Slashdot Mirror
FSF Files Suit Against Cisco For GPL Violations
Brett Smith writes "This morning the Free Software Foundation filed suit against Cisco for violations of the GPL and LGPL. There's a blog post with background about the case. The full complaint is available too." The short version, as excerpted by reader byolinux, is that "in the course of distributing various products under the Linksys brand Cisco has violated the licenses of many programs on which the FSF holds copyright, including GCC, binutils, and the GNU C Library. In doing so, Cisco has denied its users their right to share and modify the software."
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco. If only the software was distributed without cumbersome GLP and LGPL licensing restrictions, and was truly free like software wants to be, then Cisco wouldn't have been forced to violate the licenses.
For shame.
The thing about these lawsuits is that I hope the FSF tried to resolve the violations outside of court before litigating. Remember: court is supposed to be a last resort, not first recourse.
When (or if) the FSF wins this suit, it will almost certainly be a boon for custom firmware development for these devices. Like the WRT5GL, I'd expect the new router firmwares to make the router much more useful.
How should I proceed? Should I buy these (forcibly) open-sourced devices? Or should I avoid Linksys because of their repeated violations of the GPL?
I'd wait until the dust settles, to be honest--but if you want a recommendation for the interim, here's one:
Don't buy out-of-compliance devices. Boycott Cisco until they fix this problem, either by settling the case and releasing code...or until the trial is complete.
I love my Linksys router.
I was under the impression that other than the wrt54gl (the one I bought, naturally), none of them run linux anymore.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
I've worked at Cisco, and the general attitude among many (not all) is that they don't care about GPL violations. Linux is used as it's the fastest path to get the products out.
The reason why this will be unsettling to Cisco is because some of the products have integrated key IOS files in order to retain backwards compatibility. Which means that those files now fall under the GPL. And the only way to integrate them is to use various Linux API's. That is, key files are derived works from the GPL. From the bootstrap code on up.
But, since these files are key to IOS as well, one could take the view that IOS is now under the GPL.
One could try to maintain that those files need to be dual-licensed. However, though some hold that to be valid, I don't believe such a dual license has ever been held up in court. So that might get interesting if the FSF wanted to push it. In any case, it could be a useful bargaining chip.
In any case, those files don't have the appropriate copyrights stating how they are licensed.
The amusing part here is that this has come about mostly because of Cisco's dedication to using as much H1-B/L1 labor as possible. It's been those guys who have mostly (not entirely) done this work in order to get things done quickly. And believe me, protestations about the licensing have been ignored completely when they've been raised. Hack-it-in quickly and damn the lawyers has been the attitude.
It's very amusing to see that Cisco's use of cheap labor has come back to bite them in a way that has the potential to cost them more money than if they had done things in the right fashion originally.
Based on the background, seems like Cisco have 5 years to essentially send an email to all their known customers and post a notice on their website to a public ftp site with the relevant software. Am I oversimplifying?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Cisco / Linksys set themselves up for a fall here. If they wanted code they could just rip off and use whilst largely ignoring the license, why on earth didn't they just use BSD code? These are large companies, presumably they have lawyers. But they're acting like some kid who downloads an image from Google Image Search and uses it on their webpage - "I downloaded it off the web for free so I can just use it right?"
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
You guys just don't get it. The FSF protects software. Then Cisco went and muddied it all up like your sister's proprietary, tattooed boyfriend. Now every time you use GCC, it'll be thinking of Cisco.
what about aprouter.com.br? they offer firmware based on linux for edimax wireless routers. the catch? you need a license to use the wireless device no sources AFAICS :(
There are companies that contribute greatly top open source, like SUN for example (OpenOffice, Open Solaris, ...). And there are companies out there that leech off of it and even refuse to open up if they are asked to do so by the FSF.
Next time you make a purchase decision you should take that into account if your company is using oss.
I was under the impression that other than the wrt54gl (the one I bought, naturally), none of them run linux anymore.
If the folks at Cisco decide that potential lawsuits and being forced to open source code that they would rather not, is not worth the risk/trouble.
It's a shame, really. I would have preferred to have seen the FSF and Cisco settle this behind closed doors, without a lawsuit, as a win-win for everyone.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
That sucks. I'm glad I have a couple of WRT54GL boxes, because I can easily see the entire range being dumped if the FSF wins. It's a lose lose sort of situation. FSF has talked to CISCO about this repeatedly and there has been no resolution. Now CISCO refuses to talk so the FSF has to persue the matter or else allow the GPL be flouted. If it persues the matter CISCO/Linksys may well just dump the products but if it doesn't there's a very bad precedent set for the GPL being abused, and FSF has no teeth in any similar situtions.
I'd be surprised if the routers aren't simply pulled if the FSF does win. Damn it I love my WRT54GL. Most reliable and flexible router I've owned.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The FSF has filed suit against Cisco for copyright violations. Cisco distributed code owned by the FSF without permission.
Yes, Cisco could easily be distributing with permission, and hence legally, if they followed the requirements of the GPL. Instead, they chose to distribute without permission, a violation of federal copyright law.
The FSF had been trying to quietly resolve this for 5 years. They didn't exactly jump the gun on this one.
It could be a misunderstanding of the GPL or bad advice from an expert. Why, if I asked a question about the GPL, I would get dozens of posts each having their own and differing "expert" opinion of what is meant.
If you read the article, you'll see that they did. They've been working with Cisco for the last five years on it, but according to the FSF never became fully compliant:
As we always do in violation cases, we began a process of working with Cisco to help them understand their obligations under our licenses, and how they could come into compliance. Early on it seemed likely that we could resolve the issues without any fuss.
While we were working on that case, though, new reports came in. Other Cisco products were not in full compliance either. We started talking to the company about those as wellâ"and that's how a five-years-running game of Whack-a-Mole began. New issues were regularly discovered before we could finish addressing the old ones.
During this entire time, Cisco has never been in full compliance with our licenses. At first glance, the situation might look good. It's not difficult to find "source code" on the Linksys site. But you only have to dig a little deeper to find the problems. Those source code downloads are often incomplete or out-of-date. Cisco also provides written offers for source, but we regularly hear about requests going unfulfilled.
Despite our best efforts, Cisco seems unwilling to take the steps that are necessary to come into compliance and stay in compliance. We asked them to notify customers about previous violations and inform them about how they can now obtain complete source code; they have refused to do this, along with the other reasonable demands we have made to consider this case settled. The FSF has put in too many hours helping the company fix the numerous mistakes it's made over the years. Cisco needs to take responsibility for its own license compliance.
No no no.
Cisco has violated copyright law by distributing GPLed FSF code under terms other than specified in the only available license. The ownership and licensing of IOS code is not affected by this in any way. This is the past.
Now for the future. If Cisco wants to keep distributing IOS code mixed with FSF code, there is only one way of doing it. That is to release the code under the GPL, because the FSF doesn't offer any other licenses. Only the IOS code which is mixed with FSF code needs to be released under the GPL. This has no effect on any other IOS code (older or in other products or whatever).
Don't forget that Linksys isn't the only Linux compatible router on the market. Other companies such as Asus, Buffalo and others make routers that work with Linux based custom firmware and in some cases use more powerful hardware. So if you're going to boycott you still have options.
Exactly! You'd almost think there are several people writing comments!
WRT54GL boxes use broadcom ('blobcom') chipsets with non-Free binary only drivers for the 2.4 kernels. No 2.6 / ipv6 for me. :(
I love my WRT54GL--but I'm ready for something better supported.
Since the user doesn't get the code.
Or when are MS going to release the BSD code in Windows, including all enhancements?
So they can't change the BSD code in Windows, can they.
The user doesn't have to be a developer either. They can PAY a developer to do it. They are still the user. And, since the BSD allows the new developer to give the binary closed, the developer the user has paid can take the freedom to get someone else to do more work from the user who paid for it.
Don't be an idiot.
This is not exactly "put some code on the web for download."
If you mean that Linksys/Cisco could have avoided this at any time in the past five years by releasing the code, you are probably right. The FSF is easy to get along with. It is anybody's guess what they need to offer the FSF now to make it go away.
It is not a troll, it is the truth. You don't like it because you know it is true.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Did Jammie get off from her $220,000 fine because she said she'd stop?
And Cisco restarted selling linux routers because they were so popular and the closed source ones were not.
And why, WHY, would Cisco make their routers MORE expensive (and have to, to cover the licensing costs) just because they don't wanna let people modify the code they wanted to modify.
The existence of this kind of discussion (regardless who has the reason) is what scares a lot to many managers that are not interested (or are not able) to get the correct-freedom-flavor philosophy, so they end avoiding free software as a whole....
In their minds, everything, if free, has a catch... well, the catch is that legalese with the freedom concept, that after a long time can return and "destroy" (that is, force to open your code) the competitive advantage secrets or whatever is called.
I'm really not sure at the end what approach will provide more benefits to the users, the developers, the proprietary software enterprises (yes, they pay the checks for a lot of people), or humanity as a whole.
This is why free licenses such as BSD should be adopted for any commercial project.
Cisco didn't "adopt" the GPL; quite the opposite, they're trying to avoid it. However, they put *themselves* in a position where they'll either be forced to or be guilty of breaking the license terms.
Avoid viral licenses such as *GPL.
Who should? The people who wrote the original code? Maybe they don't want companies like Cisco using it if it means closing the code off and not returning anything. That's their choice.
Cisco? They knew- or should have known- the implications of the GPL and had- as you imply- the choice of using BSD-licensed software instead.
Perhaps there wasn't a BSD-licensed version of what they were looking for? If so, tough shit! No-one's under any obligation to provide them with that for free. Cisco could of course pay someone to write it (and release it under the BSD license if they so wish). Or they're free to use the GPLed code and adhere to the terms it was released under.
But they thought they could get away with using the no-cost GPL code without honouring the obligations. They knew what they were doing.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
It's not necessarily hypocrisy. At least some people on /. get upset w/ the RIAA because they don't do enough to make sure there really was a violation before they sue. In that case, there is no hypocrisy in being against the RIAA's suits and in favor of the FSF's.
It could also be a matter of how the FSF handles the matters. Many people here might have a lot less sympathy for defendants in RIAA lawsuits if the RIAA willingly spent 3 years explaining where they went wrong and how they can come into compliance (at practically zero cost) and was willing to consider the matter settled afterwards.
Typically, copyright holders who license under GPL (including the FSF) have been far more forgiving of violations than the RIAA. Perhaps that's pert of it.
Slack begets slack.
Now, will Cisco sell the routers free?
I'm not sure I follow your logic, it would be better to violate Microsoft's license instead of the FSF?
Trust me, if you ignored the license Microsoft included with their products they would be "ready to pounce on you" as well.
Correction: If you use GPL'ed code and do not follow the license you will get sued, in the same way that if you buy source code rights from Microsoft and then ignore the terms you have agreed you will get sued.
You can always hack an SD card in. :)
There are instructions floating around to do it. Honestly I could never bring myself to sac SD card reader...although I have a few SD-micro adapters that I could probably consider doing that to.
Plus with the SD-micro card removed if I fry the adapter I'm not out of a card.
People violate the copyright of corporations, corporations sue the violators with no hard evidence discovered through illegal means, slashdotters bitch about the corporations and get firmly behinds the people and decry abuse of copyright and copyright litigation.
Corporation violates the copyright of the FSF, FSF sues corporation after working with corporation through other means for five years and building up credible evidence, slashdotters bitch about the corporations and get firmly behind the FSF and support copyright and copyright litigation.
There. Fixed. Easy to think things are the same when you omit key points of the arguments.
No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. When Cisco announced that their network had been compromised and IOS source code was copied, nobody blamed Cisco for trying to track down the perpetrators. Likewise, nobody seemed at all upset at Cisco when discussions about Cisco knock-offs with illegal copies of IOS have been mentioned. I don't believe there's been any criticism of copyright in these cases.
BSD uses gcc too, and FSF claims infringement on gcc too.
Yeish, i totally botched that first one...
Replace "with no hard evidence discovered through illegal means" with "with no hard evidence, and what evidence they do have discovered through illegal means"
No, it is hypocrisy because it is not just the *AA that slashdotters bitch about. The fact is that slashdotters are only against copyright when it is used against them or their pet causes. But, when one of their pet projects use the same laws, then the law is good.
It is the classic definition of hypocrisy.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
What's the problem. Cisco did nothing wrong.
1. They only copied, NOT STOLE OR VIOLATED ANYTHING, a couple of bits.
2. They wouldn't have bought it anyway.
3. The FSF is not going to give an type of damages to the people who origianlly created the works.
4. The FSF and it's failing business model...blah blah blah.
Now think...
The reason why this will be unsettling to Cisco is because some of the products have integrated key IOS files in order to retain backwards compatibility. Which means that those files now fall under the GPL.
This is false. Releasing GPL code can never automatically force other code to be licensed under the GPL. What it does mean is that someone was distributing code without a license, and may be liable for copyright infringement damages. If they *had* licensed their other code under the GPL, they wouldn't have been liable.
In general, a number of GPL-using authors tend to be okay with someone who has infringed doing a subsequent GPL-based release as a way to clear the air (and often then forgive previous damage caused by earlier infringements), but (a) they need not forgive the damages in such a case, (b) the infringer need never do a GPL-based release of their own code, instead simply paying damages.
*sigh* Cueing the millionth identical replay of the exact same longwinded "BSD is freer because...." "No, GPL is freer because...." discussion subthread, in which the contributors get to restate the established position using the same old arguments to make the same old points, and neither side changes the other's mind.
:)
Nothing wrong with that, but we don't need to hear it over and over and over again. Can't we just find an old subthread on the subject and link to that instead?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
There are some on /. who do fit your description. There are many who fit mine.
An additional issue I left out is the HUGE resource imbalance when a corporation sues an individual.
What about the hundreds of other stories about copyright infringement? Or, do you suggest that we should only consider the few stories that don't prove my contention?
Go back and read the stories on copyright. By far, the majority are filled with screeds against copyright and copyright enforcement. Most of comments are of the vein "Copyright is bad because we can't get something for nothing." Check out the stories on binary only drivers, which are binary only because of copyright issues.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I have a WRT54G (not the L, but before they went to that shitty crashy excuse of an OS.. v4 I think)
Before I had DD-WRT on it, I went to the Linksys website to download firmware updates. The source was available.
Has this since changed, or was it incomplete? I've always applauded Linksys (before they were Cisco) for specifically making the Linux-based GL for us tinkerers. You can pull off some cool shit with those routers.
Hopefully this is just a misunderstanding.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The FSF had been trying to quietly resolve this for 5 years.
That's what troubles me: given that the FSF were obviously patient about it, what caused Cisco *not* to comply?
I guess we'll just have to wait to hear Cisco's side of the story.
But again, regardless of who's right, and who's wrong, publicity like this is not good for open source, and I wish this lawsuit did not come to be.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This could send the wrong message. If you Use bootleg proprietary software and make a lot of money from it you will get Sued. Details of the reasons will fade just the face the proprietary software is considered to Risky for a corporate environment. You better off getting a License from GPL as you can choose to agree to the terms before hand, then going with a product which wile may be backed by a big company will have a bunch of people ready to pounce on you if you make this code successful.
You really expect it to cost a lot of money to keep the code on an ftp server, and send a copy to those who request it (which will be nearly none) ?
When Virgin violated the GPL the FSF didn't bother.
Bout time FSF did something.
Cisco is being REALLY REALLY stupid here and I just don't understand why.
I've done a lot of commercial software that uses LGPL and GPL code, and its not rocket science. RMS himself even says that "mere aggregation" is not a problem.
Here are the rules:
if its LGPL, link to it, but don't modify it. If you need to modify it, make the modification in the form of a generic API extension and call it from the application. Make your extensions public.
If it is GPL, make it a service and call it through a socket.
If it is a kernel module, there seems to be some wiggle room there, otherwise make a public mini-driver and a proprietary user space app.
How hard is that? Jeez, if you screw up GPL compliance, you are not paying attention.
I would say that it is a very few who fit your description and many who fit mine.
Is it your contention that the huge resource imbalance makes it OK for an individual to violate the copyright of corporations, or that the huge resource imbalance makes it wrong for corporations to defend their copyrights?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No it's not the truth, it's a very bad troll (I mean, feeding your own post? No points for you!).
Are you arguing that /.ers would try to defend someone who ripped off MS code and shipped it in their own product? Or are you muddying up the water when it comes to the whole MPAA/RIAA situation which is itself objectionable for reasons wholly unrelated to whether or not violations took place in particular cases e.g. UMG v Lindor.
There's also alternative views on copyright held by people such as RMS in his Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks and a wide spectrum of other copyright reformists that post here. No position on copyright that I'm aware of is hypocritical in the fashion you describe.
Of course, it's always much easier to fling names around rather than engage with someone who has different ideas. I've at least tried that with you meaning I get the moral high ground and I get to call you a stupid idiot troll.
Nick
Slashdot is not a single user with a single mind, despite what you'd like to think.
But when you think about it, if copyright didn't exist, there'd be far less need for something like the GPL.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Slashdotters" want the software to be freely distributed, freely used, and freely modified. Corporations use copyright to prevent that, so Slashdotters are against them. The FSF uses copyright to promote that, so Slashdotters support it. That's not hypocritical at all: in all cases Slashdotters are trying to work towards the same goal. You only thought it was hypocritical because you weren't looking at the whole issue.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Seriously. Microsoft wouldn't spend 5 years talking with you in an attempt to get you to comply with their license. They'd just send in the lawyers and sue for millions in damagaes.
huge resource imbalance makes it wrong for corporations to defend their copyrights?
Of course the fact that the record companies have much better legal representation makes it wrong for them to extort money through pre-settlement letters. The RIAA lawyers are better funded and better informed so it's wrong for them to abuse the legal process to force scared people, a large number of whom have done nothing wrong, to pay up. Their methodology is so flawed that even in cases where someone probably did share some tunes they don't have enough evidence to prove it was the defendant.
Judges in the USA have even gone on record and said exactly that, so hopefully the tide is turning.
Nick
This case is about whether Cisco violated the General Public License. /.ers already have supported a company, Psystar, that violates the license, and thus the copyright, of another company, Apple.
Psystar violated the license and /.ers support them vociferously.
And, I would not doubt for a second that /.ers would support and defend someone who ripped off MS code.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
It is hypocritical. It is a case of "Do as we say, not as we do". The law applies to all or none. Either everyone has a right to defend their copyrights or no one does. To say that "we" have the right to defend our copyrights but "they" don't is blatant hypocrisy.
You only think it is not hypocritical because you are a hypocrite.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
It's a funny thing, but my experience with BSD in a corporate environment is that it doesn't end up as much of a success. There are some exceptions, but even in the case of OS-X, Apple seems to have completely failed to build the community they wanted at the beginning. Most other cases, starting with BSD/OS (BSD 386) and going through IPSO, Ipsilon's home grown BSD based OS, and many others you haven't heard of (AlchemyOS etc.) end up completely dead. Even Microsoft's TCP stack seems to have been rewritten with little BSD left behind.
I think the reason the BSD code dies is precisely because of it's non copyleft license. The companies mostly know that the best way to handle maintenance is to contribute back to the original developer. However, that's not a requirement of the license and so needs to be agreed to by the corporate lawyers. Separately for each contribution. The always want a justification and it just isn't worth any programmer's effort. With GPL code, the fact you have to give back makes the justification very easy to provide. That puts the corporate developers easily in touch with the "community" of other developers on that software and makes the development end up more successful. I'd love to hear other explanations for this. The main data point I have is that across a bunch of different projects I have seen, it always seems that the GPL ones have an active process for contributing back and have developers who are active and known in the original development community. On the other hand the BSD ones, even though they've included a number of former BSD developers don't seem to and those developers seem to give up on making contributions back to the original system.
I know that's CISCO, in this case is probably not really getting as much benefit from this as they could if they followed the GPL, but I think there gets to be a general perception that Linux leads to success and BSD leads to dead ends. People select software based on that perception
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
People vote GW Bush into office, and what happens? Letters to the editor of every newspaper in American saying he's a bad President.
Hypocrisy, thy name is America.
Hint: in the RIAA threads there are always posters defending the corporations. They may be in the minority, but they are there. If you put ten people in a room together, do they have Multiple Personality Syndrome?
From my reading of comments in those threads, most slashdotters are in favor of both copyright's existance and its badly needed reform.
Lets talk about Apple vs Microsoft (or vi vs emacs or KDE vs Gnome) if you want "hypocricy".
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that." -HAL
Free Martian Whores!
So, you admit that you believe that the strong should not be able to defend themselves against the weak, simply because they are stronger than their attackers. Nice to know that.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
GPLv2 requires physical media if requested.
No. You can also include the source along with the binaries on a 'medium customarily used for software interchange'. It has been commonly interpreted that this wording is meant to include a link to a public ftp or www site. The 'written offer for source code' is optional. Cisco could just as easily have either A) add links to the source on the CD-ROM setup thingy they distribute with the each Linksys router or B) just put the source right on the CD-ROM setup thingie. It's not like their setup code takes 650MB. Sheesh.
considering how convoluted the licensing is when using linux, there is probably some GPLv1 code still in there somewhere.
There is no GPLv1 code in the Linux kernel. The kernel has been GPL v2 pretty much since the beginning. If you mean 'sitting in userland', AFAIK there no GPL v1 code in any modern Linux distro.
Once a business has released anything GPL, they are required to support it forever.
Incorrect. They can discontinue support at any time.
My blog
"but the GPLv2 requires physical media if requested."
What's the fucking point so stating?
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program...
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
It even goes to *explicitly* stating that no physical media is needed:
"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code."
It's not about "the law," though. Laws are reflection of society, not the other way around -- you don't avoid doing something because it's against the law, you make it against the law because it was a bad thing to do in the first place. But because of this, laws don't always get it right. It used to be illegal to aid an escaping slave, for example. But does that make such an action wrong? Of course not (unless you're a KKK member)! Laws should be followed when they are just, but when they are unjust they should be broken.
By your logic, ambulance drivers should lose their driver's licenses and soldiers should be jailed for murder.
Wanna bet? Here's "what we say:"
Copyright holders of proprietary information (like the RIAA) try to prevent it from being free to modify and share without restriction, so we oppose them. "What we do" is completely consistent with "what we say" in this case.
Copyright holders of Free information (like the FSF) try to force it to be free to modify and share without restriction, so we support them. "What we do" is also completely consistent with "what we say" in this case too!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Mac freak /.ers already have supported a company, Psystar, that violates the license, and thus the copyright, of another company, Apple.
Fixed that for you. They're a derided subculture even around these parts, real /.ers are Free Software True Believers!
Nick
No, I believe that justice implies a certain equality. When it's possible for one side to win just because they have more money, regardless of what really happened, then justice has failed.
Nick
Get the name right. It's Gnu/Cisco.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
That is not what you are saying in this case. In this case, you are saying "We should be able to use the copyright laws to protect our copyright. But, people who don't believe as we do should not be able to protect their copyright in the same way". And, that is hypocrisy.
You want the law to only apply to when it benefits you and your position. If it would benefit people who hold a view different from yours, you do not want the law to apply and think it is unfair that they are allowed to use the same laws you are allowed to use.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
That is not what you have said. You have said that because one has more money or is stronger, one should not be able to defend one's copyright against someone who lass less money or is less powerful.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If you mean that Linksys/Cisco could have avoided this at any time in the past five years by releasing the code, you are probably right.
If you read the complaint, the FSF acknowledges that Linksys* has already released most of the code they are required to release. The big problem is that Linksys has a habit of releasing the binary versions first, then neglecting to release the source until the FSF complains and dragging their feet even then.
The bottom line is that the FSF wants Linksys to be more proactive about releasing source files (by appointing a Free Software Compliance Officer) and to pay them for past abuse.
* The complaint specifically and exclusively references Linksys products. It says nothing about IOS or any Cisco-branded products.
The complaint is that there were multiple violations, most of which were resolved eventually, but the problem is that they keep happening and they take too long to resolve. The FSF wants Linksys to appoint a Free Software Compliance Officer to be more proactive about providing source.
Also, note that this is all about Linksys-branded products, not Cisco-branded ones. IIRC, Linksys mostly operates independently from the rest of Cisco.
They allow abusive entities such as the Free Software Foundation to go after Cisco.
I know you're just trying to be funny, but what's worth noticing is that this is the FSF's first lawsuit:
[...] Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF. "In the fifteen years we've spent enforcing our licenses, we've never gone to court before. We have always managed to get the companies we have worked with to take their obligations seriously.
Isn't that interesting? I'm not sure whether Cisco decided to call the FSF's bluff or whether they have some other thinking behind their decisions; but I know that this is going to be interesting to watch.
IIRC, the GPL has been upheld in court before, so (depending on the details of Cisco's actions) the FSF is probably in a good position to win.
The title of the article is erroneous.
Not if "GPL violation" is a common shorthand for "infringement of copyright in a work ordinarily distributed under the GNU General Public License".
After getting the "our developers are working on it" runaround for months and months when Linksys didn't issue new drivers without the Broadcom vulnerability for my WPC54G adapter, rendering it totally useless, I decided to never, never, again buy Linksys equipment.
The lined FSF news item names GCC and binutils as licenced items that Cisco is not doing the right thing with. GNU libc I can understand (but thought that most of those sorts of gizmos used newlib), but gcc itself? How are GCC and Binutils being brought into the complaint?
-- Andrew
If it is GPL, make it a service and call it through a socket.
This doesn't work in a few cases:
Boycott Cisco
I use a Netgear router, but Cisco products may be upstream of my home. I know of two residential Internet service providers in Fort Wayne, Indiana: Verizon and Comcast. Verizon has been seen palling around with Cisco, and so has Comcast. So how do I boycott Cisco without boycotting the whole Internet?
CallManager 5.x, Redhat-based
CallManager 6.x, Redhat-based
Content Engine (CE560,CE590): Redhat-based
MDS switches: Redhat-based.
NM-NAM module for routers: Redhat-based
Some 7600/Catalyst 6500 service modules: Linux-based.
Want proof?
Connect to the console for a cold boot... Redhat is explicitly mentioned.
Heck, the update patches for some of the modules are UNSIGNED RPM's.
The interesting thing is that the modules have router/switch backplane connectivity, i.e. that Linux on the module has a network interface that is attached to the router/switch, and the Router/Switch sees the module as one or more interfaces... Drivers anyone?
The NM-NAM may also use other open source code as the basis for analysis and display of collected NetFlow data...
The initial install images may contain more common file formats, (Gzip, cpio, tar) with proprietary headers prepended...
Busting images open is an excercise for some geek with time and CCO access thats entitled to updates for the products they want to investigate.
"We're a multi-billion dollar company. F*** off!"
But don't be so quick to jump on Cisco. They bought this problem when they bought Linksys. Linksys has been doing this half-assed source code BS since the beginning of time.
Once a business has released anything GPL, they are required to support it forever.
Incorrect. They can discontinue support at any time.
So why are they being sued by the FSF? Couldn't they just say that they are canceling support and avoid the entire issue.
They already have an FTP site to download the source, so you're argument that the GPL is easy to comply with is, prima facia, false.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that when you compile C-code with gcc, particularly if you use .so files instead of a monolithic binary, doesn't the program have some dependencies on a libgcc.so or something like that? I suspect that you're right that the devices don't have a fully functioning GCC build environment, but I think they may distribute some components of GCC which are required to execute programs compiled with gcc. Same for binutils - I think you pretty much *need* the ld programs which are part of binutils to have a functioning Linux environment (unless you statically compile *everything*), because they implement and manage so loading on behalf of the kernel, no?
The Free Software Foundation can only file suit when someone directly violates the copyrights of FSF software. There is a lot of GPL licensed software which the FSF does not hold copyrights for. FSF can't sue just because a program is licenses by GPL.
To sue, you either have to be the copyright holder, or maybe (not sure on this one), a downstream 'recipient' of the software. E.g. if you bought a Cisco device with GPL'ed softare, and you couldn't get the source from Cisco, you might have grounds to sue them for breaching your rights wrt to the GPL as a recipient of a binary.
I suppose that might leave some wiggle room for FSF to simply arrange to receive a copy from the violator (e.g. by a non-compliant linksys device at Best Buy), then file the lawsuit.
I would say that the resource imbalance demands a certain amount of mercy (rather than mercenary) in defending their copyrights. It also calls for them to be a LOT more careful with their accusations. They have been reprimanded by more than one judge so far for abuse of the legal process and for dragging out weak cases that probably shouldn't have been filed at all. That's not /., that's judges who generally have little or no problem with copyright law who believe that the RIAA has gone too far.
Considering the RIAA's rather abysmal record in the cases where a defendant DOES manage to mount a defense, it would seem that as a whole they're more about an extortion racket than legitimate defense of copyright. One would expect some wins if their cases had any merit, you'd expect them to win once in a while.
I actually welcome this news, I think when these things happen it sends a strong signal that free software means business, and we're here to stick around. It might be "free speech," it might even be "free beer," but it ain't "freeloader."
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
If you read the complaint [fsf.org], the FSF acknowledges that Linksys* has already released most of the code they are required to release. The big problem is that Linksys has a habit of releasing the binary versions first, then neglecting to release the source until the FSF complains and dragging their feet even then.
That sounds like there's a helluva good case to be made for willful infringement. Penalties for copyright violation are a lot harsher when the infringer knew that the material was copyrighted, vs. if they were ignorant of its status. It sounds like the FSF has some statutory damages coming.
Breakfast served all day!
If FSF forces them into compliance without cisco feeling some pain or regret then i suspect they wont hesitate to repeat their deeds.
I understand FSF wants to be the good guys,they have principles and ethics, but Cisco is fighting from a different rulebook, one where the winner is the one with the most money, not the highest morals.
The only way Cisco and other similar companies will accept defeat is you beat them on their own turf, playing by their own rules. That means take their money, as much as you can get.
What about the hundreds of other stories about copyright infringement? Or, do you suggest that we should only consider the few stories that don't prove my contention?
No - I'm suggesting you stay remotely on subject (i.e. binary drivers?!).
There is a difference between supporting the code and having it sit in an FTP server.
The reason why this will be unsettling to Cisco is because some of the products have integrated key IOS files in order to retain backwards compatibility.
IOS isn't even mentioned in the complaint. All of the products involved are Linksys products, which don't run IOS.
Hitler is evil. Microsoft is evil. Microsoft uses software licenses. That makes software licenses tools of evil.
Therefore software licenses are tools of Hitler and must be destroyed!
There.. can we be done with this now?
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
"in the course of distributing various products under the Linksys brand Cisco has violated the licenses of many programs on which the FSF holds copyright, including GCC, binutils, and the GNU C Library. In doing so, Cisco has denied its users their right to share and modify the software."
===========
Funny - Linksys probably was doing it long before Cisco bought them....so they waited a bit after Cisco purchased Linksys, and are now going after the big fish...
Leave it to the FSF - must stand for Foolish Stupid Fucktards
It looks like Cisco was, at some point, distributing the binaries for GCC and other things necessary to build their firmware. From the standpoint of their users, this was a nice thing to do. However, they didn't provide the source for GCC or the other things, which immediately and automatically removes their rights to distribute GCC and the other things.
According to the complaint, "On May 12, 2006, Plaintiff notified Defendant of Defendant's unlawful conduct based upon its failure to comply with the Licenses for GCC and Binutils, with it distributed in object code form on its website." (That's the first contact that the FSF acknowledges, which is 2 1/2 years, not the 5 that everyone keeps repeating.)
It should be noted that their products did not require GCC or the other things to be distributed with them, it was only provided so that their customers could build the firmware. WTF, isn't that the whole purpose of the f'ing GPL? To empower the end user.
From there, it appears that other products also had firmware that needed GCC and other stuff, which sounds basically like saying there were multiple links on their website for each. The rest of the complaint is small things like missing build scripts and outdated source.
It should be an interesting trial. I just hope that Cisco chooses trial by jury, that will make it even more interesting.
It's too bad that the guy at Cisco in charge of finding GPL violations - Caleb Mulford - found a bunch that were promptly ignored by executive officials because a stink wasn't being made yet (ala this article) recently threw himself in front of a train.
Wanker.
You would ask mercy of them but would show them no mercy. You keep trying to justify you position by stating they should treat you better than you treat them.
You and your ilk continually violate their copyrights, then demand they show you mercy when you are caught. You taunt the giant, knowing its wrath, then cry for help and mercy when it turns it strength on you.
Your ilk has the mindset of children.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
"We want users of information to be able to freely modify and share it without restriction."
But what you're missing is that this is not possible in a capitalist society where zero-cost-of-replication "Intellectual Property" (IP) is considered to have value. Let me break it down for you.
Businesses amortize the development cost of a product in with the manufacturing costs, and they come up with a sale price which covers both. That way, if they sell enough copies of the product, they cover the initial cost of developing the product, as well as the production costs. Fortunately for them, the value of the product is both in the idea/design/creation, as well as in the physical item itself. So they can get away with charging a price *higher* than just the manufacturing costs, and people have to pay it because they can't manufacture it themselves.
With IP, the production cost is 0. The *entire cost*, and also the *entire value* of the IP, is in the idea/design/creation. The cost of replication is zero, and there is no value in any physical item because there is none.
Say I produce some non-tangible IP (code, music, hardware designs in Verilog, pictures, film, whatever) which in its final form is just some bits on my hard drive. My IP, in and of itself, has worth because other people enjoy it, or because they want it but cannot produce it on their own. Producing that IP took many months or even years of my time. I'd like to be able to sell my IP for whatever the economy deems its *creation* value so I can cover the cost of creation, and maybe make some profit like any good capitalist should be able to.
So how do I go about getting paid? In an "information wants to be free" society, I can only get paid for the first instance of that IP. Every other copy nets me $0, because once the information is out there, it's free. So, I better set my price for that first copy really high, because that one lump sum is all I'm ever going to get, and I have to cover months or years of development costs in a single shot. Since the price is so high, no one can afford my IP. The only price anyone can afford won't cover my development costs. Learning from this, I then decide to never do IP development again, since I am now broke and penniless. (Remember, we're still in a capitalist society). IP, and all the good things that come with it, die a quick death.
In a perfect communist society, I wouldn't mind putting a year into the creation of some IP that I would give away for free, because over the course of that year I'd have my needs met for "free" as well.
The old arguments are that you can't sell just the IP - you have to sell "service" or a "live show" or something else which isn't zero-cost-of-replication, and in doing that, recoup the initial creation cost. But whenever someone makes that argument, they imply that the IP itself has no dollar value because it can't be sold for anything more than $0. I strongly disagree with that implication.
Anyway, what we capitalists have come up with is this artificial restriction on IP, so that IP creators can amortize the cost of conception/design/creation over more than one sale. The only way to enforce this is to restrict what people do with the IP. It's up to the creator of the IP what those restrictions are. FSF might choose one way of restricting the IP (and ironically that restriction basically throws to the wind the whole point of the restriction), but that's not the only restriction possible.
And, that is hypocrisy.
Nonsense. Copyright is a legal tool, nothing more. Depending on the context a tool is used in it may be good or bad. Deal with it.
You are the hypocrite actually; refusing to acknowledge that tools have nothing to say about morals and ethics even though you know full well it's the [mis]use of the tool that matters, not what the tool is. As but one example gun use can be good (defending democracy) or bad (defending dictatorships).
You would ask mercy of them but would show them no mercy. You keep trying to justify you position by stating they should treat you better than you treat them.
You and your ilk continually violate their copyrights, then demand they show you mercy when you are caught. You taunt the giant, knowing its wrath, then cry for help and mercy when it turns it strength on you.
Its not about the copyright laws themselves, its about what they are used to achieve.
FSF uses copyright to achieve good things, Music and Movie cartels use copyrights to do bad things.
Try thinking a bit deeper, its about intent and purpose.
The goal seems to be 'free as in beer', not 'free as in speech'.
GCC, and GNU C are tools, nothing more. It's like if I built something with Black and Decker tools, Black and Decker could sue me for not making the thing that I created free (as in beer).
For years the GPL was being presented as being non-viral, but current events speak otherwise.
Fuck em, I'm going back to using Microsoft tools.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
In this case, you are saying "We should be able to use the copyright laws to protect our copyright. But, people who don't believe as we do should not be able to protect their copyright in the same way"
No, we (err I) say we should be able to use copyright laws to promote the use and distribution of software. The music and movie cartels should also be allowed to use copyright to promote the use and distribution of their works.
The difference is that the music and movie cartels want to promote the use of their works in a more restrictive manner.
Again, its not about copyright, its about what its used to achieve.
Even if they never look at the code, never pay a consultant to add a feature, etc., the source code is useful.
It's like a mark of quality. In this case, "quality" means that misbehavior is unintentional. There might be bugs, but it won't be an evil mess of spyware and DRM.
Looking at free downloads, you can pretty much answer "Will I get screwed?" by asking if the source is available. To some extent, this even works for things that aren't free downloads.
This is all without getting into the issue of having your business depend on the whims of some software developer who may discontinue their product or go out of business. We so quickly forget how many Y2K problems were unfixable because the source code was unavailable.
May I humbly suggest that there are more than one or two slashdotters? There are many thousands of them, many with wildly different opinions. Is it so hard to imagine that there could very well be different subsets of the Slashdot crowd having different opinions on various matters? Then there would be no hypocrisy.
Slashdotters are not one uniform group of people, with one set of opinions. But of course, what can I really expect from a troll?
So what?
See, that's the thing: I completely understand your argument. No really, I do!
The thing is, though, that I simply don't care. It's not my problem when creators of Imaginary Property can't find a working business model for themselves. They're perfectly welcome to go find something else to do with their lives. It's also not my fault that they want to delude themselves into thinking that they can stop the copying. No matter what DRM or legal measures they try to go to, it's just not going to happen. And that's nto some "hippie idealism;" that's just a pragmatic statement of fact. They can either acknowledge it and deal with it, or they can thrash and die.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Look, if you're going to be willfully stupid and refuse to understand what I'm telling you, then you might as well not reply at all.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What is the current going rate per copyright violation? I bet Cisco use lots and lots of these fandangled linux things.
"FSF use copyright to achieve things I think are good because they benefit me. Music and Movie cartels use copyright to make a profit and I think that is a bad thing."
There fixed that for you.
By the way, copyright law exists for the benefit of the copyright holder. Its intent and purpose is for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Bingo. Lots of poeple have open source software sitting on their FTP servers that they never plan to support ...
My blog
copyright law exists for the benefit of the copyright holder. Its intent and purpose is for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
Google "purpose" and "Copyright" and you will see your wrong.
"The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts--that is--knowledge.To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes." - http://www.lib.byu.edu/departs/copyright/tutorial/module1/page3.htm
So, you think that copyright should not be used in the manner that it was orignally intended but rather in the manner you see fit.
Here is the text from the Constitution which provides for the creation of patents and copyrights:
You will notices it does not say anything about promoting "the use and distribution" of works. It states that, for a limited time, authors and inventors have an exclusive right to their works to do with as they see fit. If they wish to make money on it, or even get rich on it, it is their right to do so. The authors and inventors have sole right and have the ability to sell that right to others. And, if those others who buy the copyrights (publishers, studios, RIAA, etc) want to make money from the work, it is their right.
The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit. If they want to "promote the use of their works in a more restrictive manner", it is their right to do so. You may not agree with it, but you don't fucking matter because it is not your copyright. Don't like it, don't use their copyrighted work.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
From your own post:
And, they can sell those rights, in whole or in part, or just a license to use the work. The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I suggest you try actually reading the comments. Yes, there are many slashdotters and many of them are hypocrites when it comes to this issue.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Look, if you are going to be willfully stupid and refuse to recognize the law and its intent, maybe you should shut your hole, shithead.
Copyright holders of proprietary information (like the RIAA) try to prevent it from being free to modify and share without restriction, so we oppose them.
It is their right to do that. That is why it is called copyright. It gives the right to control the copying of a work to the holder. You don't like that companies use copyright against you to their benefit. You bitch and whine and decry copyright and copyright litigation and copyright holders defending their rights. Then, you turn around and use copyright against them to your benefit and talk about how great it is.
You talk about your rights to other people's copyrighted work. You don't have any right to other people's work.
Refusing to see your hypocrisy does not make the hypocrisy go away. That just makes you an asshole.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
"The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit." My POV is that the intention is to empower the copyright holder (which is a benefit in itself), whether they use that power to further benefit themselves or benefit others is not stated, and you should make assumptions. Do you have any argument to support your POV that the purpose of copyright law is benefit the copyright holder exclusively ?
(damnit should have used preview button)
"The intent of the law is to benefit the copyright holder as the copyright holder sees fit."
My POV is that the intention is to empower the copyright holder (which is a benefit in itself), whether they use that power to further benefit themselves or benefit others is not stated, and you should NOT make assumptions.
Do you have any argument to support your POV that the purpose of copyright law is benefit the copyright holder exclusively ?
One of these days the FSF will go after some organization big enough to buy enough legislators or legislation to take the teeth of U.S. copyright law (but only as it applies to the more psuedo-coercive OSS licenses. e.g. not the way Stallman dreams).
.
It's not my problem when creators of Imaginary Property can't find a working business model for themselves. They're perfectly welcome to go find something else to do with their lives.
That's the scary thing! What if all IP creators decided they'd be better off if they didn't try to survive on thinking up/designing/creating new non-physical goods because they can't get paid? What would happen if all the auxiliary software-as-a-service type business models fail? I sincerely hope some smart people keep finding business models to support the creation of IP, so that IP creators can continue doing their thing and not having to take jobs at McDonald's or selling shoes or something. Lots of innovation and ideas are at stake. Then it might become everyone's problem.
I realize this is almost certainly a non-plausible scenario, that taken to that extreme the free market would find a way to reward IP creators monetarily. But I'm trying to make a point by taking the limit of your utopian "information should be free" idea, and apply that same point to today's situation.
No matter what DRM or legal measures they try to go to, it's just not going to happen.
I hate DRM too, I wish it would die. But that's orthogonal to my point: that IP has value, and the IP creator deserves to be compensated appropriately for that value, somehow. I obviously don't know how given the zero-replication-cost problem.
Much as I like to see fairness of this deal but Cisco will prevail simply because they have integrated themselves tightly in several key areas including the governments and the military who uses Cisco networking equipment. Cisco will not be able to release the source code due to national security concerns, same thing with Microsoft.
And I think Cisco knew this from the beginning.
Even if your allegations about key IOS files is true, This is the worst kind of GPL FUD. Repeated misrepresentations like this hinder the understanding and acceptance of Free Software, I fear. 1) there is no "automatic" relicensing, and 2) you seem to be intimating all of IOS. Unless you're saying that all of IOS was linked with GPL code, then how can anyone ask for a remedy that all of IOS be licensed under GPL?
What are you talking about? If I release my code under GPL, just what empowers a court to limit my freedom by prohibiting me from making additional or alternate agreements? "I don't believe such a dual license has ever been held up in court." is a sign you haven't been hanging around a courtroom lately. Not only are alternate licenses legal, but defendants can and do routinely argue innocence via alternative, even incompatible, theories, instruments, and findings of fact.
Back to Groklaw boot-camp for you.
From your own post "The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people." Where is it written that other parties arent supposed to benefit from copyright, i dont know what planet your living on, but nobody i know would buy something that has no value to them. The copyright holder cannot benefit in any practical way from copyrighted works unless the copyrighted works benefit society, where else are they going to draw their benefit from ? Yes a copyright holder benefits from copyright laws (at least by having control), BUT THEY DONT AND CANNOT BENEFIT EXCLUSIVELY, the benefit has to come from somewhere... that somewhere is OTHER PEOPLE, i dont know why you cannot understand such a simple concept. Im sure you must be trolling me...
If the manufacturer of the box has to sign it the owner of the box is locked out of his own box
But what set-top box doesn't lock its owner out?
You're an idiot. Have a nice day!
No, free speech is a right (along with the rest of the stuff listed in the Bill of Rights). Copyright is a privilege of Congress, for the explicit purpose of "promot[ing] the progress of science and the useful arts" and nothing else.
It was the right of fathers in ancient Rome to kill his child if he wanted to. Should we honor that "right" too?
On the contrary, they don't have the right to steal their work from the Public Domain! So there! See, I can jabber on about "rights" too!
You're assuming that your particular ideology is the Gospel Fucking Truth, and deluding yourself into thinking that anyone who disagrees -- even when they're reasoning from a different set of axioms -- is a hypocrite. Here's a newsflash: that makes you the asshole, not me!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
FSF is loosing the head...
First a friendly free software evangelist, as it should be, then gone deep thanks to richard stallman's stupidity and now they totally loosed their head.
I quit supporting free software from now on until FSF and Stallman disappears from the scene in a definitive way.
Those two parties are the DRM of the free software.
There was a case recently where a company forgot to put that clause in and the contractor kept the copyrights.
Copyrights must be specifically transferred. This can be because the contract says "all work for this contract must give copyright to the buyer" but it has to be there.
And who knows that about copyright and source code?
Nobody if they aren't programmers or lawyers.
And if you're a programmer, you could write the code yourself.
So far, not a single place I have worked in was an OSS shop or produced OSS. Nonetheless, in all of them I had used at least one bit of LGPL code, and occasionally GPL as well. All that's needed is lawyers and managers and developers with understanding of what it is - hardly rocket science.
But just enough to pay for the litigation hassle. Judges (usually) pay close attention to the level of courtesy and maturity shown by the litigants prior to filing the suit. By bending over backwards being nice and trying to work things out, FSF has set themselves on the moral high ground, which (usually) pays back big time in the judge's decision.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I hate DRM too, I wish it would die. But that's orthogonal to my point: that IP has value, and the IP creator deserves to be compensated appropriately for that value, somehow. I obviously don't know how given the zero-replication-cost problem.
Is it really zero cost? While the cost is going down, and will go further down in the future with better/faster/larger/cheaper storage devices and transmission networks there is always going to be some cost in maintaining the distribution network, cataloging, indexing, making sure metadata is correct, making sure the content is malware free, updates/fixes. As such, people might find that an all-you-can-eat DRM-free subscription to a music label or software company might be preferable even if the same content is available for free on P2P.
Information goods also don't exist in a vacuum, communities form around many of them. Downloading an album from piratebay does not give the same experience as being a member of a fan club / community and interacting with the rock band. Downloading a software program from P2P is of less value than being part of a community around the author of the software. For information goods where you have a large and/or very faithful fanbase/community, it might be possible for the creator to extract sufficient income from them. (I think I once saw a paper showing that a book author or a band could get a fairly decent living out of a surprisingly small number of faithful fans)
There is also the fact that IP creators are in a rather privileged position compared to other workers. For example, the need for farmers dropped because the work they did were replaced by machines; the same thing has happened time and again, human labor replaced by machines. I don't really see how machines can replace the need for human creativity. Unless we create true AI, we will always need IP creators. We will always want music, books, better medicines, software.. If the market can't find solutions for how to compensate them, government will have to step in.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
If you hesitated about buying a Linksys router running Linux, hurry up.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Or when are MS going to release the BSD code in Windows, including all enhancements?
Yeah, then we could all use WSAGetLastError().
We could ask Bill, but EWOULDBLOCK it.
Oh noes. But if information is free, how will we monetize it to sinergify paradigm shifts over parallelized computation?
(Protip: some people will _never_ understand the concept and importance of "public domain" and "free culture")
woah. mrchaotica 1 - 0 DoucheV1.0
I see you are resorting to the old tactic of putting words in other people's mouths. I said that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to his work, not that the purpose of the law is to benefit the copyright holder exclusively.
If you are going to lie, you may as well shut the fuck up now.
I have the argument that the law provides the copyright holder an exclusive monopoly, for a limited time, on his creation and he can do with that creation what he sees fit. The creation is solely his, as is the rights copy and/or sell the creation and the right to said creation.
What exactly is the copyright holder empowered to do, if not benefit from his creation as he sees fit? Is he only empowered to benefit others? That seems to be your argument, that copyright is only valid if the copyright holder only uses the copyright to benefit others.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You want to quote the Constitution, maybe you should try quoting the whole sentence, you lying sack of shit:
Oh, look, they use the word RIGHT. Congress grants a legal right to authors and inventors.
Do we live in ancient Rome? No, we do not. Why would we honor a right that is not part of our laws and cultures? Maybe you shouldn't try such a pathetic red herring, shithead.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Or another way to avoid linking problems is to use GPLv3 instead, at least for those packages that are under a "GPLv2 or higher" license.
Eben Moglen went to a lot of trouble to redefine the language used in GPLv3 so as to get rid of GPLv2's very fuzzy use of the concept of derivation, which was so fuzzy that every man and his dog developed a different interpretation. Eben replaced all that by "conveying", and defined it very precisely so that if there is no conveying then there is no license virality.
This makes it black and white now: GPLv3 doesn't trigger on *usage* at all (it's not a usage license), but only on the *conveying" that occurs at distribution. As a result, linking for usage doesn't cause virality, because usage isn't conveying. In other words, Eben made GPLv3 consistent with the Copyright Office's notion of "derived work", which required an original work of authorship to be partly copied into a different work for it to be considered "derived", and mere usage of a work of authorship had nothing to do with creating derived works from it.
This now applies to the latest GPL too: if dynamic linking is used for the purpose of *usage* of a GPLv3 work, then conveying is not occurring and hence license tainting is not possible either. That would keep Cisco out of trouble, unless they actually copied GPLv3 code and modified their copy, in which case nothing will save them of course. (Static linking is a mixture of usage and replication, so the grey area would probably end up in court too, ie. best avoided, whereas dynamic linking is the primary example of normal usage of a library, and hence entirely free of conveying taint.)
Analysing Section 0 of GPLv3 with a toothcomb is actually very eye-opening. If all you know is GPLv2, you're in for a surprise.
All the posts that I have seen on this thread assume that Cisco will lie down and admit that their software has copied GPL'd code. That makes sense. They appear to be pretty much caught dead to rights on that one.
There is another question, however: Is the original GPL code subject to copyright protection? In other words, Britney Spears can copy my songs note for note and word for word, and she won't be able to successfully sue me if I copied those songs note for note and word for word from Johann Sebastian Bach.
Think for a moment about how utterly EXPENSIVE it is to prove such a point or defend such a point. Think how COMPLICATED this is. You need really expensive experts to prove this kind of stuff and you pay them godawful fees per hour to do their work.
If the FSF is smart, they ought to be able to enlist a LOT of skilled programmers to grok on this (think about the SCO litigation). They can prioritize and organize their expert code review among expert DONATED help. I would expect (or hope) that the FSF has people organizing this kind of cooperative, coordinated help right now!!
Cisco will have to pay for their labor intensive expert code review--in a declining economy. They'll also have to pay their big-firm lawyers. Those firms salivate like Niagara Falls when they see cases like this.
The point of all this is that Cisco ought to roll over on its back and get really submissive right now because if they want to win their lawsuit against the FSF they are going to have to pay and pay and pay. Cost-benefit tips way in favor of an early amicable settlement.
No early settlement means protracted war. Cisco will have to put scarce resources into its attack on GPL'd code (lawyers and experts), while the FSF has lots of experts motivated and available to donate expert help. This is where the Stalingrad metaphor comes in. The GPL can afford to throw more bodies at the problem than Cisco can.
I sure hope this settles quickly and amicably.
I turned RIGHT a couple of times driving home today. And look, here's a Wikipedia article about the RIGHT whale. And I bet that guy on the game show last night was happy that he got the RIGHT answer!
Try getting yourself some reading comprehension skills sometime! "Right" is just a word. It has different meanings in different contexts. In particular, there are two kinds of "rights" in relation to the government. There are fundamental rights, as in the Bill of Rights, and there are incidental "rights" which really aren't rights at all, but are rather privileges conferred by the government.
For example, I could say that my driver's license gives me the "right" to drive. But it's not really a right; it's a privilege granted by the government. In contrast, the right to free speech is a fundamental right, because it is inherent and irrevocable.
So, how do you tell the difference between fundamental and incidental rights? Well, when referring to fundamental rights the Constitution uses language like "this right shall not be infringed." It explicitly affirms that the right was preexisting -- not granted by the government -- and that the government cannot take it away. In contrast, the copyright clause says "Congress shall have the power... [to secure the right]." That's not a description of a "right" at all; that's a description of a privilege granted by Congress. Note that "hav[ing] the power" doesn't mean Congress must use that power. If it wanted, Congress could invalidate every copyright in existence simply by passing a law (not an Amendment) abolishing it. Also note that copyrights explicitly may only exist for limited times. They expire. Fundamental rights do not, and cannot, expire; therefore "copyright" is not a right!
The only thing that stops everything from entering the Public Domain immediately is congressional privilege. That privilege is conferred -- or is supposed to be conferred -- only when it would "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." By asserting copyright in such a way that it fails to "promote progress," copyright holders violate their part of the bargain and prevent works that should enter the Public Domain immediately from doing so. That, in a colloquial sense, is "stealing" from the Public Domain.
I advocate using copyright to promote progress, as intended in the Constitution. I oppose people who want to pervert it into performing exactly the opposite function! If you still think that's somehow "hypocrisy," then no word even exists to sufficiently describe how idiotic you are!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I said that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to his work, not that the purpose of the law is to benefit the copyright holder exclusively.
You said, and i quote "The monopoly exists for the betterment of copyright holder, not you and not other people."
Your saying that the monopoly (from copyright law) exists to benefit the copyright holder and not other people, sounds pretty exclusive to me.
But maybe your didnt say what you meant :/
And whats with the swearing in a lot of your responses, do you feel threatened ?
That is right, I did say that. The monopoly exists for the betterment of the copyright holder. The copyright holder gets to decide what that is. Not you, shithead. You got that? Or do you need beaten into your fucking head?
I am swearinbg because I am frustrated with you and your ilk. You refuse to see that you do nott get to be the arbitars of what is best for the copyright holders. You have the mindsets of three year olds, "he world should revolve around me and what I want. Fuck what everyone else wants for themselves and what their rights are. Gimme Gimme Gimme." But, when someone does the exact fucking thing to you, you piss your collective pants, cry "No fair!" and throw a tantrum.
You people are the absolute worst of humanity.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I want that on a t-shirt.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
The copyright holder gets to decide what that is. Not you, shithead. You got that? Or do you need beaten into your fucking head?
You people are the absolute worst of humanity.
And in the same post you accuse me of throwing a tantrum.