I'd be interested to know how many people in this thread have actually *read* the GPL. According to its provisions, all rights derive from the original rightsholder. IE, if I, the rightsholder, distribute to ten people under the GPL, and they each distribute to ten people, the terms of the GPL say that the second-tier users receive their license to use the software from ME. There is no 'chain' - this is provision 6 of GPL v2 (the article didn't specify what GPL version ATSC was distributed under, and GPL2 is the most common version out there, from what I understand):
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
So I'm not getting anything from you; I'm getting my license from the original source.
IANAL - I'm just a law student - but the fact that the FSF SAYS the GPL can't be revoked doesn't make it true. GPL v3, however, states:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
"Irrevocable" is a pretty controlling word there... if ATSC was released under GPL v3, his "revocation" is probably meaningless. However, under GPL v2, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping him from revoking the license.
Look, I'm not trying to flame here... but if you're not a lawyer, and don't have any other knowledge... don't try to render a legal opinion.
Irrlicht doesn't need to sue Viacom. Because Viacom isn't trying to 'muscle out a smaller company'. To anyone - ANYONE! - in this thread who thinks Viacom should be sued, answer me this - What damages is Irrlicht suing for? Did Viacom really try to destroy their business - to 'restrain trade'? Did they prevent Irrlicht from selling their product, from promoting their wares? THEY TOOK AN EFFING VIDEO OFF OF YOUTUBE. Not only that, but a video they had at least SOME basis to believe infringed on their copyright material. And the DMCA - despite the HUGE problems with that piece of legislation - does at least provide a remedy for this stuff. It takes about ten minutes to kick off an email in response.
Show me damage. Show me Viacom acting in bad faith, rather than merely negligently or recklessly. THEN talk about lawsuits and restraint of trade. Until then... this is just not a big deal. The DMCA has a million huge problems - and this is somewhere around 950,000 on that list.
Irrlich needs to send an email to YouTube, stating that this is a mistake. This should take them all of ten minutes to do. While in general we don't consider this kind of thing a good situation - just because there's a viable remedy doesn't mean that we're comfortable allowing people to go nuts - before the slashdot crowd goes TOO far off the deep end, please remember that Viacom isn't trying to usurp Irrlich's property and isn't trying to persecute them. Would this not happen in a country with rational copyright laws? Probably not. Is this the worst result of the DMCA so far? Dear god, get a grip, people. The DMCA is a huge problem. This isn't even a blip on the radar of problems the DMCA has caused, and it's got an easy fix.
I'm also not a lawyer... but I do study it all day. And neither right-to-work nor at-will employment prevents noncompete agreements. In fact, the leading case, CAB v. Ingram, takes place in Tennessee - a state with a 'right to work' law, and the court judges the noncompete - which was forced on the employee months after he had started working there, under threat of being fired - valid.
OP - Whatever you do, if you're really being sued, GET A LAWYER. Don't listen to ANYONE posting here, INCLUDING me. If you can't afford one, talk to your new company; if they're being sued too, you can probably get the case joined and ride their legal coattails. If not, just go in for a consultation; it's possible that if they REALLY have no case, you can get attorney's fees, and they'll have to pay for your lawyer.
The rest of the world - if you're really being sued... Ask Slashdot is NOT the place to go for legal advice. If you want more reliable and useful information, tea leaves are a big step up.
Chill, dude. This is an incredibly common acronym when talking about this stuff... and it's explained half a paragraph into the article. I know it's/., and all y'all like being shrill... but rtfa.
So basically, your advice is "ignore that the nature of the site is that it offers auctions."
The whole idea of an auction - what makes it attractive - is that there is a real possibility of getting an item for LESS than your maximum. If I go to buy a TV at Best Buy, I know what the price is going to be. If I go to eBay, it's because I hope, BECAUSE I'M AT AN AUCTION SITE, to NOT just 'choose a price and pay it'. If that is not the case - if, no matter what, I am never going to be able to get that item for less than some minimum that neither eBay or I know about - then I'm not actually at an auction site, I'm back at Best Buy. Which means that the site and the auction have attracted my traffic by fraudulently representing themselves.
Again, you don't have to be a moron or an impulse buyer for this to affect you. If I decide an item is worth $100, bid $75 and am pushed up to $100 only by shills, can you really say this has 'not affected me'?
I don't mean to flame your.sig... but you've got it exactly wrong. Laws about tech will always be bad, until enough techies become lawyers.
Hmm, person X is a lawyer. She makes mid six figures and works 80 hours a week. She have a staff to handle IT issues. Her motivation to 'become a techie' is...? I, on the other hand, got sick of the fact that other people were writing the rules that controlled my industry. So I left off being a netadmin and now I'm in law school. You want the laws to be sane? Start writing them, rather than leaving that to people who don't have a clue, and don't have the slightest reason to care.
Even if you're not infringing any copyrights, it seems entirely likely that you could be infringing HP patents for the look of its devices or trademarks for the same. IANAL, so do your own research (assuming you care) but it may be something to consider.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be interested to know how many people in this thread have actually *read* the GPL. According to its provisions, all rights derive from the original rightsholder. IE, if I, the rightsholder, distribute to ten people under the GPL, and they each distribute to ten people, the terms of the GPL say that the second-tier users receive their license to use the software from ME. There is no 'chain' - this is provision 6 of GPL v2 (the article didn't specify what GPL version ATSC was distributed under, and GPL2 is the most common version out there, from what I understand):
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
So I'm not getting anything from you; I'm getting my license from the original source.
IANAL - I'm just a law student - but the fact that the FSF SAYS the GPL can't be revoked doesn't make it true. GPL v3, however, states:
2. Basic Permissions.
All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
"Irrevocable" is a pretty controlling word there... if ATSC was released under GPL v3, his "revocation" is probably meaningless. However, under GPL v2, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping him from revoking the license.
Look, I'm not trying to flame here... but if you're not a lawyer, and don't have any other knowledge... don't try to render a legal opinion.
Irrlicht doesn't need to sue Viacom. Because Viacom isn't trying to 'muscle out a smaller company'. To anyone - ANYONE! - in this thread who thinks Viacom should be sued, answer me this - What damages is Irrlicht suing for? Did Viacom really try to destroy their business - to 'restrain trade'? Did they prevent Irrlicht from selling their product, from promoting their wares? THEY TOOK AN EFFING VIDEO OFF OF YOUTUBE. Not only that, but a video they had at least SOME basis to believe infringed on their copyright material. And the DMCA - despite the HUGE problems with that piece of legislation - does at least provide a remedy for this stuff. It takes about ten minutes to kick off an email in response.
Show me damage. Show me Viacom acting in bad faith, rather than merely negligently or recklessly. THEN talk about lawsuits and restraint of trade. Until then... this is just not a big deal. The DMCA has a million huge problems - and this is somewhere around 950,000 on that list.
Irrlich needs to send an email to YouTube, stating that this is a mistake. This should take them all of ten minutes to do. While in general we don't consider this kind of thing a good situation - just because there's a viable remedy doesn't mean that we're comfortable allowing people to go nuts - before the slashdot crowd goes TOO far off the deep end, please remember that Viacom isn't trying to usurp Irrlich's property and isn't trying to persecute them. Would this not happen in a country with rational copyright laws? Probably not. Is this the worst result of the DMCA so far? Dear god, get a grip, people. The DMCA is a huge problem. This isn't even a blip on the radar of problems the DMCA has caused, and it's got an easy fix.
I'm also not a lawyer... but I do study it all day. And neither right-to-work nor at-will employment prevents noncompete agreements. In fact, the leading case, CAB v. Ingram, takes place in Tennessee - a state with a 'right to work' law, and the court judges the noncompete - which was forced on the employee months after he had started working there, under threat of being fired - valid.
OP - Whatever you do, if you're really being sued, GET A LAWYER. Don't listen to ANYONE posting here, INCLUDING me. If you can't afford one, talk to your new company; if they're being sued too, you can probably get the case joined and ride their legal coattails. If not, just go in for a consultation; it's possible that if they REALLY have no case, you can get attorney's fees, and they'll have to pay for your lawyer.
The rest of the world - if you're really being sued... Ask Slashdot is NOT the place to go for legal advice. If you want more reliable and useful information, tea leaves are a big step up.
Chill, dude. This is an incredibly common acronym when talking about this stuff... and it's explained half a paragraph into the article. I know it's /., and all y'all like being shrill... but rtfa.
So basically, your advice is "ignore that the nature of the site is that it offers auctions."
The whole idea of an auction - what makes it attractive - is that there is a real possibility of getting an item for LESS than your maximum. If I go to buy a TV at Best Buy, I know what the price is going to be. If I go to eBay, it's because I hope, BECAUSE I'M AT AN AUCTION SITE, to NOT just 'choose a price and pay it'. If that is not the case - if, no matter what, I am never going to be able to get that item for less than some minimum that neither eBay or I know about - then I'm not actually at an auction site, I'm back at Best Buy. Which means that the site and the auction have attracted my traffic by fraudulently representing themselves.
Again, you don't have to be a moron or an impulse buyer for this to affect you. If I decide an item is worth $100, bid $75 and am pushed up to $100 only by shills, can you really say this has 'not affected me'?
I don't mean to flame your .sig... but you've got it exactly wrong. Laws about tech will always be bad, until enough techies become lawyers.
Hmm, person X is a lawyer. She makes mid six figures and works 80 hours a week. She have a staff to handle IT issues. Her motivation to 'become a techie' is...? I, on the other hand, got sick of the fact that other people were writing the rules that controlled my industry. So I left off being a netadmin and now I'm in law school. You want the laws to be sane? Start writing them, rather than leaving that to people who don't have a clue, and don't have the slightest reason to care.
Even if you're not infringing any copyrights, it seems entirely likely that you could be infringing HP patents for the look of its devices or trademarks for the same. IANAL, so do your own research (assuming you care) but it may be something to consider.