Slashdot Mirror
The Real Reason For Microsoft's TomTom Lawsuit
Glyn Moody writes "We now know that Microsoft's lawsuit isn't just against TomTom, but against Linux too: but what exactly is Microsoft hoping to achieve? Samba's Jeremy Allison has a fascinating theory: 'What people are missing about this is the either/or choice that Microsoft is giving Tom Tom. It isn't a case of cross-license and everything is ok. If Tom Tom or any other company cross licenses patents then by section 7 of GPLv2 (for the Linux kernel) they lose the rights to redistribute the kernel *at all*. Make no mistake, this is intended to force Tom Tom to violate the GPL, or change to Microsoft embedded software.' Maybe embedded Linux is starting to get too popular."
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate for a second. Here are the relevant parts of section 7 of the GPLv2:
If, for any reason, conditions are imposed on you that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Here's an example. The US government probably prevents you from selling your open source software to Cuba or Iran. If I read section 7 correctly, that counts as a "condition imposed on you". So really you lose all rights to using that code?
You got to be careful with literal interpretation of legalese... sometimes you can push the arguments too far.
I hope the same applies to this theory that Microsoft is forcing people to violate the GPL and therefore lose their rights to the code.
So, in other words, it is not "The Real Reason For Microsoft's TomTom Lawsuit", but rather the theory of someone who is not connected to Microsoft, has no actual knowledge of Microsoft's reasons and strategies, and who could be considered hostile to Microsoft.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
What TomTom (and others) need to do is start using EXT2/3 on their external cards and then distribute Fuse with their software. This will force FAT and with that Microsoft tech slowly but surely out of the market.
What do you think will happen when all external media starts using alternative formatting?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Non-Industrial embedded developers are probably going to move away from linux (or at least the gnu bits) after GPLv3 anyway.
Not easy considering they distribute upgrades and maps as downloadable files that people put on a usb key to load them in the device.
Last time I checked, MS sued TomTom over patents. If TomTom would use its patent pool to cross license patents with MS to resolve the situation, where does this violate GPL2 (which is a copyright license)?
Mod article down as "FUD".
I love how the title uses the words "Real Reason", then goes on to cite a blog author who says "I have heard rumors...", then points to another blog that promotes a "fascinating theory".
And yet we wonder why Kdawson hasn't been reprimanded.
"When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
What harm would it do their software if they stripped out the portion that gets around the 8.3 filename limitation? Do they really need long filenames that bad?
maybe they are just trying to protect their intellectual property
I'm not saying that "intellectual property" is a pointless concept, but what is currently implemented is frighteningly Philip K. Dick.
Software is particularly problematic. An invention does not always come from the intellect and work of the inventor. More often than not it is merely an observation and augmentation of the work and intellect of others.
Software is nothing more than building on that which was built by others, which was built on the work of people before that, and before that, ad infinitem. Even the implementor of a statistical analysis system owes credit to the creators of the programming language used to write it, the creators of the math system, etc.
Intellectual property my ass, it is a land-grab of an environment created by two generations of engineers that worked and published without patent protection. Now college drop-out Bill Gates, sues for trivial implementations of theoretical models created by men far better than him.
Absolutely nothing will happen, because either consumers won't buy devices that don't use FAT, or they'll have the proprietary apps needed already installed so there's no reason for Microsoft to add support for more filesystems.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
What do you think will happen when all external media starts using alternative formatting?
Microsoft to start filing patent lawsuits against users of the EXT 2/3/4 file systems.
I would never use anything else! Hi Joanne!
So Microsoft sues someone and the GPL is what you blame?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what the GPL is. It is a method of payment. TomTom using GPL'd software must abide by the payment method. That is, by providing the source for use or change by the people who they are selling to. Instead of dealing with dollars they deal with IP.
The problem at hand is that MS feels that TomTom should be paying for their patents, which would violate the GPL payment method.
You should be marked troll as you are obviously trolling for this response.
Legal documents aren't inherently perfect just because it's intended that they be perfect. Legalese is "code" intended to solve a problem just as surely as anything written in COBOL; legalese can have bugs in it, too.
The guys over at the Linux Action show (in their last episode) seem to adamantly think that this lawsuit has nothing to do with Linux. Jeremy Allison is probably a pretty jaded individual at this point (and rightly so), so having the view of someone else more familiar with these legal quagmires may be helpful.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
It's not a problem if you agree with the principles of the GPL. Otherwise someone could modify the Linux kernel, and while being forced to release the code, they could make it illegal for anybody else to modify and distribute the code by entangling it with a patent license.
BSD has the same problem, they don't don't see it as a problem. If someone wants to close off BSD code to you and I, they can.
http://www.mhall119.com
So, is UDF an acceptable replacement for FAT (FAT32) filesystems on CF, SD etc devices?
I think it's not patented (but ICBW) and I believe (but ICBW again) Windows has the ability to read/write UDF filesystems.
I speak England very best
Yeah, causes unnecessary "problems" in the same way that all licenses do: you can't use the software in a way the license forbids. "Unnecessary problems" are common to all non-public-domain software, and most have more of these "problems" than software licensed under the GPL.
"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." Niccolo Machiavelli The escalation is not all Microsoft's. GPLv2 is proof that the FSF was looking forward to this scenario.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Please folks, stop making a big FUD out of this. Always people tend to blow any lawsuit from Microsoft regarding Linux, FOSS, GPL or GNU. If we'd like to see more users start to use Linux or FOSS products, just ignore these cases.
With this people start to doubt if they even should consider using any of these products because of these cases we all as a community blow out of its proportions. I once nearly convinced a big customer (a bank) to switch to Linux, but they did not pursue because of the pattent infringements Linux would have done, which it didn't.
The point is with us blowing these things up, we are creating far more PR for Microsoft then they ever could have dreamt of.
Absolutely. If Tivo weren't using a GPL product, Microsoft wouldn't be able to hang Tivo on disconnected third party patent purchase. You like that Netflix show download? 'Cause Tivo pays Frauenhoffer for their MPEG2 MP3 decoder.
You've never in your entire life seen BSD, ZLib or MIT license cause a problem like this.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
'then points to another blog that promotes a "fascinating theory"'
.. points to a fascinating explanation by Jeremy Allison of the Samba project...
Actually that's
Gates (and Allen) developed MBASIC, and DISK BASIC. DISK BASIC used the "FAT" system to control free space.
CP/M did NOT use the same scheme. Instead, CP/M built up free space maps by scanning the directory. It also did not use a linked list. Personally, I thought FAT was weak then, and still is....
But the "industry" adopted it. It was allowed; we had a (at least) minimal common system for file systems. Enhanced to support directories and sub-directories.
Then, Microsoft designed a long filename system on top of it, that was back-compatible with the old method. THAT was patented. And, no, it wasn't even the "obvious" solution -- that would have been a mapping file.
What does this mean? It means that the long filename code SHOULD be ripped out. 8.3, baby! You want longname mapping? Linux has UMSDOS on top of FAT -- same result, no patent violation. Or, just use short names. Or, build a program that reindexes MS FAT longnames into UMSDOS (for read compatibility). Just don't write that format. It can be argued (I would try) that ANY longnames in MS FAT format that were found on a FAT filesystem then MUST have come from an MS patent licensee (because our proposed system wouldn't generate the MS FAT longname format). So, there are solutions. Maybe UMSDOS is too "crufty" to be resurrected, but it strikes me that something like posixovl.fuse could be used (with modifications).
Microsoft was creative with the MS FAT longname solution. Either deal with it, or get the patent overturned.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
What TomTom (and others) need to do is start using EXT2/3 on their external cards and then distribute Fuse with their software.
No, the easy way out here is to not use long filenames. The patents is not about FAT, but about long filenames on FAT. If they need long filenames, distribute it as an tar file or loop back-file system file with a short name.
At no point did I try to evaluate what GPL is; as such by definition I could not be misunderstanding the nature of GPL, as I made no observations in that direction.
Trolling is when people make ugly jokes to start a fight, not when people have an opinion you don't agree with. GPL zealots seem uniquely unable to tell the difference.
Wrong. The trouble is that TomTom is paying for their patents. Which means they can't use their GPLed products at all. Wait'll you realize how many other GPL vendors also break this GPL rule; it ruins almost every GPL basis device on the market.
Like that TiVo internet download? Not for long: it licenses Frauenhoffer and Dolby technologies.
Please stop lashing out with attacks every time someone disagrees with you. Slashdot's GPL community didn't used to be this rabid or ugly.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
All banks are using Linux, so I really look forward to know about the only one that is not doing so.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So it is perfectly reasonable to deny a patent on any physical engineering product as well as long as it "does not come from the intellect and work of the inventor?" In most cases, it is impossible to describe a patent as something other than being built on the hard work and ideas of others. Does the hobbyist inventor owe his wire supplier a piece of the pie for making available the exact wire he needs for his product?
The problem with the patent system is that it isn't being used to stimulate new properties; it is being used to stifle new properties.
It is if you remember that the context is the device vendors who are going down in a tailspin because the principles of the GPL extend to cutting off everything they need to do business, such as access to purchase licensed technologies.
You've completely missed what's going on, here. The problem is specifically that GPL says if you license a technology you cannot have ours. BSD explicitly does not have this problem. At all.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to replace the problem with something of your own device, then say it isn't a problem, then say BSD has the problem too. It keeps you from understanding what's wrong with GPL, these jumping through of the standard answer hoops.
Yes. And when they do, it's almost always by moving to GPL; note what happened to the Antigrain Graphics crowd. More important here is that GPL IS ALWAYS CLOSED OFF, which is what's causing this lawsuit in the first place; it's just that the way in which it's closed off is in a fashion that people who drink the koolaid insist isn't a problem.
All the while screaming about how BSD code can be closed.
Which one do you see happening in the real world?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
No one will ever need more than 8 characters for a file name...
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
"If TomTom would use its patent pool to cross license patents with MS to resolve the situation, where does this violate GPL2 (which is a copyright license)?"
'7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License'
'If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program'
Uh, no.
1) BSD doesn't cause these problems, because it doesn't forbid things asininely. Same goes for the other counterexamples I gave.
2) Unnecessary legal problems have never happened with any of my libraries, or any MIT/BSD/ZLib library I can name, other than the GPL goons insisting on detail oriented license compatability.
3) You're confusing problems with unnecessary problems. The problems other licenses have do not uniformly regard restrictions which serve no purpose. This restriction serves no purpose.
I'd say it was a nice try, but it wasn't. Please give concrete examples instead of vague handwaving if you choose to reply. Making universal statements which aren't actually universal is boring GPL canon.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Make sure you read the mere aggregation clause.
Dunce.
What will happen? Massive incompatibilities between device makers on either side of this war. The only solution is for consumers to install the EXT2 driver on their Windows PC, which is asking a lot for most people (really, I am not kidding, it is asking a lot).
Palm trees and 8
Otherwise someone could modify the Linux kernel, and while being forced to release the code, they could make it illegal for anybody else to modify and distribute the code by entangling it with a patent license.
Which is more-or-less exactly what happened when they shipped a kernel with FAT LFN support. It's not like the kernel devs were ignorant of this patent.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
A few thoughts here.
The GPL doesn't force you to distribute your source code unless you've distributed a derived work (ie: binary executable).
In other words when you distribute anything based on the GPL, you distribute ALL of your work, holding nothing back.
Its still your right to not distribute anything
To give a further example.
If I've built some killer utility application, and I decide I want to licence it under the GPL I can.
A friend comes to be, lets call him Adam, and he asks for the software, since he's a friend I give it to him. I can even SELL the distribution to him.
Its now his copy to use and redistribute as he likes, under the restrictions of the GPL. (He can even redistribute it for free or for more if he likes)
Later tosspot Bob comes along from a competitor's company and decides he needs it, and asks for it. I can refuse to distribute to him.
He can ask my friend Adam, and Adam can choose to distribute or not.
In this case, since no one has distributed to Bob, he has no recourse for acquiring the source code or even derived works. He can't demand it from either of us since we never distributed to him in the first place.
If he steals the code/binaries from Bob its copyright infringement, as he was never given a licence to use the software from anyone.
Now if you understand that you only need to supply source code to those you've distributed to, the fact that you can be restricted from distributing to places and people has little effect on the integrity of the GPL.
If you can't release source code to Cuba, you can't release anything to Cuba, the GPL forbids it. But that does not invalidate or contradict the licence in any form or way.
Probably the biggest misconception with the GPL is that people think once its licensed under the GPL you have no control over who you distribute it to. That's just not the case, you can distribute nothing, or everything. There is no in-between however.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
Make sure you read the lawsuit. The mere aggregation clause isn't strong enough, as evidenced by what's happening right now.
It is, however, classic GPL zealot behavior to question the intelligence of people who disagree with them. So thanks for letting me know you're a dutiful herd member.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
We know KDawson spouts a lot of FUD: but what exactly is KDawson hoping to achieve? Slashdot's Anonymous Coward has a fascinating theory: 'What people are missing about this is the either/or choice that CmdrTaco is giving Slashdot editors. It isn't a case of turning up at work, playing with a red stapler, posting a few stories and pissing off home. If KDawson or any other editor fails to generate a certain number of visitors-per-day for Slashdot, then under Section 7 of their employment contracts, they lose the right to not be anally violated by CmdrTaco. Make no mistake, this is intended to force KDawson to be anally violated, or get more visitors to Slashdot.'
"Here's an example. The US government probably prevents you from selling your open source software to Cuba"
.. What I mean is the patents cover the implementation of the Linux kernel done by TomTom in their products'
Where does it say that, there is no mention of the GPL on the U.S. Treasury Cuba Sanctions site.
"I hope the same applies to this theory that Microsoft is forcing people to violate the GPL and therefore lose their rights to the code"
Microsoft claims that the Linux kernel used in Tom Tom devices violates Microsoft own patents. If Tom Tom were to start paying Microsoft royalties for such, that would be in violation of section 7.
'Yes, well, three of the eight patents in this dispute read on the Linux kernel as implemented by TomTom
Interesting, but all inventions are an improvement upon the work of others. This doesn't just apply to software.
The difficulty lies in determining if the new invention was "nonobvious to one skilled in the art." This determination is even more difficult in that you can not use hindsight. It is easy after something is invented to say that it was obvious, but it is much more difficult to articulate why it was obvious.
What do you think will happen when all external media starts using alternative formatting?
That won't happen because Microsoft controls most of the PC market and they won't support anything that threatens any part of their monopoly. Try mounting a HFS volume on an out-of-the-box Windows system.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Their GPS are really really good.
If Microsoft wins, it sucks for Tom Tom and it creates FUD. That's bad, but not too bad. Microsoft still has to sue everybody violating its software patent.
But if Microsoft loses because the Court rejects the concept of software patents a'la Bilski, then Microsoft is royally screwed because if it sues anybody else over a software patent, that defendant can argue that Microsoft can't argue software patents anymore because they already fully fairly and finally litigated the issue against Tom Tom and they lost. They don't get to relitigate the same issue all over again.
You can see why this is HUGE for Microsoft. If they win, they get some money from Tom Tom and they put a scare into the Linux community. If they lose because their software patents are no good, then Microsoft's whole software patent edifice is gravely jeopardized. Microsoft will really fight this hard.
Tom Tom is really vulnerable because the GPS market is slammed in this economy. I suspect that Microsoft is betting that they'll give up. The Linux community ought to prop up Tom Tom with legal and technical support--at least on the software patent theory.
Microsoft's invasion should be defended at the beaches. They should be thrown back into the sea before they create more FUD!
It is if you remember that the context is the device vendors who are going down in a tailspin because the principles of the GPL extend to cutting off everything they need to do business, such as access to purchase licensed technologies.
Not exactly. The GPL doesn't prevent you from purchasing licensed technology to use with GPL code, it just requires that you grant the license to anyone you distribute the code to, and let them do the same. That is a gist of the MS-Novell deal.
You've completely missed what's going on, here.
No, but maybe I worded it poorly.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to replace the problem with something of your own device, then say it isn't a problem, then say BSD has the problem too.
I was actually referring to two different problems. The first, TomTom's problem, is what I said was "not a problem" in the GPL, but rather one of it's principles. The second, the problem of people closing off open code, is a problem to GPL developers, but not to BSD developers, who see it as just another right of open software.
http://www.mhall119.com
Could TomTom have a non fat file system and retain the "see it from the OS" if there were a windows driver for the file system they used? Can one install foreign file systems in windows?
Could one for instance install a drive for ext3 in windows? Or ReiserFS (to Kill the suit.)
They cross licence the patents and then switch to a different OS. Perhaps BSD would be unsuitable for some inexplicable reason. This is far from their only option. QNX is desiigned for devices like Tomtom, and it's likely to be a lot easier to get Linux software to work on that than Windows. Tomtom have the level of sales that would allow them to get a pretty sweet licensing deal from them.
Even if Tomtom do switch to Windows. Is there really a major gain for Microsoft here? It's useful for every PC in the world to be running their software, but that's because you need cross-compatibility. Tomtom just needs to be compatible with the software tomtom produce.
Which is something that's essentially never possible with licensed technologies: you would have to pay the holder enough money for them to forego any other licensor ever. That's effectively saying "you just have to be willing to give anyone who asks for a house a house for one dollar." The sentence makes sense, but the underlying sentiment does not.
Fee seeking patent holders do not grant such licenses, basically ever, because it ruins their ability to continue their existing business practice.
No, you really have. The problem here is that the GPL sets up restrictions which no intermediate vendor can realistically comply with. What this should have done was drive intermediate vendors like TomTom and TiVo to BSD, but they were naive; this is exactly why Steve Jobs avoided the GPL, and as much as I hate him, he made the right choice. Going down the GPL path means constantly looking over your shoulder for unexpected threats and costs, shelling out enormously higher patent costs to third parties for special kinds of licenses they're rarely willing to sell at all, and a variety of other business driver poison pills.
Sometimes I wonder just how long it's going to take for the patent vampires to start sinking their teeth in. There is a glorious violation minefield out there, and so many penalties and fines just waiting to be had by the people who will soon be called abusers, but who you're currently positing as the defenders of righteous GPL belief.
Let me ask you a question. What if this kind of lawsuit becomes common? Is the GPL still holding an enviable set of principles then? Is it then all those intermediate vendors' faults? Is this TomTom's fault, for not sticking to GPL principles? Wouldn't you expect the average TomTom user to be happier if they'd used OpenBSD, which would have essentially no impact on the device, but would prevent this lawsuit, the incoming penalties, the service charge increases that the company will have to make to cover it, the bugs that will be introduced when they hastily hack other solutions into place, et cetera?
Don't you see how this is all wasted work, wasted effort? Why are there lawyers involved?
It's because of the GPL. If they'd used BSD license properties, none of this would be happening. Yes, it's the vendor's fault for breaking the spirit of the GPL. The problem is, the spirit of the GPL is very carefully structured so that it appears to cause no problems for business. However, if it really didn't, then TomTom wouldn't be stuck in this spot right now.
Doing normal consumer business may not violate the spirit of the GPL, but the way in which GPL restrictions are written makes it asininely difficult and expensive.
And when this house of cards starts collapsing? Will you be saying "it protects linux from being run away with"? Nobody's run away with Linux. For that matter, nobody's run away with or closed NetBSD, either. That's a giant red herring. It doesn't happen in the real world. People don't just show up one day with the workforce to completely out-do the generating body. It's not realistic.
So tell me. What good did the GPL do here? In what way is the set of GPL's restrictions causing more benefit than harm, here?
And I really don't want to hear a lot of theoretical handwaving about how people might sneak in through an open window one night and steal my source code's good silver. That kind of nonsense doesn't interest me.
Explain to me how this isn't a clear, obvious example of GPL's catastrophic failure to interact with normal business, or if you prefer, instead how this extremely healthy, large money viable business is being shaken to the ground by a few sentences for a good reason.
Tell me why GPL is good for TomTom.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Don't you mean CLOSED SORES SOFTWARE?
/sigh Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
The GPL DOES NOT cover usage - get it? It covers distribution.
Things like this make me wish I could request metamoderation. There was no trolling here, and yet it was done in under ten minutes. If someone's ability to request metamoderation was tuned down if they abused the request, then the metamoderation system would waste less work on articles nobody wants challenged, people would get more involved in metamoderation because they'd be presented with more examples of where it's productive, and problems where metamoderation was required would be less likely to slip under the radar simply because the dice didn't come up.
Also, a +0, Disagree flag would go a long, long way to solving the constant abuse of troll and flamebait. Sometimes people are just looking for a way to register disagreement, and having a 0 attached to it visibly would help them remember that disagreement isn't meant to alter a score.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
This :
"The problem here is that the GPL sets up restrictions which no intermediate vendor can realistically comply with" should get you marked down immediately as -1 Troll".
Or at least as -1 clueless. Do you know how many intermediate vendors ship GPL code, both v2 and v3 ? It's a *lot*. You can even get patent cross licenses for all your other code so long as the patents you are licensing don't cover the GPLed code. Please post your ignorant long diatribes elsewhere.
Jeremy.
Wasn't that what Microsoft said about the Windows anti-trust lawsuits?
All they need to do in order to comply with both the patent and GPL : Get a Microsoft license for the patent, write a new VFAT driver with long file names support from scratch, release it as a binary module (like nvidia drivers for example).
You assume that you have the right to data created by apps you were using,
by pretending/believing/maintaining it is YOUR data,
when in fact it is the data of the proprietary apps.
From the legal perspective, you're making a long shot gamble, not an assertion of fact.
The data *before you put it into the app* was your data.
The data *the app created* belongs to the owner of the app.
Claiming e.g. YOU own the images in your camera's raw format is false: you don't.
You legally have copyright on the *visual pattern* of their display, not on the data in the file.
Poor you.
The OWNERS have rights, and individuals don't own the patent-world: corporates do.
hahahahaha.
IIRC, that's exactly what happened to GIF: After it was well established and used, Unisys decided to see dollar signs.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
with daddy's money
I agree, if I had said that (cutting half a sentence out of context changes its meaning) that that would be stupid. However, as someone with a four digit UID should know by now, the appropriate moderation is -1, Overrated. I would think you've been here long enough to know what the moderation stamps mean; there's a faq on it. Troll doesn't mean "wrong" and it doesn't mean "disagree with". It means "trying to pick a fight". Troll applies to people who make ugly jokes in order to pick a fight. That isn't one of them, even though it makes you uncomfortable to see someone taking a position you disagree with on solid grounds.
This is the sort of behavior one expects from religious people in secular discussions. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're wrong, and it doesn't mean they're causing problems. I would remind you of John Stuart Mill should I believe you'd ever read him: "The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men."
Also, don't use words you don't understand. It's pretty pathetic to see someone use the phrase "ignorant diatribe", when diatribe means "highly educated monologue". The word you were looking for was "speech", though if you wanted to drop big words to seem smart (it doesn't work), you probably should have said "eristic" or "vitriolic". You know, if you knew those words, which given your cumbersome dopery in what is charitably called monologue one tends to doubt.
Honestly. Ignorant diatribe? It amazes me that you're willing to speak in public, the way people must catch you on details. Were you a speech writer for Bush?
Yes, the cutting the sentence out of context game is cute, and all. If you return to context, which was "and who license patents", then that number drops precipitously. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that you cannot name even one, except those who have been sued for it (eg Tivo and TomTom) or perhaps someone you work for.
Go on, prove me wrong.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
This is so simple I think I'd have to be stupid to come up with it.
Now, given those, we can approach this intelligently. Since Obama wants people to SPEND SPEND SPEND, it makes sense that they need something to spend it on. Now, if Microsoft puts Tom Tom out of business, or the resulting settlement somehow makes Tom Toms get more expensive, people won't be able to spend money on Tom Toms. Therefore, this would be one of those ideal situations to A) promote patent reform, to the benefit of the economy, B) Somehow turn the president against Microsoft, due to their obviously anti-competitive and monopolistic practices that are contrary to HOPE(tm) and CHANGE(tm) and the little people, and C) Convince people to switch to either Linux or Mac. Microsoft has such piss poor FS support. Linux can handle everything under the sun, and some things that aren't. Mac can probably handle more than MS. Windows? It just deals with FATx, ISO9660 (but only on a real CD, no facilities to mount an image), and UDF. If Linux/Mac support their hardware better, I bet people would use those operating systems more. I know I would have in the past.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
I tried Ninnie Linux, but had some issues:
I tried it, but Ninnie isn't ready for prime-time.
Limiting "distribution" is clearly a limitation on the use of the software: when you cannot distribute your software, limits have been placed on where it can be used, and by who it can be used by.
Abolish software patents, and the whole problem goes poof.
What TomTom (and others) need to do is start using EXT2/3 on their external cards and then distribute Fuse with their software.
FUSE for Windows doesn't exist. Someone claims to have one but isn't releasing it. Don't know or much care, since there's not a lot I can do about it. There is an Ext2 "IFS" (installable filesystem?) driver package for Windows; it makes Windows XP far crashier than it already is. There is also an Ext2 access program which I found to not be able to access filesystems I was trying to read at all.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you're going to start pushing a different filesystem for use on flash-based storage devices, you might as well look at the formats that optimize for such storage mechanism. JFFS2 (which is included even in 2.4 kernels) does this quite well, and there are others, too.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Unnecessary legal problems have never happened with any of my libraries, or any MIT/BSD/ZLib library I can name, other than the GPL goons insisting on detail oriented license compatability.
Neither have they happened with most GPL software projects. This proves no point.
You're confusing problems with unnecessary problems.
No, I'm conflating them both with restrictions, since that's what licenses are for.
The problems other licenses have do not uniformly regard restrictions which serve no purpose.
I assume you're speaking of the GPL here. I think the "purpose" the GPL restrictions serve have been clearly stated in the "boring" GPL canon. The GPL restrictions serve as much purpose to those developing GPL software as the BSD restrictions do to those using BSD style licenses.
Heh, right, what would Jeremy Allison know about the GPL and patent licenses anyway?
http://www.mhall119.com
It is far from clear that Section 7 of the GPL implies that. A cross license just says "whatever patents we have, you can use, and vice versa". A cross license agreement wouldn't impose any conditions on anybody that didn't exist before.
You might find that those external media are not bought by the vast majority of people. Sorry if I'm getting it wrong, not familiar with Fuse, but I know windows doesn't mount EXT*, and most people want something that works with windows.
On a different note, and again I know nothing about law, if TomTom are doing nothing unusual in how they implement FAT in linux, is there any possible way of forcing this lawsuit into MS vs. Linux instead of MS vs. TomTom? I would assume that if TomTom are using a product in good faith, and Microsoft has not brought any kind of litigation to successful conclusion to protect any patents that are violated by that product, then Microsoft should have to first settle the fact that that product (Linux) is violating their patents in court, BEFORE being able to initiate any proceedings against users of said product. They are instead going about effectively blackmailing small companies who cannot afford litigation. I'm glad TomTom have stood up to them, but it's unfortunate that a single company has to take the brunt of an indirect legal assault by Microsoft when they seem to be either unable or unwilling to make that legal assault in a direct manner.
"Also, don't use words you don't understand. It's pretty pathetic to see someone use the phrase "ignorant diatribe", when diatribe means "highly educated monologue"."
Hahaha... *irony meter implodes*
Because the primary reason for the success of Linux is that it forces everyone to share their improvements.
The GPL only requires you to share if you distribute what you added or changed.
The best you can ever hope for with BSD is an incremental return.
Nope. The GPL offers freedom for users whereas BSD style licenses offer programmers freedom.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It would be easy for manufacturers (such as TomTom) to include some modified version of this on their install CDs: http://www.fs-driver.org/ to allow Windows users to access their ext2/3 formatted discs.
I don't see why that would be a problem. This is the right solution here.
http://www.unfocus.com/
The last 2 years I bought 3 TomTom Navigators and they don't have any removable media.
I know they used to but now it's all integrated.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Software is covered by patents, there is no need for it to be covered by copyright, too.
Software is often distributed in binary form: a form which cannot be derived from. The protection, for a limited time, of original works, is meant to allow them to be developed so that people in the future can create derivative works based on them.
- NO protection without source code.
- NO copyright on compiled software (makes as much sense as copyrighting a hammer)
- Patent protections on binaries, contingent on the full source being provided.
- NO obvious patents.
Software patents aren't bad, they just have a bad name because stupid ones have been granted.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Pfff, there are at least two drivers available that allow use of ext2/3 from Windows, once they are installed a Windows computer treats the ext2/3 devices as native. To hook up a TomTom you need to install a driver anyway so including the file system driver is no problem what so ever.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
But if the market is "hot" enough, Open Source will eventually be there to eat its lunch. This has been happening over and over again for the past two decades.
So where's the drop-in replacement for Photoshop? Sure some may be able to get by using GIMP but if you're a pro photographer who does print media then GIMP does not cut it.
Have you ever written code and released it to the public? Was it used? I have. As a developer making contributions to public projects, I am much more inclined to contribute under the GPL than other licenses. Most of the world feels the same, hence the popularity of the GPL (and similar "viral" licenses) over the BSD-style licenses.
I hope to RSN. I've been talking about starting my own business combining computers and photography for a while. What I want to do is create a system for pro photographers to use computers and the net to sell photos, I started out wanting to do it for my own photography business. However after hearing a number of other photographers, pros and students, say they wanted to use the net to sell their photos I decided if I'm going to put the tyme and effort into programming my own software it may be worthwhile to sell what I come up with to others. If so I don't want them to just give the source code away to others. With the GPL I can't prevent that but with a BSD license I can.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If you two could muster enough self control to not add your second paragraphs, you would actually be performing a reasonable discussion, from which you could both learn something.
Instead, you both feel the need to add personal insults.
Why? Do you think the insults add anything of value to your discussion? Do you think they will somehow convince your counterpart that you are right?
Hint: They don't.
Hint2: Stick to the facts (you both obviously know some of them) and you'll both be better off.
Or don't, and continue to look like two arrogant twits.
Tell me why GPL is good for TomTom.
Sure, without GPL there would be no Linux to run on TomTom hardware.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
They didn't care when TomToms cost $600 and hardly anybody had them, I guess now that everybody got one for the holidays for under $100 they finally noticed
It's ironic that there is a GPL'd FAT implementation, when the GPL forbids licensing patents.
Make no mistake, this is intended to force Tom Tom to violate the GPL, or change to Microsoft embedded software
There are other embedded kernel choices besides Linux or Microsoft. The FreeBSD license is much less restrictive than the GPL and wouldn't be broken by most, if not all, cross licensing.
Why must slashdot polarize things so incorrectly and ignorantly?
Use and distribution are distinct concepts.
"Distribution" is not a subset of "Use".
*sigh* back to work...
Not really, as IP is limited in time, so our civilisation can build upon public domain in the long run. In the very short run your rights are protected and you can earn some cash.
Why aren't some other big companies coming to TomTom's defense? "We must hang together or we will hang separately".
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Limiting "distribution" is clearly a limitation on the use of the software
No it isn't. 'Distribution' and 'use', in this context, have very specific meanings, and they are disjoint.
hg clone http://hg.sharesource.org/fuse4win
Microsoft's invasion should be defended at the beaches. They should be thrown back into the sea before they create more FUD!
But as the Germans discovered at Normandy, that allows the enemy to use his heavy naval guns. In this case, Microsoft's lawyers. Tom Tom might win, but this does not fit in with the guerilla warfare model of open source.
Hmmm. That's not what the dictionary says. Let me check....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diatribe
"a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism:"
Yep, that shoe fits. Wear it. Ignorant diatribe indeed :-).
Jeremy.
So if I have an idea for a novel, which I write on a new type of patented paper using a newfangled patented pen, then the resulting sheet of writing does not belong to me because the tools I used were proprietary and I only own the idea as it exists in my head and the stationery manufacturers own the actual physical document I created?
Wrong from a moral standpoint, wrong from a legal standpoint, and wrong from a "you're a fucking idiot" standpoint.
Anyone willing to accept a Random House Dictionary citation deserves what they get. RHD doesn't even require degrees from their authors. They accept definitions from any random jagoff who writes pleasantly and convincingly. Neither reference nor citation is required of their definitions. They're no better than Wikipedia.
From AmHet, a real etymological dictionary: 1581, from L. diatriba "learned discussion," from Gk. diatribe "discourse, study," lit. "a wearing away (of time)," from dia- "away" + tribein "to wear, rub."
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Linux is neither the only nor even the first free Unix. TomTom could (should?) have been built on other operating systems which are free without restriction. Without GPL, there would have been no barrier to TomTom's being created. With GPL, there is a barrier once they're underway (and indeed a serious one).
TomTom had other options.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
It is probaly apt pubishment for Tom Tom' stupidity. There is no reason to use FAT anyway. It is not like there is a shortage of better file systems in Linux.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
That's an interesting and viable position. It's somewhat telling that the only actual meritocratic statement here was made by an AC.
Let me ask you a question, in case you're still reading (and watch the three douchebags arguing with me try to pretend to be you): cannot the exact same thing be said of GPL? I'm certainly no fan of software patents, but the parallel I find telling.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I doubt that the amateur lawyering that began this thread bears any resemblance to reality. In the first place there is a question of who has the right to bring an infringement case and what the scope would be. Linus is highly unlikely to want to get into a patent pissing contest with Microsoft. He is even less likely to try to sue TomTom for signing a cross licensing deal.
There is also the issue of public policy which in US terms is roughly speaking that the rich be allowed to get richer.
Microsoft is not a monolith. There are many views on software patents in the company. To date they have spent billions to license other company patents. They seem to be net payers on all their cross licenses. My guess would be that Microsoft's objective is not to get stung by another multi-hundred million dollar patent troll suit.
If their objective was to use patents to exclude competition from the market they would be idiots. All signs point to the Obama administration returning to the line that existed up till Reagan that severely punished companies with dominant market positions that abuse patent rights.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
prediction of the future
1 M$ forcing fat on devices by not supporting other fs by default. EU will call it unfair market competition monopolization blabla
2 m$ is forced to include ext3/4 support
3 end of m$ fs portable monopoly
I take great care with my language, which is why I'm bothering to respond, troll though you are (as I correctly categorized you :-).
From Mirriam-webster online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3: ironic or satirical criticism
Note, your usage is flagged "archaic", much like your anti-GPL tirades :-)
More information (if such were needed).
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diatribe
A bitter, abusive denunciation.
[Latin diatriba, learned discourse, from Greek diatrib, pastime, lecture, from diatrbein, to consume, wear away : dia-, intensive pref.; see dia- + trbein, to rub; see ter-1 in Indo-European roots.]
Word History: Listening to a lengthy diatribe may seem like a waste of time, an attitude for which there is some etymological justification. The Greek word diatrib, the ultimate source of our word, is derived from the verb diatrbein, made up of the prefix dia-, "completely," and trbein, "to rub," "to wear away, spend, or waste time," "to be busy." The verb diatrbein meant "to rub hard," "to spend or waste time," and the noun diatrib meant "wearing away of time, amusement, serious occupation, study," as well as "discourse, short ethical treatise or lecture, debate, argument." It is the serious occupation of time in discourse, lecture, and debate that gave us the first use of diatribe recorded in English (1581), in the now archaic sense "discourse, critical dissertation." The critical element of this kind of diatribe must often have been uppermost, explaining the origin of the current sense of diatribe, "a bitter criticism."
Again, your usage of the word is "now archaic".
Please learn the current use of the language before engaging in discourse with your betters, else learn to tug your forelock appropriately :-).
Jeremy.
Hmmm. Before Microsoft feared Linux, IBM's OS/2 operating system was the biggest threat. Look how that turned out.
HPFS or HFS+? This is very important, HPFS is the OS/2 file system and HFS+ is the Mac OS file system. I'm sure you can guess why the Mac OS file system isn't supported, but an HPFS volume could theoretically mount fine - after all, HPFS by any other name is... you guessed it, NTFS.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
That's like saying because Ford owns the patent on your car, therefore Ford can tell you where and how you can drive it. A car, like a computer, is a piece of technology, capable of doing many things.
Someone makes a piece of technology that processes 1s and 0s (hardware). Someone else tells the technology what set of 1s and 0s to process; the hardware is not predisposed to use one set of 1s & 0s over the another, although one set may give a desired result the other set does not. The hardware is a physical object, while the software is information.
"You assume that you have the right to data created by apps you were using,
by pretending/believing/maintaining it is YOUR data,
when in fact it is the data of the proprietary apps."
You do realize just how nonsensical your statement is? No one would ever be able to use say programming tools, or audio/video equipment. Also your statements have no support in case law.
No, software patents are bad. They are like patenting math.
You can even get patent cross licenses for all your other code so long as the patents you are licensing don't cover the GPLed code.
Jeremy.
But the GPL applies to a "work as a whole" so by design it cannot be combined with any part that has any restrictions other than exactly the GPL - in anything that qualifies as a 'work'. I've always been amazed that MS has not yet made a patent claim regarding samba that would make it impossible to distribute even to those willing to license the covered code.
Civilization is based on the principle of limiting one person's freedom to protect another persons freedom. You don't have the freedom to murder, so you have the freedom not to be murdered. You don't have the freedom to steal, so you have the freedom to keep your property. You don't have the freedom to rape, so you have the freedom to chose to have sex with another consenting adult (if people had the freedom to rape, you couldn't chose when to have sex, it would be forced on you). This concept is called civilization; the alternative is might = right.
Software is often distributed in binary form: a form which cannot be derived from.
And you call yourself "Lord Bitman"?
The protection, for a limited time, of original works, is meant to allow them to be developed so that people in the future can create derivative works based on them.
Even just having a copy without changes is to the public benefit.
Software patents aren't bad
Yes they are, because they are completely unneeded. They bring far too much harm for any proposed benefit. All you have to do is look at the industry before software patents were available.
they just have a bad name because stupid ones have been granted.
It's hard to say what is stupid. Lots of things sounds obvious after somebody has spent the time researching and coming up with a clever solution. Then again, research into software has such a low threshold that invariably somebody will come up with a good solution and make it popular. It's a damn shame to lock up all this technology for twenty years, because in the end it retards the growth and competitiveness of the industry.
A friend of mine used to say, and I have to agree - I find it insulting that anyone would insinuate that I cannot read a binary. The idea that it cannot be processed by a human is an artificial restriction, and only demonstrates a lack on knowledge of how to read it. A binary is source code.
The FreeBSD license is much less restrictive than the GPL and wouldn't be broken by most, if not all, cross licensing.
Well, that depends on the licensing deal.
Let's say Tom Tom only uses BSD-licensed code, and gets a license from MS to redistribute the code as much as they want, royalty-free.
Well, that must mean MS has a patent on something in (say) FreeBSD. They then go around and sue FreeBSD for patent violation, and demand royalty from any distribution of the code.
Now Microsoft "owns" FreeBSD and can decide who it will be "sold" to, and how much Microsoft earns for "selling" it.
I think that's broken. You apparently disagree. Is that appearance real?
Software is often distributed in binary form: a form which cannot be derived from.
That's just not true. Back in junior high, I figured out the binary format that Origin Systems used to store the maps for the game Ultima III. Using a floppy disk sector editor, I went in and changed the maps and then distributed copies of my modified version of the game to my friends who were certifiable Ultima III junkies. I bet it wouldn't take much to convince a jury that I had created a derivative work.
Breakfast served all day!
one of the worst configuration file formats ever
Wrong. I hold up for example: XML, the Windows Registry, and sendmail.cf
The argument is over, and you lose... or does mentioning sendmail.cf not trigger Godwin's law?
In this particular case a BSD OS would still have the same problem when implementing a FAT LFN extention.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
What they should do is make their software usable under Linux. I can not buy a map and activate it, unless I have Windows (or use somebody elses machine)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
and offer your services, you'r asked to f**k off too. Then what do you do? Use Linux and shut up. That's what I'm doing for over a year now.
The same scenario looks to be set for SDXC cards - they are likely to use exFAT which is an M$ proprietary format. Hopefully enough word will get round as a result of the TomTom issue that manufacturers will consider switching to UDF. Might be too late for that though, I'm not sure if the SDXC standard includes the card format.
Patents, in the U.S., expire. Copyright, in the U.S., does not expire. By the time either expires, there is no benefit at all to having a binary. I challenge you to benefit from a 20-year-old binary anything. You're generally screwed unless you have the source for either it, or for what it was meant to operate on.
Yes, it is hard to say which ones are stupid. That's a reason to not grant them easily, not a reason to abolish them. The same could be said of pretty much any invention, ever. More harm is done to competitiveness through lack of implementation details (which patents require, and the current broken copyright system does not) than could ever be done by a waiting period.
And you call yourself Raenex?!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I think that if you tried to submit something as heavily-obfuscated as the binary form of something which was originally written in a high-level language to a patent examiner, they'd throw it out.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Comparing binary "data" to an executable seems extremely flawed to me, due to the huge difference in the level of complexity usually seen. As is saying "I can reverse-engineer it, therefor it doesn't need patent protection", since that argument, if valid, could be applied to anything which has ever been patented.
Try doing that usefully when the copyright has expired / would have expired, then we'll talk. By then, the hardware used to run the software used to read the modified data will be such ancient history it will be hard to even determine what it was named. Had you the source code, you have to admit it would likely be easier to derive from.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
That's cos you got a cheap ripoff. Now try Ninnle, with an L, not Ninnie. Ninnle HAS been prime time for some time now.
I challenge you to benefit from a 20-year-old binary anything.
I have. I've played old games under simulators. People have even hacked around some of these games to make them playable online with multiple players. I've run old mainframe software under simulators. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Yes, it is hard to say which ones are stupid. That's a reason to not grant them easily, not a reason to abolish them.
Many ideas are generally patent worthy, but I'd rather have the chance to re-invent it myself than have it monopolized for twenty years.
More harm is done to competitiveness through lack of implementation details (which patents require, and the current broken copyright system does not) than could ever be done by a waiting period.
No way. Open source can reverse engineer and re-implement around proprietary programs. Patents put up a significantly higher barrier.
Or maybe you could look to see who the authors of the post are before calling people names yourself.
... and depriving consumers of their fundamental right to have access to data of their own creation.
Why do we need to keep creating new rights? I thought we had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't recall the founding documents mentioning healthcare, housing, or the interoperability of manufactured goods as fundamental rights.
... our duty to users everywhere to violate those bits of intellectual property at every possible opportunity until it becomes such a legal nightmare for these companies that they are forced to back down. Anything less would be uncivilized.
Another alternative is to petition your congressman/woman to change the laws to the same effect. I would imagine this to be a more civilized answer.
I know, I'm an idealist.
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
BSD licences cause problems too, of a different nature of course, so it is difficult to discern any substance to your comment. Has the GPL caused the problem, or did Microsoft cause the problem with their patent? I suppose it depends on what problem is being referred to here. Is the problem that a lawsuit has arisen? Or is the problem that people cannot do sensible and ethical things with their computer equipment? The GPL seems to cause difficulties using computers via legal troubles, whereas the BSD licence seems to cause difficulties using computers via the extortion that results from people using more popular versions of modified BSD code.
Actually, at this point, anyone distributing the Linux kernel (whether they are TomTom, RedHat or Linus) has already opened themselves up to patent infringement suits if they are located in the US. Whether or not TomTom license the patents does not change this. The only thing that changes this is if TomTom fight it and the patents are found invalid.
Whether TomTom licenses the patents or not, right now no-one in the US can legally distribute the Linux kernel. There really isn't any doubt that it violates the FAT patents. As we all know about these patents now, none of you located in the US can really agree to the terms of the GPL when you redistribute Linux.
Your comment about GPL causing problems was nothing more than vague invective so there does not seem any grounds for complaint.
I'm bothered that FSF has pulled down the discussion and dialog that led to the GPLv3, but if anyone can find it, you will see that under v2 you could structure a patent licensing deal in a way that did not cover downstream users of the code. The clear and obvious example was the Novell deal. v3 was altered to prevent patent deals like the Novell deal (and you'll note that Linux still seems to stick with v2).
So for Jeremy to argue that deals can't be done under v2 flies in the face of Eben Moglen's reading of the law. And while Jeremy's a better coder, Moglen's a better lawyer.
This is pure bunk. Ignore and move on.
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
Comparing binary "data" to an executable seems extremely flawed to me, due to the huge difference in the level of complexity usually seen.
There's no difference in complexity. Bytes is bytes.
Yes, I am being dead serious. In my younger days I used to input machine language -- yes, you heard that right, I did not say assembly language -- programs directly into the system monitor as hexadecimal numbers. One needed to decode the same numbers in order to crack the copyright protection on computer games. All of this was commonplace, once.
I'm not saying that it just as easy to decipher machine code as it is source code, but so far as I know there's no "harder to do" provision in intellectual property law. It's harder to make a bit-for-bit copy of a CD than to copy an LP record to cassette tape, but both are equally against the law.
As is saying "I can reverse-engineer it, therefor it doesn't need patent protection"
I don't think anyone has ever made that argument. What they're saying is that computer software is already adequately covered by copyright law and therefore does not need the additional (and problematic) protection of patents.
Try doing that usefully when the copyright has expired / would have expired, then we'll talk. By then, the hardware used to run the software used to read the modified data will be such ancient history it will be hard to even determine what it was named. Had you the source code, you have to admit it would likely be easier to derive from.
I don't understand this paragraph at all.
Breakfast served all day!
I think that if you tried to submit something as heavily-obfuscated as the binary form of something which was originally written in a high-level language to a patent examiner, they'd throw it out.
Likewise, a patent application for a new type of drill that consisted of a prototype of the drill and nothing else would be thrown out. A patent application consists of a description of the invention, plus any relevant articles (such as a prototype). No description, no patent.
But the parent's point stands -- humans have interpreted all sorts of binary codes since the dawn of computing, and continue to do so. Just because you can't understand a given code doesn't mean somebody else can't. If I'm applying for protection under intellectual property law, why should I only be protected from you but not from someone more technically sophisticated than you?
Breakfast served all day!
I challenge you to benefit from a 20-year-old binary anything.
I take it that you've heard of neither IDA nor OllyDbg? :)
Try doing that usefully when the copyright has expired / would have expired, then we'll talk. By then, the hardware used to run the software used to read the modified data will be such ancient history it will be hard to even determine what it was named. Had you the source code, you have to admit it would likely be easier to derive from.
This makes no sense. US copyright terms can be longer than 90 years. I very much doubt that a binary would be any hard to run or reverse engineer than a source file. (Hell, if you have the binary, and have knowledge about the processor that it was designed to work on, you may be *closer* to a working program than if you just have the source code. You no longer have to write a compiler for whatever crazy language the source code was written it. "All" that's left in the task is to write a CPU and OS emulator.)
Is Jeremy Allison saying that by licensing a patent TomTom wouldn't be able to distribute GPL2 software any more? Huge companies like IBM, HP, Intel, Novell, Sun, etc. have licensed tons of patents AND they're all distributing Linux and other GPL2 Software. What do they know that Jeremy doesn't?
this
I hadn't seen it before. I looked at the site and notice it needs a net connection. I want to be able to work with photos offline. I also searched Photo.net but didn't see anything about it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"Hello, operator? Could you set up a conference call with IBM, Sun Microsystems and Google legal departments? Thank you. "
If I have to use this one more time, I might as well add it to my .sig...
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Your claim is that paying for a patent licence in "merely aggregated" software results in being unable to distribute any software under the GPL. In the cases you state - Fraunhofer & Dolby, the patent licenced software is in userspace, which is a clear "mere aggregation" boundary set out by major copyright holders. Seperate processes, or running your code in a chip, are also pretty much watertight boundaries. And almost certainly other "not quite" process things like running a bit of firmware in kernel space is very very unlikely to be found to be a derived work of the kernel and thus have any effect on this ... so, unless tivo are idiotic enough to do codecs in a kernel module rather than in hardware or in userspace, it doesn't matter.
This case is different, it is about patent violations *in* a particular bit of GPL'ed software, ie FAT in the kernel. And no, I'm not a GPL zealot, I find it incredibly irritating in a huge number of situations - basically the point at which a project grows up and realises it wants to be a platform or library, and then has to go through a relicencing nightmare. I would never make new code GPL'd, unless its on a project that can't possibly relicence.
However I do get tired of people claiming to have found fatal flaws in the GPL : the aim I think is wrong, but take some time to understand that the implementation is solid.
The legal coward solution to this is to use a fuse implementation of vfat, and pay the ridiculous MS tithe. This way you don't impact on the GPL licence you were granted for the kernel.
HPFS is based on FAT32, only it sorta fixes it, and adds up to 2TB file system support, and NTFS was made from scratch by the OpenVMS team from DEC. HPFS was included in the Windows NT series up to 4.0 to aid the transition from existing OS/2 installs, with a OS/2 compatibility layer remaining in Windows XP © as reminder of times gone by. Also, a separate HPFS driver is available for later NT versions.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
No ext3, the journaling is gonna burn the flash faster than XP with an overloaded Firefox swapping. Just ext2.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Interesting, are you 100% sure that HPFS and FAT32 are the related ones? I mean, if you open FDISK (the old DOS partitioning tool) it recognises all HPFS partitions as NTFS ones.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Maybe DOS understands file systems in terms of "native" and "non-native". Though I've been through some docs, (Google is your friend) and it seems just that - an improved FAT. Even M$ agrees. ;)
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
fs-driver only supports ext2 anyway, so I guess that's bonus. :-)
http://www.unfocus.com/
I mean, if you open FDISK (the old DOS partitioning tool) it recognises all HPFS partitions as NTFS ones.
I would imagine that FDISK is just looking at the "partition type" (0x07 for "HPFS/NTFS" ones, 0x82 for Linux swap and 0x83 for Linux partitions), rather than figuring out what the disk has actually been formatted with.
I haven't used FDISK in YEARS... pardon any inaccuracies.
Also, sorry if the point of your comment *WHOOSHED* over my head. (I've been kinda thick-headed today.)
Ah, that would explain it. I assumed it was considerably more intelligent than it actually is.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Ok so Microsoft takes Tom Tom to court in the US, I should imagine the Dutch people would have something to say about that, sort of like get lost.
I have a Tom Tom. and the fact that it runs Linux gives me pleasure.
So MS wins in the American court, to achieve anything it must also win in the Dutch court this is laughable.
SCO all over again.
Also what is to stop Tom Tom changing their file system?
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet