Software patents don't exist everywhere. They don't in Europe, for example
That will come as a great surprise to the owners of the approximately 30000 software patents that have been issued in Europe.:-)
A more accurate statement would be that in Europe, you have to be a little sneaky to get a software patent, like you used to have to be in the US when software patents first started.
Besides, software is international nowadays. It is not wise for a professional to ignore Japan, Australia, and the US (even if one is willing to take the risk that software patents will get easier to get in Europe someday).
Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.
Who claimed this for Vista? The early reviews were not very positive. It wasn't until after a service pack or to that the major tech reviewers and bloggers started saying Vista was worthwhile.
No new legislation is needed. Just get the courts involved. Let content providers sue the heck out of Comcast for making a dime off of abusing their domain names
You need to think this through a littler farther. In particular, what are the damages? If a user tries to go to www.nonexistantdomain.com, it's hard to see how any owner of any domain that exists can claim damages, since the user wasn't going to get to their domain before.
Now, to interpret the meaning of the claims, it is necessary to read the specification, to see if the terms used have special definitions. Studying the exemplary embodiments described in the specification may also be informative (or not, depending)
Yup. What amazes me is how few geeks seem to know this stuff. Patents (and copyright, and even trademark) have a big impact on software. You'd think every programmer would learn the basics of these subjects, as part of being a competent professional.
So despite Twitter being around for years, this firm just now decided that they're infringing on patents?
It can easily take a couple years or more from the time you notice something that you think might infringe your patent to filing suit, especially when the potential infringer is a web service, so you can't get a hold of it to reverse engineer.
What if the AP sells you a license for text copyrighted by Reuters or any of the other wire services? Woah, man!
If they wrote their license right, what it says is that they grant a subset of any rights they have to the licensor, but does NOT say that they actually have any rights. In other words, if written right, the license is basically a promise that they won't sue you over copyright. It would leave it up to you to decide if you even need a license from them.
they kept offering to settle for a couple thousand dollars
Simply not true. I don't think they were ever willing to take less than $5000, non-negotiable. And then they kept raising the amount, making it impossible for him to settle.
You are talking about the second case. As I said, I'm talking about the first case.
However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable
What's gone on in the 2 cases that have gone to trial is like one long, bad dream. The root problem is economics. The defendants can't afford to go out and hire a competent lawyer, and lawyers can't afford to do these cases without getting paid. A good lawyer would have either prevented the outlandish things that occurred, or developed an impervious record for an appeal.
You didn't start your analysis far back enough. The root problem is the defendants in both cases being guilty, and the plaintiffs having overwhelming evidence of that guilt. A good lawyer doesn't need an innocent client, but it sure helps.
Is there any scenario in which losing this case incompetently and ending up with an outlandish fine actually works against the RIAA? They do in the end need to win over public support and judgements like this one tell people, "piracy is dangerous but the recording industry are massively evil."
I don't know how vigorously the RIAA tried to settle this case, but in the earlier one, they kept offering to settle for a couple thousand dollars are so, even after they won the first trial and big judgement. The defendant was sharing something like 1700 songs, and so a settlement of a few thousand dollars was eminently reasonable, so I don't see how the RIAA is supposed to end up looking evil here.
If the average iPhone user was capable of installing their own apps, then yes, you would be in violation of the GPL regardless of how little you charge
The right thing to do, would have been to contact the original designers and ask for their permission in the first place.
They already gave him permission when they released the code under GPL. Personally, I'd be annoyed if people were contacting me to ask if they can do things that I already covered by releasing my code under a free software license. Maybe I'd be OK with it if it was some very tricky edge case, but "charge money for GPL code" is not a tricky edge case.
Not really. If such thing was true, John Carmack and iD Software would be in trouble because of Wolf3D's iPhone source code
Before anyone jumps in to say that this example as not applicable, because iD wrote Wolfenstein, and the copyright owner of GPL code is free to also distribute under other licenses, it should be noted that while iD owns the original Wolfenstein code, the community has contributed a lot of code to the GPL version, and iD does NOT own that code. They are subject to GPL on it, and it was the community version that they ported to iPhone.
That's a slightly muddy area, because the app store is not a web site. Question 1 of the FSF's GPL quiz is about distributing the source online when distributing binary on CD and the correct answer that putting a download the source URL on the CD is a violation. The App Store is not a web site, it is accessible either through the iPhone or through iTunes, not via a web browser. That means that placing a download link would not be distributing the source along side the binary, especially since the iPhone's web browser does not allow downloading files, meaning that if you download the app from the store on its target platform you can not get the source the same way.
It's only muddy if you think "internet site" or "internet server" are synonyms for "web site", and if you think "link or cross-reference" means "clickable link on a web page". They are satisfying all of the conditions spelled out in the FAQ answer. Binary on an internet site. Check. Source on a different internet site. Check. Cross reference on first site to second site. Check.
Furthermore, you have ignored the fact that downloading via the iPhone is not the only way to get apps. You can download them through iTunes, and if you click the link in iTunes for the developer's site, it opens it in a browser.
Second, you are making an irrelevant point because the anti-Tivoisation clauses of the GPLv3 make it incompatible with the App Store
Not correct. Go read GPLv3 at fsf.org, and the supporting documents, as you are very confused over both what tivoisation is and what measures GPLv3 takes to stop it.
You're technically violating the GPL by having the binary on the App Store and not having the source on the App Store. Since they are not in the same place, they may not have the same availability and a long time in the past Stallman has said that they must be on the same server..
Binary on server X with a link to server Y, where server Y is your server, not some random third party server that happens to have the source at the moment, counts as being the same place, according to the FSF. This is specifically addressed in the GPLv2 FAQ.
Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code âoefrom the same placeâ; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available.
The iTunes App Store entry for the game includes a link to the web site that contains the source.
Go read the definition of "free software" at the FSF's site, where it says that free includes the right to sell, and links to a long explanation of why selling is good, then you will see why no future GPL version will ban selling.
Under the GPLv2 you are obliged to provide the source code to anyone that asks for them
FUD. under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries, you are given three options as to providing source code. One of those options is to provide source code with the binary. Another option is to provide a written offer to provide source to anyone who asks. The third option is an obscure case that is irrelevant here.
If you go with the first option, and distribute the source with the binary, you do NOT have to provide source to third parties who ask for it.
Not only is what you are doing allowed under all versions of GPL, the FSF encourages you to charge for free software, because if you make money, that could help you write more free software.
I think that section is more to cover "transport fees". That is, the fee to actually download it, not to buy it.
In the latest version of the GPL FAQ, they specifically say that the right to sell software is one of the fundamental rights of free software, and link to a longer explanation.
Some quotes from that:
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.
Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy
Slashdot Mirror
Software patents don't exist everywhere. They don't in Europe, for example
That will come as a great surprise to the owners of the approximately 30000 software patents that have been issued in Europe. :-)
A more accurate statement would be that in Europe, you have to be a little sneaky to get a software patent, like you used to have to be in the US when software patents first started.
Besides, software is international nowadays. It is not wise for a professional to ignore Japan, Australia, and the US (even if one is willing to take the risk that software patents will get easier to get in Europe someday).
Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.
Who claimed this for Vista? The early reviews were not very positive. It wasn't until after a service pack or to that the major tech reviewers and bloggers started saying Vista was worthwhile.
No new legislation is needed. Just get the courts involved. Let content providers sue the heck out of Comcast for making a dime off of abusing their domain names
You need to think this through a littler farther. In particular, what are the damages? If a user tries to go to www.nonexistantdomain.com, it's hard to see how any owner of any domain that exists can claim damages, since the user wasn't going to get to their domain before.
Now, to interpret the meaning of the claims, it is necessary to read the specification, to see if the terms used have special definitions. Studying the exemplary embodiments described in the specification may also be informative (or not, depending)
Yup. What amazes me is how few geeks seem to know this stuff. Patents (and copyright, and even trademark) have a big impact on software. You'd think every programmer would learn the basics of these subjects, as part of being a competent professional.
So despite Twitter being around for years, this firm just now decided that they're infringing on patents?
It can easily take a couple years or more from the time you notice something that you think might infringe your patent to filing suit, especially when the potential infringer is a web service, so you can't get a hold of it to reverse engineer.
What if the AP sells you a license for text copyrighted by Reuters or any of the other wire services? Woah, man!
If they wrote their license right, what it says is that they grant a subset of any rights they have to the licensor, but does NOT say that they actually have any rights. In other words, if written right, the license is basically a promise that they won't sue you over copyright. It would leave it up to you to decide if you even need a license from them.
Since GPL is a RAND license, I would love to here Mr. Moody's theory as to how RAND is incompatible with free software.
The cited article is actually putting forth an argument that ALL word processors are obsolete.
they kept offering to settle for a couple thousand dollars
Simply not true. I don't think they were ever willing to take less than $5000, non-negotiable. And then they kept raising the amount, making it impossible for him to settle.
You are talking about the second case. As I said, I'm talking about the first case.
The full text of the exception is:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable
I'd count Java as a compiler.
What's gone on in the 2 cases that have gone to trial is like one long, bad dream. The root problem is economics. The defendants can't afford to go out and hire a competent lawyer, and lawyers can't afford to do these cases without getting paid. A good lawyer would have either prevented the outlandish things that occurred, or developed an impervious record for an appeal.
You didn't start your analysis far back enough. The root problem is the defendants in both cases being guilty, and the plaintiffs having overwhelming evidence of that guilt. A good lawyer doesn't need an innocent client, but it sure helps.
Is there any scenario in which losing this case incompetently and ending up with an outlandish fine actually works against the RIAA? They do in the end need to win over public support and judgements like this one tell people, "piracy is dangerous but the recording industry are massively evil."
I don't know how vigorously the RIAA tried to settle this case, but in the earlier one, they kept offering to settle for a couple thousand dollars are so, even after they won the first trial and big judgement. The defendant was sharing something like 1700 songs, and so a settlement of a few thousand dollars was eminently reasonable, so I don't see how the RIAA is supposed to end up looking evil here.
If the average iPhone user was capable of installing their own apps, then yes, you would be in violation of the GPL regardless of how little you charge
Where did you get that idea?
The right thing to do, would have been to contact the original designers and ask for their permission in the first place.
They already gave him permission when they released the code under GPL. Personally, I'd be annoyed if people were contacting me to ask if they can do things that I already covered by releasing my code under a free software license. Maybe I'd be OK with it if it was some very tricky edge case, but "charge money for GPL code" is not a tricky edge case.
Not really. If such thing was true, John Carmack and iD Software would be in trouble because of Wolf3D's iPhone source code
Before anyone jumps in to say that this example as not applicable, because iD wrote Wolfenstein, and the copyright owner of GPL code is free to also distribute under other licenses, it should be noted that while iD owns the original Wolfenstein code, the community has contributed a lot of code to the GPL version, and iD does NOT own that code. They are subject to GPL on it, and it was the community version that they ported to iPhone.
That's a slightly muddy area, because the app store is not a web site. Question 1 of the FSF's GPL quiz is about distributing the source online when distributing binary on CD and the correct answer that putting a download the source URL on the CD is a violation. The App Store is not a web site, it is accessible either through the iPhone or through iTunes, not via a web browser. That means that placing a download link would not be distributing the source along side the binary, especially since the iPhone's web browser does not allow downloading files, meaning that if you download the app from the store on its target platform you can not get the source the same way.
It's only muddy if you think "internet site" or "internet server" are synonyms for "web site", and if you think "link or cross-reference" means "clickable link on a web page". They are satisfying all of the conditions spelled out in the FAQ answer. Binary on an internet site. Check. Source on a different internet site. Check. Cross reference on first site to second site. Check.
Furthermore, you have ignored the fact that downloading via the iPhone is not the only way to get apps. You can download them through iTunes, and if you click the link in iTunes for the developer's site, it opens it in a browser.
Not correct. Go read GPLv3 at fsf.org, and the supporting documents, as you are very confused over both what tivoisation is and what measures GPLv3 takes to stop it.
You're technically violating the GPL by having the binary on the App Store and not having the source on the App Store. Since they are not in the same place, they may not have the same availability and a long time in the past Stallman has said that they must be on the same server..
Binary on server X with a link to server Y, where server Y is your server, not some random third party server that happens to have the source at the moment, counts as being the same place, according to the FSF. This is specifically addressed in the GPLv2 FAQ.
Nonsense. The iPhone libraries fall under the "normally distributed with the operating system" exception. Read the GPL.
The FSF disagrees with you. From the GPLv2 FAQ:
The iTunes App Store entry for the game includes a link to the web site that contains the source.
Go read the definition of "free software" at the FSF's site, where it says that free includes the right to sell, and links to a long explanation of why selling is good, then you will see why no future GPL version will ban selling.
No, all you need is a Mac and the free iPhone SDK. With that, you can compile the app, and run it on the iPhone simulator on your Mac.
You only need to pay $99 if you want to run the app on your phone or put it up on the app store.
FUD. under GPLv2, if you distribute binaries, you are given three options as to providing source code. One of those options is to provide source code with the binary. Another option is to provide a written offer to provide source to anyone who asks. The third option is an obscure case that is irrelevant here.
If you go with the first option, and distribute the source with the binary, you do NOT have to provide source to third parties who ask for it.
Not only is what you are doing allowed under all versions of GPL, the FSF encourages you to charge for free software, because if you make money, that could help you write more free software.
In the latest version of the GPL FAQ, they specifically say that the right to sell software is one of the fundamental rights of free software, and link to a longer explanation.
Some quotes from that:
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price isn't more free, or closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it.
Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy