If I understand it correctly, the GPL does not require that software be available for download. It does, however, prohibit you from restricting others from redistributing it however they choose. This means that, in practice, GPL'd software will be available for download, but it is by no means inherent in the license itself. -- Il vaut mieux avoir l'air sans l'effet que l'effet sans l'air.
Not only is he releasing a nice portion of the book for free electronically, but he encourages you to avoid amazon.com. From the site:
You can get it directly from the publisher at
http://www.coriolis. com/bookstore/bookdetail.cfm?id=1576104907 (due to Amazon.com's recent abuse of the patent system, I am participating in a boycott of Amazon, and ask that you not purchase this book, nor any other, from them).
After looking at his site, this not only looks liek a great book, but an author I'd like to support. Besides, my CVS skills need the polish.
Is it just me, or does he seem to be ignoring Napster's position as he maintains that Napster needed to ask the band's permission. Napster maintains that Napster doesn't trade the songs. This means that they couldn't possibly ask permission to trade something that they're not trading. Moreover, Napster's TOS state:
Users are responsible for complying with all applicable federal and state laws applicable to such content, including copyright laws. As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way; (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user, or modify, erase or damage any information contained on the computer of any user connected to the Napster service; or (iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser.
Thus anyone posting Metallica's songs on Napster against Metallica's will is harming Metallica, breaking the law, and subject to being banned. Napster, however, cannot police this. It is up to the holder of intellectual property to protect it. Does Lars get this?
This means that the 300-odd thousand names of copyright infringers still need to be individually verified by humans before they can be pursued in court. To do otherwise would be like typing "child porn" into a search engine and pursuing the owner of every page returned without checking to see what is actually there. Using a firm like this should increase the cost of litigating copyright offenses with little benifit to the plaintiffs. Let's hope they all contract with these guys!
Slashdot Mirror
If I understand it correctly, the GPL does not require that software be available for download. It does, however, prohibit you from restricting others from redistributing it however they choose. This means that, in practice, GPL'd software will be available for download, but it is by no means inherent in the license itself. -- Il vaut mieux avoir l'air sans l'effet que l'effet sans l'air.
This means that the 300-odd thousand names of copyright infringers still need to be individually verified by humans before they can be pursued in court. To do otherwise would be like typing "child porn" into a search engine and pursuing the owner of every page returned without checking to see what is actually there. Using a firm like this should increase the cost of litigating copyright offenses with little benifit to the plaintiffs. Let's hope they all contract with these guys!