with binaries. It says nothing about having to use an ftp site to do that.
The other problem is that their agreement specifically states at which urls you can get source, and source is not provided there. IANAL, but I would say that constitutes breaking the agreement on Microsoft's part, since it basically says that they agree to provide source at those locations.
I am not a lawyer. The only legal advice I have is that if you need any you had better get one.
Seems like digital bureaucracy is just as cumbersome as the paper kind. Whenever I read stories like this, the theme from Brazil starts playing in my head.
Microsoft is a HUGE company; I guess accreted layers of bureaucracy are an inevitable side effect of doing business on such a large scale. Or maybe just a side effect of clinging tenaciously to a closed-source proprietary business model.
Someday, if I ever own a megalithic corporation, I'm gonna automate all bureaucratic functions, so they're completely invisible to the user. And also I'm gonna drive a cool car.
http://www.farmerbob.org
state-of-the-art multimedia portal, www.Dreamtime.com, that will, with the click of a mouse, open the door to thousands of images, sounds, documents, blueprints and plans from NASA's currently underused archives.
Only one mouse click. Amazon is going to sue these guys.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!