Slashdot Mirror
Injunction to Enforce GPL
Harald Welte writes "The netfilter/iptables project has just been granted a preliminary injunction against a GPL infringing WLAN AP Vendor. The project is trying to fight against the increasing number of products sold in violation of the GPL. Following a number of out-of-court settlements, this is the first case where a company refused to sign a letter to cease and desist. So we took the logical next step and applied for a preliminary injunction. The court reviewed the case and confirmed that Sitecom is in fact in violation of the GPL license terms."
a precedent is being set and hopefully can be used by the masses here soon.
So much for SCO saying the GPL has no weight in court :-)
Well, this certainly has the potential to become a really big deal for tHe FOSS community, one way or the other.
For the legally inclined, there's another discussion about this going on over at Groklaw.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
is this the test of GPL in the courts everyone has been waiting for?
Question for those !(IANAL)s:
Does this now set a precedent in favor of the GPL to be used in such cases as SCO vs *ix/BSD?
#define CLUE 0
I understand why the GPL needs to be used now, so Microsoft can't just take all our innovation, repackage it and sell it with advertising. But when Microsoft is gone, will we be left with something a bit dangerous?
I mean, this pooling of labour thing is very admirable, but as a lasting solution haven't we shown the world there are better, more efficient systems? It just seems a bit unsuitable, it makes me uncomfortable. Capitalism has got us where we are, it seems a shame to throw it away in an overreaction to the danger of Microsoft.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
going after someone who infringes on GPL IP is ok, but going after people who download music and movies is not ok.
where sco already has been made a bitch by the courts. it's not in the US, which i think is where people want something like this to happen
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Always picking on us.. oh wait a sec....
Go Legal crusaders fighting for the just rights of the people !!
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Scenario: I write program which builds on GPLed code. But I choose to distribute my program as a binary patch. The end user needs to get the GPLed code/binary from somewhere else, then he applies the binary patch and gets my functionality. Is my code bounded by GPL or not? I would claim that it does not, but feel free to cntradict me and make me understand more about GPL.
I'm curious, is this the first time a court has acted to enforce the GPL as legally binding?
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that even if the GPL gets struck down somehow, that would likely mean that everything draconian and evil about EULAs would get struck down too. Although I suppose there is a difference, namely that the GPL is really granting you the right to copy stuff, where EULAs are generally removing stuff. Hmm, maybe that means we can keep the power of the GPL and lose the power of EULAs... Sound good to anyone else?
This is great news. Hopefully it will scare more companies into compliance. I'm sure that there are a lot of companies using code from open source projects in their products, and I bet that there are more than a few in violation of the GPL.
Slashdot:
"The MPAA is evil for sending pirates to jail! Their attempts to go after copyright infringement is 'abusive' and just like the 'War on Drugs.' The RIAA is 'greedy' for legally pursuing people who are violating their copyright."
Two articles later...
"Here's another article about evil companies violating the copyright of the GPL. We must enforce the GPL and punish those who infringe its copyright. GPL violaters are evil, and the copyright of the GPL must be respected."
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
OR alternately if the GPL is ruled enforcable it could send everyone that matters running screaming away from GPL'ed code. If the GPL is ruled not enforcable but for a clause that has nothing to do with EULA's in general, well its pretty obvious where that leaves things.
I guess the outlook has alot to due with if your glasses are rose-colored or not at this point.
What I still don't undestand is why some true geek doesn't purposedly inflinges the GPL, is sent to court and hires the lousiest lawyer he can find. Repeat a hunded times (since the lawyer is so bad you can have them cheaply).
Now you have a greatly tested in court Licence!
Why some rich dotcommer doesn't does this a contribution to the community?
The GPL is something that GIVES you rights. The GPL is a license to copy and use software that's copyrighted. If the GPL is invalid, you're in violation of copyright law.
AccountKiller
I've never understood how/why the GPL would be "struck down" in court; a concern that seems to appear quite frequently. If I want to release my code under a license that says you must do 50 jumping jacks before you can modify/compile/install/distribute it, why can't I? And why wouldn't I be able to enforce it if someone violated that (as absurd as that may seem)?
Who doesn't like free music?
As someone who is considering writing software under the GPL I hope to see it upheld in court around the world.
/. readers, please hope with me that the GPL wins out it Germany and around the globe.
Also while this case is in Germany and the US often does its own thing, there is something to be said about how the world can influence the US. The US and its citizens like to think they are the ones calling the shots, but the simple fact is that America is influenced by trends around the globe.
So
While I and everyone here knows that the AP vendor is in the wrong on this (yes, stealing code is wrong), it can't really do our public image any good. "Support Linux, get sued!"
Perhaps easing up on violators might be a good idea for the greater good; we're lucky to have mainstream companies just *use* our code.
And? What part of the difference between "spend a year in jail" and "give us the source code and maybe pay some fine" you have problems understanding?
Paul B.
What was the topic implying ? that everyone running netfilter, or any gpl'ed code for that matter, has to redistribute source code? sounds like a bitterly stupid, disorganized attempt to "replicate" bittorrent, without the whole clients uploading ordeal.
and probably wouldn't hurt to be said again: The GPL is a DISTRIBUTION license, not a "usage" license. You are free to do whatever you want, just when you redistribute the binaries must you then also provide the source. There.
Thanks for this convincing case with no specific examples or evidence to back it up!
Why does everything have to have a lawyer attached to it?
We are drowning in legal bull crap from all sides.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander I guess.
Makes me want to get out of this rat race though.
I'm tired of all this political legal rambling, even when we win one for our team.
Regardless, enforcement is another issue.
Unless you have the funds to persue ppl for
gpl infringments thats the point of gpl?
How many open source projects have ANY funds??
How is this modded as redundant? It's the first frieking post!
Civil disobedience is when you violate an immoral law.
If you consider copyright to be immoral, then its natural that you would consider a copyleft to be moral.
So supporting copyleft while opposing copyright is a perfectly consistent moral position.
(The fact that copyleft is enforced by laws designed to protect copyright is but a technicality. )
I just went to their site, and under the support link for the infringing product, they had this under the downloads section:
WL-122 Wireless Broadband router 100g+
Firmware Source code GPL
Note that these downloads are completely unnecessary unless you plan to do programming to alter the code.
Did they just add this? or was there more to it than just having source available?
You must be new here.....
Knowing about GPL and actualy reading it is 2 different things.
/. them
site doing an overview of GPL
GPL license (not that i've read it)
Both google cache so we don't
Your code can not be bound by any licence of any program it is not linked with. However, the end user would be committing a crime when he creates the illegal derivate.
You would in all likelyness not be able to advertise *any* feature of your software, since it relies on an illegal derivate being made. Nor would any law-abiding individual or company be able to use it. Providing instructions on how to apply the patch would be enticing a crime.
It's like the XviD codec. Everyone using that codec owes the MPEG LA money for a patent licence. Yet I bet they're not seeing a dime. Why? Because it's 100% legal to distribute the GPL'd source, just as it is legal to distribute the patch you're suggesting.
This is exactly the same reasoning that crack sites operate on. The crack is not illegal. Applying the crack is. In principle, it is exactly the same.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I wonder what volume of sales Linksys does in .de. This should be interesting.
.. if you are a loser who is still living in his moms basement and wants to blame the government, the corporations and the man - anyone but himself - for the fact that he has achieved nothing in his life. In other words, the majority of slashdot readers.
Also while this case is in Germany and the US often does its own thing, there is something to be said about how the world can influence the US. The US and its citizens like to think they are the ones calling the shots, but the simple fact is that America is influenced by trends around the globe.
You might want to look at what your obsession says about you ... frankly I don't give a rat's behind about what Germans think about me ...
If you're a reporter interested in the story, but you don't work for a tech rag, then would that mean anything to you?
Not everyone speaks English as a native tongue. However, if you're going to issue a press release in English, then have a native speaker proofread it for you.
Umm, what?It most certainly is not running on virtually every Linux installation. Is it even available for the machines still running 2.x kernels?I'm very happy for the netfilter/iptables team, and glad that they've established a precedent in their country. However, bad grammar and exaggeration are not becoming to anyone.
Before I get flamed for the inevitable typo or grammar mistake in this post, remember that I'm not issuing a formal press release. If I were, I probably would've hit "preview" before I posted this.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Where else am I going to post it?
I am merely pointing out the way that the discussion seems to be ignoring the fact that our (or any) culture does not exist in a bubble, despite what us Americans might like to think.
I didn't see the need for examples, it is like stating "people are influenced by other people". I figured it a 'no brainer'.
Cleary our legal system is less likely to be influenced than say art, fashion, food and popular culture, but stranger things have happened.
The people making these legal rulings are PEOPLE, since people are influenced by the world around them I thought it would be fair game to say that the larger system could feel some of this.
Finally I asked that we hope this happen because in the end, here in the USA everyone knows dollars hold sway not logic or other 'fleeting trends'.
going after someone who infringes on GPL IP is ok, but going after people who download music and movies is not ok.
You're making a spurious comparison. The former violation involves a corporation using the copyrighted material to sell a product and earn profits, while implicitly (or explicitly, in the case of SCO) claiming the copyrighted material as their own. The latter involves individuals making unauthorized copies for personal use, or at worst making those unauthorized copies available to others for free.
The former is much more blatant than the latter. They should be considered separate crimes, with seperate sentences and/or penalties.
This space left intentionally blank.
Plus, the GPL doesn't stop people from creating proprietary software; it just makes them work harder to make sure it's better|different than the (F|OS)S solution. It's really no different than competing against a corporation, except for the motivation of the group they're competing against - they can't use other proprietary code any more than they can GPL code.
Of course, there are some things that are GPL that should probably be BSD, like libraries and device drivers and such, but have to be GPL now to preven t monopolies from adding proprietary extensions and then tricking the majority into using them. (I think the LGPL solves this problem, but I haven't read it so I don't know)
There will always be a place for proprietary software, but it should (IMHO) be (standards-complient) enhancements on top of a (F|OS)S system (e.g. MacOS X), or client-specific programs, or content-based software (e.g. games - the engine should be free, but the story, images, levels, etc are proprietary)
And if you want to argue "But most of the software industry will go out of business because proprietary software can't compete with open source!", just remember that there's nothing that says software companies have a _right_ to exist; complaining about (F|OS)S is like a buggy whip manufacturer complaining about automobiles, or a blacksmith complaining about the Industrial Revolution - evolve or die; and if you die, well, you should have tried harder! Besides, there are still blacksmiths and buggy whip makers around, just not nearly as many of them.
[sorry the post got long and rambly; I'll stop now]
GPL is a license, you agree with it's terms when you choose to use this code. And those principles are advertised all around the Internet. Actually it brings one sad point about all this licensing stuff - most business people don't give a shit about copyright, as long it doesn't cause a pain in the ass, they will steal. If that code would belong Microsoft, no one would touch it, not even talking about ignoring licensing terms. Sad, the money is the only power now what scares them, not law. But hey, let's hope that by such small steps we could learn the world respect the law again.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Let me share something about most country's copyright laws with you folks, since many seem to be mistaken.
1. I write a work, I own the copyright. It is my code, and no one else may use it under any circumstances without my express permission.
2. I decided to grant that permission by taking the text of the GPL and distributing my code under that license. But from the standpoint of the law, there is no such thing as "the" GPL. My code simply has a license that grants rights and places restrictions. That others choose to also use this or similar wording is of no consequence.
3. If a court found that the license text I chose was not enforceable, then ANY AND ALL rights granted by that license no longer exist. Hence, the person using the code is now a copyright violator! They are using MY code without MY permission.
Insofar as the GPL is unenforceable, all EULAs are unenforceable (because that's all the GPL is: a software license like any other). In such a case, all rights would most likely revert to the original creators. In situations where multiple people had a hand in creating something, things get trickier as do derivative works situations. But I think you get the point.
The truth of the matter is that the GPL will never be declared unenforceable; A creator has the right to license his or her works in any way he or she pleases, unless such a method is expressly forbidden in copyright law.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
you spell it "freaking" you asshat
If YOU steal, it's no big deal, but if a company steals, then fry em.
By not paying for the music, who do you think you are hurting? Companies are not machines. Surprise, you are hurting real live people who work for those evil companies.
So, now you ARE hurting innocent people.
Your attempts at justification are so sad.
They give you even more rights, as a consumer. Are they somehow flaunting copyright law?
GPL software, on the other hand, forces conditions on any modifications and redistribution of GPL code. Sounds to me like the GPL carries a few "restrictions" that BDS does not. They may be copyright related, but they're still there.
It seems that they do make the source code available on their website (www.sitecom.com).
When you choose "products => wireless networks => wl-122 => drivers" you can download the source code of the firmware.
So maybe they are complying now?
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
After reading the posting, I have to ask that question. Propretary commercial licenses assume you must (and will) follow the outlines of the license. Why do some commercial entities assume that the GPL is invalid? Why does it have to be tested in court? I've said this before... an EULA you don't agree with is still an EULA, and you should agree (and follow) the guidelines. You don't see other popular licenses being "tested in court". Everyone just assumes they stick... so it's about time for people to take the GPL seriously and realize, it too, sticks.
FLR
--never thought of this, but here's an additional charge that could (maybe/might/possibly/dunno)be used agasinst them in court when caught, if they fool with the code, they might perhaps be in violation of the license.
The GPL is a LICENSE and is not copyright, copyright != license
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Don't use GPL code if you can't abide by the terms of the license.
END OF LINE.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
...a Fortune 500 company? Doesn't closed source hurt their image? Their products should not cost anything! They're lucky that people buy their products at all.
Eh. Crawl back to Microsoft... Your post was not Score:2 Interesting at all.
http://www.sitecom.com/driversmanuals.php?grp_id=6 &prod_id=237&search=1
It's not clear if this is the original unmodified code, or if it truely corresponds to what they are shipping. It's also not apparant when this was added to their site... maybe have been in response to the injunction.
If anyone from sitecom is reading this, your website's fancy navigation system makes it almost impossible to copy-n-paste a URL to refer someone to a specific page on your site. Also, the search does not work in Mozilla/linux with the Sun JRE. Why not just use standard links and entry boxes?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
What the hell are you smoking? This has nothing to do with the culture or traditions or trends. It has nothing to do with which country has the bigger penis, either.
This is a simple technical matter of whether not a legal precedent established in another country will apply in the US. The answer is that it will not have the same weight as a legal precedent set in a US court since US courts are bound to rule by US laws, which are different from German laws. However, given that there is a lot of similarity between the laws in both countries around copyrights, the judgement handed down in this case will be considered by any US judge ruling on a similar case.
Mmmm.. Donuts
asshat - would this be a chair? damn you guys come up with some of the stupidest words sometimes ;-) While you -are- bein[sic] unique, you still show a lack of intelligence through your simplistic concatenation of pre-school level words. Can you -pleeeease- try to come up with better... I mean, at least give me some -real- amusement.
TIA
I'm a bit surprised that Harald dodged the question in the article...
Nice, and it's always good to remind the media that there's no restriction on selling open source in this manner. But.... That wasn't the question. Why now, brown cow? Why is there a sudden enforcement flurry now?
This is exactly the sort of non-answer that raises my hackles when listening to politicians. It especially bothers me when it's "one of us," a member of the open source community. I can't imagine why Welte would be dodging the question, so I can only assume he's very worried about giving the wrong impression.
--Somebody infect me with a
What I've always said is that "viral" is a misleading way to describe the GPL because it doesn't behave like a virus.
It's more like a prion, like Mad Cow Disease.
In order to catch a prion, you have to actually injest it. You eat a cow whose proteins have the prion, and now your proteins contain the prion, but you can only give it to someone else if they eat you. Similar to the GPL, which only applies if you link the things you created into already-GPLed code; your code becomes GPL iff it incorporates something GPL. On the other hand you can catch a virus just by being near someone, or interacting with them, which isn't how the GPL works.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm only suprised that you haven't been modded offtopic!
However, if you are just including the GPL component in your system, as in using it as a library/service and making calls to it, then your code does not have to be GPL.
:)
If you had substitued "GPL" with "LGPL", your post would be 100% accurate. The difference is exactly this. The GPL specifically forbids what you link a GPL library to any non-GPL code. Actually, non-GPL-compatible code, so your statement is technically correct.
But the combined work would still be bound by the terms of the GPL and the other licence, so it would give at least the rights of the GPL, and optionally more.
That said, whomever you send your patch to has the right to ask you to provide the GPL'ed source and license. They do not have the right to see your proprietary code.
Nope, nor to the copytight holder(s) of the GPL'd library have the right to force you to GPL your proprietary code. But they do have the right to sue you for copyright infringement (that's $150,000/count, sonny). I recommend you add an "IANAL" disclaimer... Btw, I'm not a lawyer either, but I know what I'm talking about
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Wow, what an original slashbot response. Yes, anyone against you must be siding with M1cro$haft!1111!111!
I bet they wish they used *BSD with pf/ipf/ipfw. Or maybe they would have been better off using a commercial platform. I think there needs to be a clearer explanation to the business community about the GPL/LGPL licenses. And what exactly they must do to be resistant to misunderstandings like such.
I think a lot of commercial companies see that they have three choices: 1) Develop in house proprietary solutions at great expense, 2) Use someone elses proprietary solution at great licensing expense, 3) Use open source software and possibly face expensive litigation with possible settlements against their company.
Any business manager given those options will continue to travel the same road they have been travelling down. They will only change if there is at least a long term incentive. They need to be shown both long term and short term incentives for using open source or it will not happen.
It is great for large companies like IBM and Sun to embrace open source, but many more smaller solution providers will need clear guidance because they may not have the understanding or the big pockets to take risks with open source.
you pointlessly anti-American troll. Why do people take such pleasure in selling out their own country?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The GPL is a license that gives you rights to copy and use software that's copyrighted. It gives you feedom to use software and makes sure that the software remains free for other people to use.
RIAA/MPAA on the other hand takes away freedom by restricting and criminally prosecuting people.
Also as someone else told before "The RIAA/MPAA are considered unreasonable because their reactions are percieved as disproportionate. Illegally uploading one music file to the internet does *not* cause hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage, but that's what the RIAA will sue you for. Also, none of the people the RIAA/MPAA are suing are infringing copyright for commercial gain, unlike in this case."
That's why every company hit with a C&D letter in the USA (There've been a few of those) has moved into compliance. Deciding to open your own code base gives you a lot more flexibility than having some judge TELL you what to open.
And since the GPL is more permissive than any other EULA, any software company that tried to get the GPL invalidated in court would really be cutting their own throats too. That'd most likely invalidate their EULAs too.
Oh, but I'm not a lawyer. I've just seen every episode of "Ally MacBeal." Twice.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I downloaded the source code (www.sitecom.com) that they had available on their site for the product, and found an "Applicability of Licenses" document in the zip file, which contained:
/MIBS ==> can be distributed /Software/firmware/apfw ==> can not be distributed /include ==> can not be distributed /mvc ==> can not be distributed /uClinux/appbuild ==> can be distributed /apps-gpl ==> can be distributed /apps-non-gpl ==> can not be distributed /Documentation ==> can be distributed /include ==> can be distributed /kernel ==> can be distributed /lib ==> can be distributed /make_include ==> can be distributed /romfs ==> can not be distributed /scripts ==> can be distributed /test ==> can not be distributed /tools ==> can not be distributed
In order to assist licensees with determining what code can be shared with the end customer, the
following summary of release package should be used:
I think this is the problem. They are saying that certain parts cannot be distributed. Due to the viral, damaging nature of the GPL this is clearly incorrect. I hope they get their leiderhausen sued off!
asshat - This would be something over an ass.
A chair would be an assrest.
"The GPL is something that GIVES you rights. The GPL is a license to copy and use software that's copyrighted. If the GPL is invalid, you're in violation of copyright law."
Is this the same copyright law that some piracy advocates would like to get rid of?
If you legally download the source code to that GPL program (and by the terms of the GPL, the organization that provided you with the program must also provide you with the source code) then you can use that source code. You can read it. Print it out. Edit the source code and recompile. Intermix that GPL code with other code you have the rights to, compile, and use.
What you cannot do is redistribute any modification of that original GPL program without also distributing the source code including all of your modifications. This is the case because the GPL is a LICENSE that grants you permission to redistribute. This is a right you would not ordinarily have for any copyrighted work that you legally own. For example, just because you purchased a book legally does not mean you can make up galley proofs of that book, print them, bind them, and start selling them on a street corner. In fact, you cannot, because you do not own the copyright.
Similarly, you do not own the copyright of that GPL program that you downloaded (and its attendant source code). However, in the case of the GPL you have a license (the GPL) that allows you to redistribute the program (and even charge for it) as long as you distribute the corresponding source code with modifications. That is the quid pro quo: the GPL has granted you rights you did not have under copyright, and in return has asked you to make your contributions available.
If you want to redistribute (exercise rights granted by the GPL) without making contributions available (satisfying the terms of the GPL) then you are not in compliance and you will be slapped.
Just ask Sitecom.
-renard
This is probably better news in Europe in general than it is on this side of the Atlantic. I would expect other EC member nations to be more persuaded than the U.S. would be.
The biggest barrier to using this at all in a U.S. court would be that it is a PRELIMINARY decision, not a final decision. If the word "preliminary" means the same thing in Germany as in the U.S., the German court has not made a full consideration of the merits, and is only making a disposition for the period until which it reaches a final decision.
This ignores the many difficulties in using foreign law as authority in U.S. Courts. (Which differs from enforcing foreign judgments in U.S. Courts.)
"You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected."
So what makes you think he's referring to you? Not feeling guilty about something, hmmm?
"It's perfectly possible for people to think that the RIAA is abusive while still respecting copyright without being hypocritical."
And there'in lies the problem. There are those who neither respect copyright law, and are hypocrites. And while the RIAA may be abusive, we should be judged by our actions, not the actions of others.
"If you weren't far more interested in waving a Slashthink flag than actually reading and analyzing posts you'd realize that."
Speaking of which, if an Alien landed on earth and started reading Slashdot? What would there overall impression be about what the majority's stand on copyright is?
You may not be a part of the cliche, but neither should you be blind to what's happening around you.
"However, the end user would be committing a crime when he creates the illegal derivate."
You're wrong. The GPL only puts restrictions on distribution, not usage. _You yourself_ can do whatever the hell you want with GPL'd code, so long as you don't distribute the code or binaries (ie, keep them to yourself).
We're both wrong. You're wrong in that modification, as opposed to usage, is not permitted by default under copyright law. That power is explicitly granted by paragraph 2 of the GPL.
And I'm wrong in that this doesn't violate paragraph 2b): "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
To me, this looks like a major loophole I never realized before. There's no requirement that any derivative work must be licenced under the GPL. Only that a derivative work that you distribute or publish.
If I interpret this correctly, this means that a patch could come with any licence at all, even an EULA, as long as you apply it yourself. The proper wording should have been to require that any derivative work would have to be licenced under the GPL.
What difference does that make? If you're writing the software yourself, you already hold the copyright to it, and can grant yourself a licence. Since you don't have to distribute it, it's a non-issue.
But if I apply a patch from a third party, I may not. The patched work is as far as I can tell, a legal derivative work of GPL and non-GPL code under paragraph 2, and paragraph 2b doesn't apply.
Imagine if I started selling Linux add-ons commercially. No right to redistribute, for $$$, nasty EULA. All you have to is apply them yourself. Someone that is a lawyer please tell me I'm wrong...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
good to hear. Hopefully this goes the whole nine yards and sets a precedence and forces another GPL violator, Sigma Designs, Inc. (for using XVID source without keeping it open), DVD player manufacturers, and other bad WLAN ppl into compliance.
"What they're doing, however, is trying to resell the modified code in binary form without giving back the changes. That's like making copies of CDs and selling them for $2."
Ok, so here's something to chew on.
What happen if they had given the binaries away without giving back the changes?
That would be closer to making CD's and just giving them away. And all those "piracy is OK" arguments would hold.
Oh, what a sticky web we conceive when we practice to deceive.
Your assumption is incorrect.
I am allowed to create Binary only applications that run on Linux, and I can create Binary only drivers that run on Linux, without having to distribute the source for those, think Oracle and NVidia.
I only have to distribute the source if I create something that derives from other GPL software, and I distribute it.
The source distribution may or may not conform to the GPL. I certainly am not capable of determining that.
(I am not an employee of Sitecom)
I heard this closed source program uses the FFTW (Fastest Fourier Transform in the West). I feel it is my duty as an agent of the communist state to inform you.
"You're trolling, but I want to point out the difference between the two copyright violations."
Yes, I find the finding of fault with people's arguments "trolling", but do go on.
"What they're doing, however, is trying to resell the modified code in binary form without giving back the changes. That's like making copies of CDs and selling them for $2."
Ok, so here's something to chew on.
What happen if they had given the binaries away without giving back the changes?
That would be closer to making CD's and just giving them away. And all those "piracy is OK" arguments would hold.
Oh, what a sticky web we conceive when we practice to deceive.
Go ahead and mod this down as flamebait and offtopic. Not that a U.S. Court won't use it, IMHO, they shouldn't use it. I absolutely agree with the decision of the German court. But to use it as a precedent for a U.S. court is, in my opinion, more of the same "We are the World" progressive, judicial-activism, bullshit.
As Justice Scalia recently put:
"But the Prize for the Court's Most Feeble Effort to fabricate 'national consensus' must go to its appeal (deservedly relegated to a footnote) to the views of assorted professional and religious organizations, members of the so-called 'world community,' and respondents to opinion polls,"
No, IANAL, but that doesn't stop me from offering my opinion on the state of jurisprudence.
not quite sure how this relates to the topic at hand, but sure is good troll bait.
green energy will catch up and surpass fossil fuels when it makes financial sense. maybe in cali it makes sense now, but here in the midwest, it's cost prohibitive to install solar panels onto one's house. it's fairly cost prohibitive to use a geo-thermal heating system. i've checked into installing both, and only if you're personally planning to live long term in that place does it make sense. schools, businesses, yes. residence, not yet. unless you want to live out in the mountains the, that's about all you can get.
i'm not sure why e-85/ ethanol(sp) isn't taking off, there probably is some conspiracy behind that one. doesn't our gov't pay farmers NOT to grow corn that could be easily used to product ethanol? why does e-85/ethonal cost more per gallon than gasoline? why only e-85? why not pure ethanol? why are there absolutely NO fueling stations in OHIO that sell ethanol? probably because people in the midwest will put whatever is cheepest to use in their vehicle and gasoline is cheeper and gets better mileage. if E-85 were retailing for 1.00$ per gallon today, loads of people would be filling up with it.
I don't know where it began as I'm not the only person to use this word, but I know where I learned it from. Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Jose Wales.
He says to some guy that "I'll kick you so hard you'll be wearing your ass for a hat.". When watching it, I naturally tagged on the word Asshat at the end... after a slight pause, for dramatic effect. Now all I need is to get a video/mp3 of Clint Eastwood saying..
"I'll kick you so hard, you'll be wearing your ass for a hat... Asshat."
And my life will be complete. I can then die a happy man.
But others have also come up with the word, and I probably heard it before that, and it was a subliminal thing. There are several pages that are dedicated to the origin of the word asshat.
See Here for more information: Asshat
Way to go, ruining what used to be your great karma, dumbass.
I am a resident of the UK/Europe. I think you have a valid point. I see the attitude expressed by people responding to your post on a daily basis. We all like to believe we are the 'king of the castle' but in this world we move slowly (VERY slowly) toward a global village. I know my nation is influenced by others and it is something I am proud of. Sadly it seems many people are not proud to be part of anything bigger than their own nation. I hope the GPL 'wins' in Germany as it will have a massive impact in my country and around the world.
I hope the trend towards calling anybody who says something you don't like a troll dies on its arse.
"So, what's wrong with [grandparent's] logic about binary drivers?"
Probably nothing. Linus exempted them. Drivers (and other software) may make kernel calls just as if the kernel were LGPLed. This is exclusive to the Linux kernel, not something generally available with GPLed software. If it weren't for the exemption, binary drivers *would* have to be open source (as they use kernel routines covered by the GPL).
With a binary patch, the problem is that the patch does not stand alone, i.e. it is not meaningful to use the patch without the original software. You may *not* distribute a binary patch of a binary built from GPLed source code without meeting the terms of the GPL (offering source).
He with the deepest pockets WINS! And either side's lawyers.
Much like pro sports, today. If you make $100k a game - win or lose - does it matter anymore if you win?
It fits if you think about it.
.
"The GPL is a license that gives you rights to copy and use software that's copyrighted."
Regular copyright already grants this as part of Fair Use.
"It gives you feedom to use software and makes sure that the software remains free for other people to use."
Right of First Sale gives me that. The ONLY difference is that I can't retain a copy.
RIAA/MPAA on the other hand takes away freedom by restricting and criminally prosecuting people. "
A couple things:
1-You have to obtain both by legitimate means.
2-You have to agree (implicitly or otherwise) to their terms.
3-The only thing freer than copyright, is public domain. The BSD come's in between the GPL and Public Domain.
4-In both cases "freedom" is defined by the boundaries of copyright, not outside it.
Within the boundaries of copyright you have your "freedom". You may not have "freedom" as you'd like it to be defined. But you also have the "freedom" in both cases to just walk away.
"Also as someone else told before "The RIAA/MPAA are considered unreasonable because their reactions are percieved as disproportionate. Illegally uploading one music file to the internet does *not* cause hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of damage, but that's what the RIAA will sue you for. Also, none of the people the RIAA/MPAA are suing are infringing copyright for commercial gain, unlike in this case.""
It doesn't matter if it is for commercial gain or not(1). If I told you not to distribute my song "Mad at you" and you did. Then you would be violating copyright, and you would be showing a great deal of disrespect towards me.
Copyright allows me to control the copying of what I produce, however it doesn't dictate in what form my compensation may be. Money's nice, but it could just as well be "good will" (like OSS).
(1) Copyright violations are a civil matter, and "losses" are a part of civil law.
> The US, as a member of the WTO, has to respect it
Sorry to rant offtopicly, but:
Does that mean that the US, as a member of the WTO has to reduce its subsidies ? That as a member of the UN has to obey its decisions?
Or that as a member of the IMF has to reduce its deficit?
Really???
This hasn't gone to a trial, and it doesn't look like it will. Sitecom almost immediately added a download that appears to bring them into compliance with the GPL to their Drivers and Manuals Page. Of course we'll have to wait for the copyright holders to look it over and decide whether it's legit or not before we can be certain...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I don't see how any contract or license is enforceable unless both parties agree to its terms. If I hid a clause giving me the rights to your firstborn children in a copy of the GPL shipped with my software, I doubt any court would force compliance just because the software somehow ended up on your file share directory.
Whether I had any workable legal remedy left, in leu of your firstborn, for copyright infringement of said software, which I might be openly giving away to anonymous parties without payment, would be the big remaining issue.
The remedy might just end up being payment of the price which I'm openly charging all other anonymous users (e.g. zero). But courts do weird things. What do I know?
Well, as soon as we get nuclear fusion so we can produce hydrogen by electrolyzing water. Hydrogen is just an energy store, not energy source.
Of course, we could build giant solar power plants in Sahara...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
This is definitely a good thing. As companies learn that they can't use GPL'ed code in violation of it terms, hopefully they will start to gravitate away from GPL'ed code in favor of code under Berkeley-style licenses.
/. community, I'm not commenting here for the sake of pissing people off. I disapprove of the FSF's goals and hope more people will join me. The FSF may "free" the software but at the expense of it's authors.
Obviously, being required to release source code weakens a business's market position since people could obtain their software for free or an adept programmer could come along, snatch the code, and create a better product. All of this could be bad for a software company.
Of course, this may also bring a possible backlash against using open-sourced software and companies may start holing up again, developing their own code.
Either way, though, companies would be abandoning GPL'ed software which in my book is a big plus.
That said, I fully support the enforcement of copyright licenses, even when it's the GPL. I respect the time and effort programmers put into their software and those who write from scratch should have the right to publish or not publish their source code. Those who use licensed code should be respectful of that license, and thus, the work of previous coders.
And note, that while I know my comments will bring much resentment from the
There's a link on this page:
d =6 &prod_id=237&search=1
4 2
http://www.sitecom.com/driversmanuals.php?grp_i
to this file:
http://www.sitecom.com/md_download.php?md_id=14
that contains source code, makefiles, scripts, the GPL, etc.
I thought that posting the GPL code was acceptable practice. So what's the issue with Sitecom vs GPL?
I follow such guidlines if they seem reasonable. I do not assume that an EULA is a legally binding contract - I currently do not reside or do business in any of the few states that passed UCITA.
Well, as soon as we get nuclear fusion so we can produce hydrogen by electrolyzing water. Hydrogen is just an energy store, not energy source.
Hmmm, if hydrogen isn't an energy source why is it used to fuel the nuclear fusion plant you mention?
"Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
This get argued on every GPL discussion:
l /a ssign.htm
"..a license is a contract and may include whatever provisions the parties agree upon, including the payment of royalties, etc."
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/genera
I'm hoping this is a sign that the wheels are slowly starting to turn in our favor.
Must-not-watch TV!
This has nothing to do with understanding the GPL, this has to do with understanding the law. In general, if you're asking, "can't I get around the law by doing X", the answer is probably going to be no if it's obvious that your intent is to do what the law forbids.
Thus, if you hire a hitman, you may not have pulled the trigger yourself, but the law will still consider you to be guilty of murder.
In your example, it will be obvious that your intent is to provide a derivative work on the end-user's machine. Thus, you will be judged as if you had put that derivative work there yourself. Saying, "I didn't personally copy the code" won't get you off, any more than saying, "I didn't pull the trigger" would get you out of those murder charges.
This is why legal matters are still decided by judges and juries, rather than machines. A literal-minded machine might find your argument compelling. A person wouldn't (unless that person was a programmer, who spends too much time working with literal-minded machines, which is why this suggestion keeps coming up again and again).
Accepting the GPL is completely voluntary. You can refuse to accept the GPL, and then you're merely bound by copyright law. You can still use the program however you want, you just can't distribute copies or derivative works. Not something a lot of people care about. (This is why, e.g., Corel was wrong and stupid to try to make popups to force people to accept the GPL, just as if it were an EULA.)
He already is a defendant in at least three cases: the SCOG shareholder suit, the Red Hat suit and the IBM countersuit. The last of which actually has GPL violation on the list of complaints. Once the Novell suit is dismissed, and SCOG files some less stupid charges against Novell, we'll probably see a countersuit there too.
:)
(We'll ignore the German suits against SCOG, since those are A) against scogroup.de, and B) SCOG already lost, so technically they're not defendants any more. They're losers.
Just FYI. Don't click it.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Right idea, wrong decade. That particular change to US copyright law happened in 1987.
go 4 SCO.. and stop them from selling SCO products...
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Does anyone have any tips for dealing with companies that knowingly violate GPL?
I have a Celestix Aries, a neat little SOHO server that runs some cut-down version of Red Hat. The best feature of the Aries is that it's got a cool LCD screen as it's user interface (although it also supports VGA output). The LCD interfaces with the OS via a custom kernel module.
I've attempted to get a copy of the source several times. At one point they promised me a patch against the kernel version that they're using, but of course they didn't deliver.
Meanwhile, they're distributing Linux binaries left and right (not only is the OS for this thing based on Red Hat, but they also use a custom distro as an installer!) while violating the GPL.
Fast-forward 3 months...
I let it lie for awhile (honestly, I was busy with other things, like trying to bring in paid work), until I read a story on Slashdot about the iptables/ipfilter team getting an injunction in Germany.
I decided to revisit our old friends, to see what they've been up to. I caught up with a friend on ICQ who lives in France, and he tells me that he knows a guy in Germany who wrote $APPLICATION entirely from scratch, and that it competed with his own product. Curiously, the guy he knows, is the same one that claims he didn't take any of our code (small world, huh?).
So I mentioned my issues with the "guy", and his company, and as I'm talking on ICQ, I start digging through the code again, and I find our functions littered through their codebase again. I also find an SDK that they've "written" to allow other developers to write "modules" that plug into their proprietary product (questionably using our code).
As I look through their SDK, I have this eerie feeling of deja-vu. I've seen this code before. I start grepping my source tree, and sure enough, the functions in their SDK are byte-for-byte identical to our own, including the comments. Of course, this portion of their code claims to be covered by the LGPL, but the copyright header has the author marked as this "guy", not the original authors who actually wrote the functions he's ripped off from us.
Needless to say, I reopened the issue with the FSF, and gave them the additional information they needed to have to make sure this incident does not get dropped this time.
Not only did this developer ("guy") in Germany lie to us about the nature of his code, he lied to my friend in France by telling him he wrote it all from scratch, and he is openly, and knowingly ripping off the hard work of others, by removing their copyright notice from their code (OUR code), and replacing it with his own name and company name, and are shipping it in an SDK, that they claim as their own. I wonder how many other companies and developers have downloaded this SDK, and are unknowingly also in violation of copyright?
Now I'm pissed. This is the third violation of our code, OUR code, by commercial companies in the last 6 months, without even a single "Thank you for all you've done" from any of them.
Having previously worked for a company who are one of the main distributors of Sitecom products in the UK, I can vouch that their service is very poor..
I'm suprised they even responded to the cease-and-desist request...
... about redistribution. that's the part I meant. Joe blackhat installs a binary on your system. He's redistributed it. Where's the source code? Where is HE to provide the source code like he is supposed to? He has to prove that it was his to distribute, can't be some anonymous person say "here it is" on a warez channel... perhaps.
That's one possibility anyway. More or less like the other laws out there, ie, burglary, possession of burglary tools during that burglary, etc. They always tack on some extras..
Just thought I'd throw it out to any nerd prosecutors out there looking to tack on some additional charges.
To me, malicious hackers are different than spammers, they are worthy of a lot more contempt and jail time. Note, I don't mean exploit FINDERS and POC developers, I mean the actual "exploiters" who carry it one step too far....
You'd also realize that there is more than one person posting on Slashdot and differing opinions in different stories are rather to be expected.
If you don't apply, what's the problem? Obviously, it's implied that I'm referring to the majority mindset--and it is the majority mindset--and that of the mindset of the editors according to what gets posted as "tech news" to the front page. I'm fully aware that not everyone falls under that brush--my opinions have even gotten modded up.
Tell me--what is "abusive" about th RIAA suing copyright infringers? It's exactly what people were telling them to do four years ago.
My post referred to the double-standard that propagates around here--"Let's cry about companies infringing the copyright of the GPL! By the way, the RIAA is evil for going after infringers of its copyright."
Just to let you know, if you disagree, I respect your opinion--if it's based on facts.
it always amuses me that that argument of financial sense only applies to alternate energy devices. Just about very single other consumer product out there doesn't have that distinction. You get it primarily because it's valuable to you, you think it's a good idea, you want to lead by example, you want to do your part to get the show on the road.. Do we add to the nations energy supply by getting new bass boats, 35 inch plasma tv's, new gaming consoles, that marvelous new living room furniture? does it make "financial sense" to get a new TV when you already got one that works? No one ever questions that, they just do it, don't they? What is the energy "payback" time for that 35 inch TV? Oh ya, that's right, never That kind of stuff just costs "energy".
Everyone is in serious arrears if all their purchases were forced to have a "payback" in terms of dollars.
Following the same line of reasoning, no one should "invest" in the linux desktop,because it's not already well established in 99.995 of the dwesktops out there. No one should have ever bought a personal computer, because they weren't "cost effective" and not "there" yet back in the day. Let "the other guy" do it, this "them" or the equally dubious "the business people" or "the government". Ya, lets let "them" do it,while we all sit back and wait, and keep doing nothing other than being consumers and complaining about it.
I'm pretty poor, as in wicked poor, offical US sub poverty level. I still managed to put my money where my mouth is with computers and with alternate eneergy, because in the long run we NEED to. Both. Simple as that.
As to cost effective, granted, PV is not as cheap as coal, but it works, it's scalable starting at any reasonable budget (say one grand for a nice starter system, less than a gaming machine for sure)), and it's here now, not some pie in the sky future time. Wind chargers in particular are highly favorable with coal now, almost a dead even split there. The past two years running, planet-wide more wind-watts have gone online than nat gas derived watts, primarily in europe and the rest of the world, although they are catching on fast in the US now.
Me, I don't wait for this "they" guy to do what I can do NOW. I DON'T have access to some magic back yard fusion reactor, but I DO have some solar and a wind genny. As to ethanol, nothing stopping you, do it yourself, all kinza people have done it, I made some legal back in the 70s, you need some forms and add a chemical to it via the BATF to do it *legally* , as it's booze and they regulate it. Suit yourself on that picky detail, IANAL. Easy as snot to make ethanol, I ran a chainsaw and two motorcycles off of what I made way back then. I built a methane digester before,too, again, small scale, junk parts, easy, made burnable gas. Took me a little under 1/2 hour to build one.
Financing. I can tell you how a lot of people are getting FREE (more or less) alternative energy. Say you got like x-thousands of dollars to build a new home. Call it 100 grand just for conversational purposes. Now, what you do is look for land that is still cool to put it on but like one mile from the nearest telephone pole. You'll get a wicked deal on the land, probably save a coupla thousand an acre just because it's one mile extra away from the "grid tied"- place. The money you save on the land cost for the home you put directly into alternative energy from day one, and a ton of lenders out there will gladly let you tie it in to your 20 year mortgage if you want to go that way, some bioggess, too, like GMAC. You get the same exact home, just now you got a real nice alternate energy system, and more land than what you could have gotten for the same money just a mile away. That's one idea, there's more.
That's one way. On another thread the other day(low head hydro article) some guy chimed in his friend makes an additional 600$ a month selling extra juice back to the grid from his small wind genny efforts. So not only is it affordable, you can profit from it.
the BSD license is better. That's really what you wanted to say, but you twist it around to make the GPL look somehow deficient, in a vaccum.
What the hell?
If the BSD license was used for iptables/netfilter, we wouldn't be seeing this article. On the other hand, if the BSD license was used for iptables/netfilter, the authors wouldn't have the ability to say to Sitecom: either let's work a distribution agreement for our work or you show us the source and your changes.
It's a two way street. I feel that the GPL tends to work for both parties, while the BSD license gives more credence to the "you can't make a living with OSS/OSS == communism/OSS == everything should be free, including rent" stereotype.
I don't even think that last part is true either, but I'm saying it's much easier for someone to draw that conclusion. The BSD license gives you less control to generational usage of your work. If you don't care about that kinda thing, then it's probably good, however.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
The no-fly zones were UN mandates, that france voted for..
In the world of acadame (sp?) failure to give credit to ones source(s) is punished extremely harshly. i.e., it's OK to copy, but your bibliography must include everyone and everything. And footnotes! Don't forget linking footnotes. Not that that has anything to do with MS, GPL, BSD, etc.. (Well, there may be a reflection of this in the BSD license.)
parl
So how does it feel to be Slashdot's newest and most successful troll?
I've got to hand it to you man, you've spawned more +5 Insightful comments than any other guy I've seen in a long time. Often without getting modded into the floor yourself?
Do you do it for the money? Do you do it for the fame?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
What they did is build a wrapper around a common core. The wrapper is GPL'd. The core isn't. In fact they go as far to claim that the core is exactly the same on every OS. Now I can't claim as to WHY they did that, but it's interesting because they can release that part as a binary even though it resides in the kernel because clearly "it wasn't written with linux specifically in mind". So that fits right in with Linus' logic.
I think it's great.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Especially when it comes to computers and technology, the world is increasingly globalized. Even though this is a matter for the courts in Munich, the outcome would still have some weight outside of Germany.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Let me ask you a dumb question.
Let's say I sign an NDA to review Solaris source code at my company. Does that mean my nemesis Sam in engineering also needs an NDA even though we don't even use the same physical networks for our development boxes? Hell no!
So what makes you think that if Sam's boss okayed using GPL code internally or in a product that it would have any affect on my work which is unrelated?
Are you saying the GPL wields more power than an NDA backed by Sun's lawyers? That's delusional. It's also unsophisticated FUD.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
why should I pick one over the other? Let me add that I don't care whether some commercial entity has an easier time making money with my software or not. In fact I'd rather get money if I could.
Thanks.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
If they want to use GPL code, it's quite simple...
Do what they did in remedy UPFRONT, at the BEGINNING.
Then, OH LOOK, no court battle. OH LOOK, how nice, that company's distributing a binary version of project code AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE SOURCE AS THEY SHOULD HAVE.
AMAZING!
Is that so difficult to comprehend? Sure they can use BSD source too. In fact they can use WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT. They just have to read a FEW SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS AND ADD A GODDAMN LINK TO THE DRIVER PAGE.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Actually what they did was a good thing. They bundled the source to GPL things they used (uClinux, some other stuff), and they omitted things that were propietary (they didn't even bundle them in the zip).
I'm confused, what other GPL software did they use that isn't included there?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
What Nuclear fusion plant? There isn't a viable one, yet.
http://www.sitecom.com -> products -> wireless networks -> WL-122 -> drivers -> WL-122 Wireless Broadband router 100g+ Firmware Source code GPL -> download.
So couldn't someone distribute their binary patch as a "work of art" - e.g. as a rather unmusical MP3 format "song" that has this amusing extra feature when used as input to the patch utility?
German corporations enjoy free speech in Germany as well -- this is not the issue. The German legal system just doesn't believe in waiting years before addressing what is an obvious wrong. Contrast this with the judge in the SCO case who decided to let SCO keep spitting out their FUD until the IBM case is solved, thereby giving SCO a free hand to continue to damage RedHat's reputation for what could be just about forever. German courts happen to think that if you want to say bad things about the way other people do business, you should be able to prove it right away, not five years later. This is sort of along the lines that free speech does not cover me calling up your boss and telling him that you, say, have intercourse with sheep.
The simple fact is that Germany's legal system is superior in this respect, as in quite a number of others. Or to put it the other way around: The American legal system is hopelessly stuck in the 18th century, and even though Germany is not in the 21st century where everybody should be, it is at least in the 20th century.
Sometimes, 200 years and a bit of common sense can make all the difference.
ask their users to agree to the terms of the GPL during installation?
Blogging because I can...
.... but that does not mean your country, and you by extension, are not influenced by events elsewhere.
There are many monumental examples about how isolationism and not giving a rat's behind about events elsewhere can land you in hot water, but I will not go in such detail since educated people like you surely want to inform themselves in order to influence the political process in their place of residence.
Oh, sorry, I forgot you are a don't-give-a-rat's-behind-er....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
...and go directly to "fraud". That's definately a criminal offense. Forget the FSF. File criminal charges with the police, let them do the court case. Then you can come in and claim damages.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
One other difference between the two these days is in the area of non-transferrable copyrights. Of the seven or so distinct copyrights enjoyed (initially) by the author of a work, two cannot be transferred to any other party (even if the author wishes). These are :-
- The right of paternity - that is, the right to be identified as the author of the work
- The right of integrity - the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work (e.g. authors of books can object to adaptations of the book in other forms that they find morally or otherwise offensive)
There's a web page at the Royal College of Music that explains this.I would agree that insulation beyond the average "norm" be it an earth bermed structure or just a better designed and constructed home is way, way, WAY more "cost effective" now than any other dollar spent. Totally agreed, I think they shouldn't even give mortgages on new constructed R-18 homes anymore, at least new construction, they are energy hog homes, ridiculous, IMO. That needs to at least double, IMO. That's a law and side issue there,increase the building code inspectable requirements is what I think should happen there, that or scrap building codes entirely, but that's a different subject, they mostly exist now and every aspect of your home has to followsome sort of freaking code, it COULD be made it a law that a much higher minimum standard insulation level was required. Different subject entirely.
I am fully in favor of "superinsulation". I worked on one built from scratch, another highly modified, and quite a few seriously modified as to "more". Buck for buck, can't be beat with nuthin.
I disagree on the "totally out in the sticks" scenario,really depends on what you mean by totally, I looked at quite afew cab9ns and small homes last summer for sale that had no grid ties whatsoever, most of them weren't that far from the nearest pole and "civilization", just a 1/4 to a 1/2 mile further down the road from where "normal" people live and work and commute, but they were all a heckuva lot cheaper than a similar cabin just up the street. There are still many rural areas that have good roads, near to the city for commuting, but say- someone with some land sells off pieces. The land fronts the good road, but some of the pieces are out back, some distance from that road, call it the one mile further. One mile isn't that far to go driving when you are driving (random commute distance here) like 15 miles into town anyway. BUT, not paying to have those power poles put in, which is a common expense developments have to pay anyway (it ain't free from joe power company), saves you that loot that in some cases that you would be paying anyway, either directly yourself, or the developer pays it and it's passed on to you via the mortgage, you just don't see that exact cost, just the over-all cost. It's like the hidden OS cost in computers, you just eat it whether you want it or not. Another example of do it yourself over a "tie in" with the utilities, they charge serious folding scratch once you get just a little ways from where the poles are now, on a pole by pole basis, and it's a high cost per pole.
Where I am now, just the tie in to the county water and sewer is 5 grand. You can put in a well and small septic for near that(relativly speaking, variables there of course). And if your county tie in is further than just like a 100 feet to the street, say it's down the block in the development a 1/4 mile or more, you have to pay for the trenching and pipework anyway, PLUS the big fee the county charges for the tie in, PLUS the monthly bill forever, ie, PLUS it's never paid off.. You are now maybe at 8 grand or more, in a very common suburban setting. Your two choices then are, own your water and sewer, or lease it forever, about the same install cost.
I see "owning" your energy as just as normal and practical as owning your home rather than renting, owning your car rather than leasing, owning your furniture rather than renting, etc, just as about the same. I just would rather own as much as possible and not rent it. There's no payback whatsoever on renting, and you never own it, therefore you can't have full use of the property in question, you can't change it or alter it usually when you are renting (again, generally speaking now). With rented/leased energy, you have little control, you AREN'T allowed much in the way of using your brains and using new technologies in altering that scenario, because joe megaenergycorp owns it, and they won't let you mess with their system. At best you can alter your usage rates via selective appliance changes, etc, but after that, you have contracturally
couple of points, I was referring to the first home desktop buyers and users, those were mucho expensive machines, BUT, it really made it take off much more so than with businesses, primarily from access to the internet. I am talking non commercial applications, just "use" by the masses.
As to effort, a friend of mine has a completely portable plug n play system runs his entire cabin. Literally run the array out on it'sown frame, rollin the combo charger/converter and battery bank, plug it in, you got two 120 VAC outlests. His whole weekend cabin run sson that, took like 15 minutes to set it up from rolling off the pickup truck he delivered it with, I helped him set it up. I mean, it can be pretty darn easy, you can't make blanket statements that it's all that hard. Installing my battery bank took a couple hours, installing the panels a half an hour for my little rig. It's normal, not much weirder than doing minor repairs on your auto or building a small backyard whatever, a mower and tool shed from a kit say. Yes, SOME people will nver lift a finger to dojack squat for themselves, but most people I know will engage in this "work" dealfor any interest you can imagine once they dfeel like it. It goes up from rool it off the truck and plug in and use the juice to whatever you want there, but that's almost a strawman now, any homeowner can get the whole thing done and tied to the first or second mortgage, and in that aspect it's no more a hassle or difficult than deciding yes/no whether you want an extra bathroom over here or over there in your home beyond the normal multiple bathrooms, if it's being built. It can be roughly the same price as one more bathroom. somepeoplewould want the other bathroom,others think they can maybe struggle by with three bathrooms and a nice alternate energy rig. Just depends. I agree it needs to be more "usual" to see it and want it for it to be getting any better, so THAT is why I keepwriting all these posts, if nerds won't do it, we are gonna be stuck in the future sometime, I do predicteth. It needs to be done MORE in my opinion. I try to show folks it's "there" and counteract FUD, it's the best I can do, do it myself, show people in meatworld and show them in cyber world, I can't do anything else.
On the energy front, I think you might be behind the times in your thinking over how many people have alternative energy systems installed NOW It's a lot more since I built a passive thermosiphon solar room heater back in the 70s and sold it. It's funny but the day I built the bulk of it was the same exact day a lot of my friends and aquaintances went over to protest some nuke plant, I said "better to show by example", and I followed through. I'm trying to do a little civic duty here is all. Inside the united states it's well into the hundreds of thousands of homes now have some form of alternative energy, and it's definetly a growth industry, with many large commercial manufacturers doing the supplying, companies like Siemens, BP, etc.. Around the world, like I said before, more watts went online with wind power than with natural gas powered systems the past two years now (that's a BIG number), and it's just becoming more popular. Just that little factoid dispels a lot of FUD out there. Note, a lot of those systems are commercial bulk electric suppliers as well, not just "hobbyist wacko green homeowners". Solar is going in all over the second and third world, because it's cheaper *right now*, more cost effective taking fuel supplies and delivery costs into consideration, to install a lot of solar then to build from scratch large conventional energy facilities and to build all the grid infrastructure where it hasn't existed before. Here in the US we already have the bulk of the grid built, but we aren't the entire planet. And like I pointed out, even in the US there are still a lot of places that don't have grid service yet, but perhaps you just never saw those places, but they exist outside of every urban area once you get a modicum of distance away, like my example of just 15 miles
I said "those are not your rights" . So far you have not shown how is it that your rights are "restricted" by the GPL.
Of course, if I were arguing that "GPL has no restrictions" or that "copyright has no restrictions" I'd be full of shit. But I have not been arguing this, as I have explicitly stated it. I've been arguing over your use of the term "rights". As in "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." Is somebody, for example, "due the ability of legally distributing modified software without source", other than the author and whoever he grants that right to?
I keep arguing, because you still keep saying that the restrictions of the GPL are on your rights. They are not. The rights of yours that you say are "restricted" are, in fact, the author's rights that the author never granted you. The restrictions of the GPL frame and state what you are and aren't allowed to do with the code. How are these restrictions framed? By stating what rights over his property the author grants and does NOT grant you.
As I said, it's not your right. You should have said "Ok, duh", instead of saying that I am some kind of GPL zealot.
I will, however, acknowledge that the "God-given" stuff was overboard. It's plain old rights. Fair enough.
And now, here, look at this:
In the future, don't pick a fight with someone based on things they didn't say. Especially after they point that out.
And then this:
Your reply should have been, "duh, OK" instead of "but copyright restricts your rights more" or "it didn't take something away that you already had."
But I never said that. I said copyright doesn't grant you any rights. So, in your own words:
That's why you're a dumb fuck.
Buh bye. Maybe someday you'll grasp the concept of "rights".
So, they don't really need to show the license, but can only benefit if they do.
I found that interesting, that's all. Never realized this particular aspect of the GPL.
Blogging because I can...
The german institute for law in free and open source software has made available a copy of the german original injunction (PDF format).
yeah but now he's +4 interesting and you're 0 offtopic for defending him. Life sucks sometimes don't it? Posting Anonymously for obvious reasons
where I live in Mi, 10% ethanol/gasoline is consistanly 4-5 cents cheaper than straight gasoline. Of course were a sugar-belt area.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds