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.
Or maybe they are just trying to protect their intellectual property so they don't get scammed and have to fire employees for lost revenue.
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.
Since Ninnle Linux it completely open source and contains not a shred of proprietary code, there's way Micro$oft can accuse it of anything. More systems using embedded Linux need to switch to Ninnle. It's secure, robust and flexible.
There was a recent post here on /. in which no less than Linus Torvalds himself professed his love for this distribution, and urged others to join the Ninnle revolution.
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?
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."
Just one more case where the GPL causes unnecessary problems. Unfortunately, I'm about to be marked troll and flamebait, even though this comment is neither, because of the other way that the GPL causes problems: zealots.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
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!
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.
More problems with this OPEN SORES software. It's just not worth it. Support innovation and hard work; support our economy and jobs: SUPPORT CLOSED SOURCE SOFTWARE!
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
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
"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.
'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.
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.
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'
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
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.
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
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
sux0r status, *BSD Series of exploding
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!
Not just any Linux, but Ninnle Linux!
Joanie.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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