Slashdot Mirror
Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal
l2718 writes "Yesterday we discussed Skype's appeal of a German court's ruling against them regarding a violation of the GPL. Harald Welte (the plaintiff) now reports in his blog that following oral argument, Skype decided to drop the appeal and accept the lower court ruling in Weite's favor. More details and analysis at Groklaw. Congratulations to Mr. Welte and GPL-violations.org!"
Is his name Welte or Weite?
Don't fuck with the penguin. We need to go after these fuckers and teach them a lesson!!!!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"To all those who don't like the license: you don't have to use it. Just write your own code. But if you want to use GPL code, the license comes with it. It's a package deal. Thanks."
(which has been oft-said on /.)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Does this allow reverse-engineering of the skype protocol?
What GPL'd software did Skype use and how was it discovered that Skype was using it?
This ist the first time, a foreign firm loses in a German court in a GPL-related case. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that it is not sufficient to offer the related sources only on the internet and mention this in a rather general way in the product manual.
:-)
Go Harald
Regards
Stirz
for not being a prick and pushing the thing around like sco did.
Read radical news here
OH NOES I'LL HAVE TO RESPECT THE DEVELOPERS WISHES, WHICH IS MOST CASES WON'T COST ME ANY MONEY AT ALL AND WILL MAKE DEVELOPING MUCH EASIER. If you really think this is so evil, there's nothing to stop you developing your own tools, and no-one ever said that the GPL was there to help people make money, it's there to protect people's freedom when it comes to software, if companies use it to make money that's just a bonus for them.
Well, it looks like business can no longer steal GPL code
There, fixed that for you Steve.
One option is remove GPL'ed code and use some closed source code. Other option: what if they release the code under GPL. Does this mean I can use it to make my own application for Skype network. what happens to the proprietary Skype protocol ?
I don't normally go for those "there, fixed that fer ya" type posts, but it seems to me this is really what you are saying.
You are correct, the result of this decision may be that some people who were using GPL code in violation of the license will no longer do so, just as the announcement of Microsoft going after companies using unlicensed copies of their software may have a similar effect. How you feel about that really depends on how you feel about copyright in general.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Stop me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to be roughly what happened....
Skype ripped off some GPL code.
After they got caught out, it went to court.
After some months toing and froing, Skype lost a lower court settlement.
Skype took it to a higher court.
Later that day, the story appears on slashdot.
The next day, Skype drops the case.
Coincidence?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
See how long you can get by without gcc. Even the iPhone relies on gcc.
Tell me about how all thos iPhone apps are infected.
This is not over. Until Ebay/skype make big contributions to open source, we will remember that they are the enemy of the free, and though they lost, have not repented.
I know ebay treats the customers and seller poorly, but this shows what is really inside that corp. Nothing but greed.
...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it?
Does all code have to have a license now?
Just curious...
Max.
Does this mean the code will be available so a 64bit version could happen in a soon future?
IANAL, but I'll take a crack at that.
In the US, whatever you create is copyrighted by default. I believe it is easier to defend if you take the step of registering it, but as far as I know simply putting a copyright notice on it is sufficient. So I couldn't come along and take the code you published and use it in a project I intend to distribute without getting your permission.
"Getting your permission" is what abiding by the GPL amounts to. It says "this code is copyrighted. You may not redistribute it unless you agree to these terms
Unlike Microsoft-style EULAs, the GPL (as far as I know) does not have to be accepted by the user, as it really has nothing to do with the user (despite the fact that a lot of software out there makes you "accept" the GPL before installing it). You don't need to agree to anything to use emacs to write your novel, but if you want to include it in a software distribution, or use the source code within a project you are developing yourself, you need to get the permission of the copyright holder and agree to his terms. That means abiding by the GPL.
I don't care why you're posting AC
...but if I write some software and post it on a web site, it doesn't have any license, does that mean no one can use it?
If you just post some code without saying anything about licensing, copyright, granting permissions, etc. then people should assume they don't have permission to distribute it. It may be difficult for you to enforce, but someone would be an idiot to just assume it was there for the taking. If you want to distribute some code that is published on a website like that, you should contact the author and get permission to do so.
Does all code have to have a license now?
No, you basically have 3 options:
1. don't provide a licence, the code remains under your copyright and no one can distribute it.
2. provide a licence, the code remains under your copyright and people can distribute it so long as they comply with the licence (the licence may be as simple as "do what the hell you like with this code").
3. declare it as public domain, you no longer have a copyright claim on the code and people can do whatever they want with it.
Note that this only relates to distribution, not use - copyright law prevents distribution of copyrighted works (without an agreement with the copyright holder), but it doesn't prevent you _using_ the copyrighted work.
(IANAL, yadda yadda)
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Are the rules at least similar to what you describe?
I mean, it does kind of sound like there is no such thing as 'unlicensed software' from your description.
Ah, perhaps the previous poster meant something along the lines of 'unlicensed use' of software, or 'use of the software that is not compliant with the license'.
Am I right?
Max.
The poster you were replying to was referring to using software either without obtaining a license or using it outside of the terms of that license.
The only way you can have "unlicensed software" the way you're talking about it (as in, there's no license that applies) would be for the original author to decleare it public domain. Possibly also when the copyright expires, but that's pretty unlikely with software!
If you just post some code without saying anything about licensing, copyright, granting permissions, etc. then people should assume they don't have permission to distribute it. It may be difficult for you to enforce, but someone would be an idiot to just assume it was there for the taking.
I have a question about that; I quite often browse the net for code samples. There are thousands of sites that people have posted "How to build a sample Direct3D application" or "How to access a parallel port" or whatnot. Sample code is presented, sometimes full (generally simple) programs, but no license is declared at all. I'm sure that as a practical matter, it's pretty safe to use those code snippets, because nobody will ever know or care. But legally, is code that has been freely published as training material, free without restrictions for those being trained to use?
I suppose you would have to look at the applicable laws in the country you want to distribute the software in.
In some places the author of the work may have to take steps to explicitly copyright it. If he failed to do so, that may limit his ability to seek legal remedies if you decided to redistribute his work, or use it in a project of your own.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. What exactly do you mean when you ask "is there no such thing as unlicensed software"? Even if there is no license, it still falls under the protection of copyright. All a license does is grant you additional rights you didn't already have.
Here's another way of looking at it: If you record a song and put it on a web site, could I just take your song and put it on a CD I'm marketing called "Songs From The Internet?"
Cause that's really what you're asking. Is there no such thing as unlicensed music? As someone else pointed out, you could put a notice up saying "I the author of this work release it to the Public Domain" and I suppose I could then do whatever I want from it. I also couldn't prevent anyone else from doing whatever they want.
You could also grant me the right to redistribute your work by giving me a license to do so, say a Creative Commons license. Armed with that license, I could redistribute your work provided I abide by its terms.
I don't care why you're posting AC
For your real question: It seems that you are downloading the source code with permission of the author, so that is fine. I think you are fine as long as you don't make any copies except those allowed by copyright law, like backups. If you build your own Direct3D application, do all the typing without looking at the code you downloaded to avoid copying the code by accident.
Technically, yes. Everything on the Internet -- including this post -- is copyrighted, unless the copyright holder explicitly releases it to the Public Domain. The only thing that might give you the right to download this to your computer (thereby making a copy) as you just did is the implied permission I gave by posting it. This implied permission is not likely to extend to further duplication rights; for example, if you tried to pass this post along to somebody else and I decided to sue you for it, the court would likely side with me.
If it's not Public Domain and you want people to be able to redistribute it, then the answer is certainly "yes." If you want people to be allowed to download it in the first place, the answer is "maybe" (see above). So far, these apply to all creative works, both code and otherwise.
Now, there's also one thing specific to software: If you want people to be able to run it, which incidentally requires at least copying it from disk to RAM, and maybe required copying it from CD to disk or disk to disk (if it was supplied as an installer program rather than an archive or image that didn't require "installation"), then that may also require a license. After all, those copies might be considered to be an incidental consequence of how the technology works, and thus fall under implied permission. Or maybe they don't: this is the rationale behind EULAs.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
However, it seems I am incorrect, and that to release something completely, I need to declare it to be in the 'public domain'.
It doesn't seem quite right somehow...almost greedy to have the default be completely free. On the other hand, I expect someone will come up with a car analogy or something to show how I would expect otherwise in some circumstance or other
Max.
...it is not a loss. The case was abandoned, not ruled on, and this could be problematical. Rulings carry weight in future cases, actions by either party generally do not. If the judge had ruled Skype had violated GPL, in the appeal, it would have substantially boosted the GPL's legal status. As it is, only the original case law exists. Which may be sufficient, but more would likely have helped.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I guess what I should have said is you question implies that a license is a means of limiting what a person may do with a piece of software, when in fact it grants additional rights - at least in the case of the GPL. The limiting factor is copyright law.
I blame Microsoft and others who have used "End User License Agreements" to attempt to impose further restrictions on how their software is used by the purchaser beyond the restrictions against distribution that copyright law covers. The GPL has nothing to say about how you use a piece of software, it simply covers the conditions under which you may distribute it.
I agree with you as well about the assumption that a thing would be free by default. That is the natural way. Laws about property ownership and such are artificial constructs that go against our instincts. That's a different discussion, though a good opportunity for a 'car analogy.'
I don't care why you're posting AC
Only creative expression is copyrightable (in the USA anyway, though IANAL and YMMV). Function is not copyrightable.
Most small code snippets are functional in nature, and therefore are probably not copyrightable, at least to the extent that there are only limited ways of expressing the desired algorithms.
English is easier said than done.
You know what? I was going to try to tell you how wrong you were, and how you basically don't have any idea what you are talking about (or you do, so you know how to make sure everything you say is wrong).
But you know what? That's stupid. I'm not going to argue. You're right. You're absolutely right, the GPL will corrupt your code, your people, and your family. You will have to open source your bedroom activities, and invite RMS to watch. It's all true.
Because, frankly, I'm sick of companies who are too dumb to figure it out themselves, or too fucking retarded to hire the cheapest lawyer they can find to explain it to them if they can't figure it out for themselves, what exactly the GPL does and doesn't do. Cus if you can't figure it out, and are going to just assume whatever comes into your crack-damage brain (it'll pollute us all! no wait it's free we can do whatever we want!)... Then I don't want you using GPL code.
I mean seriously. If you can't figure out how maybe modifying the Linux kernel into your product means you have some obligations to follow vis-a-vis this free OS kernel you just picked up, and how this doesn't affect all the code you wrote that has nothing to do with the kernel... Then you are an idiot, your company deserves to fail, and I can only hope that your fear of using GPL software puts you at a competitive disadvantage and thus hastens that day.
So yes. GPL is viral. Pass it on.
The enemies of Democracy are
Come on, come on. Don't shy away from the fighting words. This is Slashdot — a forum, where not a week without an (accepted) submission from somebody calling themselves "IDontBelieveInImaginaryProperty", and where somebody else (NewYorkCountryLawyer) is often seen rationalizing away violations of intellectual property rights — mostly on the basis, that it is not exactly the same as theft...
The vast Slashdot hypocrisy, thus boils down to
Cue in retarded comments on how music-creators and music-resellers are different from each other...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And the forces of legalistic pedantry march on...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It takes explicit action to put something into the Public Domain (in fact I've seen some arguments that doing so is impossible, at least in an irreversible way), or to relinquish your rights to it.
There was a time when it was the other way around; when if you published a book, for instance, you had to register it with the Copyright Office in order to have any protection, and you had to renew it periodically in order to maintain that protection. Frankly I think that was really a better system in some ways (especially renewals), since it resulted in "orphan works" eventually making their way into the Public Domain. If you go onto Project Gutenberg, there are quite a few SF stories from pulp magazines in the 50s and 60s, mostly written by authors that never got famous, that never had their copyright renewed, and are now in the Public Domain. A book written today would be automatically under copyright for the life of the author plus 80 years (I think, whatever the Sonny Bono Act brought it up to) by default; there's no provision for orphan works.
In short, the Berne Convention dictates a policy of "default deny" rather than "default allow."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I don't really see the "vast Slashdot hyprocisy" you refer to.
The submissions by NewYorkCountryLawyer tend to illuminate abuses of the legal process on the part of attorneys and investigators working on behalf of the RIAA. Regardless of how you feel about copyright, and whether or not you feel ideas are the same thing as physical property and should be treated as such, I would hope we all can agree that evidence should be gathered in a legal manner by people who are properly licensed to do so in the place they are working, and it should not be misrepresented in court as saying something that it simply doesn't.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Slashdot isn't just one guy posting everything. If I say something that contradicts something another Slashdotter says, that isn't hypocrisy, it's a converation.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Comparing music copyright infingement to GPL infringement is a strawman argument.
If somebody were to copy music and release an album and claims that they wrote and performed it, thus denying the original author the credit, then it would be equivalent.
Conversely if somebody complained because a person copied a GPL program from one machine to another then it would be equivalent.
Technically the GPL is violated ALL THE TIME, millions of times a day. For instance a bittorrent client is violating it, as it likely only has a piece of a compiled code and not likely also has the equivalent source. I don't see the FSF acting like the RIAA and going after bittorrent clients.
Until you can actually make two equivalent cases you have no argument.
I have a question about that; I quite often browse the net for code samples. There are thousands of sites that people have posted "How to build a sample Direct3D application" or "How to access a parallel port" or whatnot. Sample code is presented, sometimes full (generally simple) programs, but no license is declared at all. I'm sure that as a practical matter, it's pretty safe to use those code snippets, because nobody will ever know or care. But legally, is code that has been freely published as training material, free without restrictions for those being trained to use?
Unless there is an explicit declaration putting it in public domain, the code is copyrighted and you need a licence if you want to distribute it. You may choose to use it anyway on the grounds that "no one will ever know", and you'll probably get away with it, but legally you are in the wrong and the copyright holder (who may not be the person who published it) is well within their rights to come and bash you around for infringing their copyright.
Websites providing such training materials should probably require their users to agree to put all the code they post into the public domain before they are allowed to post the code, but I suspect for the most part the people running the sites don't know/care enough about copyright to do that. It is also worth remembering that training materials aren't automatically in the public domain - if you go on a commercial training course you almost certainly won't be allowed to republish the material you receive.
In any case, even if someone gives you permission, you aren't completely protected since you don't necessarily know that it was their code in the first place. But if the true copyright holder comes after you, at least you have a defense that you believed you had the right to use it. The person who granted you the right will probably take some of the heat for the infringement. History is littered with companies licensing code, designs, etc. from other companies, only to later discover that the code/design wasn't the licensor's in the first place, so they had no right to sell the licence to you.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Well, it looks like business can no longer steal GPL code
Nope, we're talking about copyright infringement here, not theft. Just because the music industry seems to get them mixed up doesn't mean we should follow suit...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I think it's true that the GPL is a broken licence that makes open source less useful for business - you have to accept that some people are going to want to charge money for software and that's a legitimate thing. Why should software be so different from other forms of labor that it should be immune from being paid for? (Yes I know that GPL'd stuff can be sold but no one can make a profit without exclusivity). I'm sure most people who contribute to open source don't even particularly like GPL, they just got it shoved down their throats by commie bastard Richard Stallman.
Do not mod as flamebait like the parent!!
The
* violating the wishes of software creators â" bad (unless the creator is a big corporationy corporation);
* violating the wishes of music creators â" Ok, free muzak!
Creators of anything have the right to impose their wishes on other people to the extent of the law. This is fine.
For example, the Linux kernel is a copyrighted work (actually: large collection of copyrighted works) and you are not allowed to distribute it without being granted permission by the copyright holders. The permission is granted in the form of the GPL - the copyright holders have said "we will grant you the right to distribute the code so long as you comply with these terms". The law allows this. Similarly, the product of a big corporation, such as Windows, is protected by copyright law - you can't copy it unless they grant you a distribution licence. This is fine.
What is not so fine is imposing a shrink-wrap end user licence agreement (and expecting to enforce it) - the law does not allow for this. If you want to restrict someone's rights then you are, of course, allowed to do so - you just need to get them to sign a contract waiving those rights. The customer also has every right to refuse to sign that contract. The problem with the EULA is that you have already sold the customer some software and they thus have the right to do with it what they want so long as they don't distribute it - if they never sign the EULA they still have the right to use the software they purchased but are not bound by the EULA.
Vendors using EULAs try to get around this by building in technological restrictions, such as presenting the EULA with an "agree" button which must be pushed before the software can be used. The problem here is that if you violate the terms of the EULA there is no way they can prove you ever agreed to it - you could have bypassed the technological restriction. Or your 5 year old kid/dog/cat may have agreed to it. Maybe the "agree" button had already been clicked by someone else when you bought the computer. The only person you cn sue for breach of contract is the person who agreed to the contract in the first place - determining and proving who agreed is pretty much impossible with click-through licences since you don't have a signature on a bit of paper.
The same goes for music, video, etc., to some extent - they are protected by copyright, which is fine. But the publishers wanted to go further than the law would allow - they placed technological restrictions (DRM) on what you could do with the content. For example, region coding DVDs so that people couldn't play their legally purchased content if they didn't follow the content producer's wishes. There was, of course, nothing preventing people from removing these restrictions. And so the publishers lobbied the governments to have the law changed. As you can imagine, this has angered quite a lot of people who have suddenly seen a lot of their legal rights go straight out of the window and they see the moving goal-posts as rather unfair - it must be a nice world when you can just rewrite the laws to suit your new business model.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Skype used an embedded Linux operating system in a mobile phone device. The GPL applies to the Linux kernel and the system utilities they used, not to the proprietary Skype software (e.g. the client) that they also installed on the device. It's ok for the device to have both GPL'd software (Linux) and non-GPL'd software (the Skype client). The problem is that they didn't obey the GPL regarding Linux, by not advising the customers that about their rights regarding the free software on the device. At no point was the secrecy of the Skype protocol at stake.
Dude, being on a condo board is one of the most thankless jobs in the world. No pay, everybody complains about everything you do, and in the end the best you can hope for is to break even -- not have the maintenance of your complex go down the toilet. Some jerks even want to sue you for keeping their heat on and their grass mowed.
This is in the same realm as politics, if you don't like what is going on -- campaign for office. You will learn a thing or two about the apathy that they have to deal with all the time.
Screw the developers, this is about defending the users' rights and advancing the state of the art. If the GPL merely required you to paint yourself blue, do you really think the rest of us would still care whether or not you comply?
Oh sure, when the labels bankrupt someone who wasn't guilty, some band out there might get another nickel, so we mustn't be unsympathetic.
you pay for gpled and lgpled code by following the terms of the copyright license. it is exactly this license that has made free software possible. complaining that it means that others can't make money off it without giving back is stupid. it wouldn't be there if this were otherwise.
The
Nope, that is simply not true. All of his submissions — and discussion-board arguments — show perfectly explicit opinion, that **AA's very premise is wrong — not just their methods, but their goals of enforcing their (intellectual) property rights are bogus.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.