>> The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL...
> While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you?
Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the GPL, so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a fact and not an opinion.
The author is correct in their assertion that, if Novell has done so (and it appears that they may have), they are actually now in violation of the GPL.
I am assuming that you, like I, have not read the actual terms of the legal agreements. So I would like to know how you or the author can definitively state that the agreements are in violation of the GPL, especially when lawyers on both sides presumably studied this issue and feel that the agreement is not in violation. I'm not saying they didn't skirt the intent or find a loophole. I'm saying it is a bit presumptuous to assume that you know more about law than they do, unless you are a lawyer yourself (IANAL).
I think what you really mean to say is that you think that Novell should be in violation of the GPL, according to what you think the GPL means or what you wish it meant. I hear similar arugments about the GPL all the time - this or that is or is not a violation because of what the GPL is meant to say. Sorry, but when it comes to legal issues, it isn't about what the GPL is meant to say - it's about what it actually says.
If this goes against the intention of the GPL, but the lawyers involved affirm that it isn't a GPL violation, isn't it a more logical explanation that the GPL failed to sufficiently address this possibility?
I hate to tell you that we will probably have to deal with Mr. Hatch for another six years and his repeated efforts to take freedom away from Americans.
The real problem is that not enough citizens understand technology well enough to tie these issues back to the legislation that caused them. I don't think the politicians are as naive as they let us think. Most Utahns will vote for Orrin Hatch without thinking about it. The funny thing is, they make no tie between their beloved Senator and some other treasured freedoms they've lost - for example, the demise of CleanFlicks (which Utahns really loved).
I tell everyone that will listen to vote for ANYONE OR ANYTHING over Orrin Hatch. I hope things change. I know I'm not voting for him.
The irony is that this senator started his political carreer by pushing out an incumbent with the following critical stance in his election effort "Hatch criticized Moss's 18-year tenure in the Senate, saying that many Senators, including Moss, had lost touch with their constituents". This was the beginning of Hatch's political career which started in 1976!
Orrin Hatch himself personally told my own father, back in 1976, that he believed that no US Senator should be elected for more than two terms. Apparently he changed his mind.
Coming next: DVD files encrypted with a single-use 1024-bit key that is immediately thrown away after use.
Spokesman says: "Sure, the DVDs are completely worthless - nobody on earth can actually use them. But this is the only way to keep them safe from pirates. And by pirates, we mean users."
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, if you invent time travel, you can take as long as you want with the other ones, and still meet the "over the weekend" deadline!
>> The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL...
> While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you?
Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the GPL, so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a fact and not an opinion.
I am assuming that you, like I, have not read the actual terms of the legal agreements. So I would like to know how you or the author can definitively state that the agreements are in violation of the GPL, especially when lawyers on both sides presumably studied this issue and feel that the agreement is not in violation. I'm not saying they didn't skirt the intent or find a loophole. I'm saying it is a bit presumptuous to assume that you know more about law than they do, unless you are a lawyer yourself (IANAL).
I think what you really mean to say is that you think that Novell should be in violation of the GPL, according to what you think the GPL means or what you wish it meant. I hear similar arugments about the GPL all the time - this or that is or is not a violation because of what the GPL is meant to say. Sorry, but when it comes to legal issues, it isn't about what the GPL is meant to say - it's about what it actually says.
If this goes against the intention of the GPL, but the lawyers involved affirm that it isn't a GPL violation, isn't it a more logical explanation that the GPL failed to sufficiently address this possibility?
The real problem is that not enough citizens understand technology well enough to tie these issues back to the legislation that caused them. I don't think the politicians are as naive as they let us think. Most Utahns will vote for Orrin Hatch without thinking about it. The funny thing is, they make no tie between their beloved Senator and some other treasured freedoms they've lost - for example, the demise of CleanFlicks (which Utahns really loved).
I tell everyone that will listen to vote for ANYONE OR ANYTHING over Orrin Hatch. I hope things change. I know I'm not voting for him.
Orrin Hatch himself personally told my own father, back in 1976, that he believed that no US Senator should be elected for more than two terms. Apparently he changed his mind.
Coming next: DVD files encrypted with a single-use 1024-bit key that is immediately thrown away after use.
Spokesman says: "Sure, the DVDs are completely worthless - nobody on earth can actually use them. But this is the only way to keep them safe from pirates. And by pirates, we mean users."