"There are deeper problems on the horizon. Some companies are now "loaning" or "renting" software. In some cases, you don't even keep copies on your local machine. You just download it from the server and use it for a bit."
Not without permission. This is illegal under the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990: (b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending.
"The limit is wherever copyright law puts the limit. If the proprietary weather application is not, under copyright law, considered a derivative work, then the GPL can't touch it. Remember, GPL's only power comes from copyright."
At least one of the points brought up in the article could be solved within the GPL, even though copyright law would not consider it a derivative work: Tivo. If the GPL stated that when the covered product is distributed for a fee as part of a larger aggregation, all other works within that aggregation must also be licensed under the GPL (IANAL, so this would probably have to be worded better). Of course, this would also force every GNU/Linux distribution to consist of only GPLed products. Whether this would be a Good Thing is left as an excercise to the reader.
"If you charge for MySQL installation and administrative support as part of your customer service, then you need a license because you are selling a service that includes MySQL."
I sure hope this is just something which mysql forgot to take out of the website, because this is certainly not a valid interpretation of the GPL.
You link a part of the of [sic] MySQL that has a GPL Copyright to a program which is not free software (embedded usage of the MySQL server). In this case your application would also become GPL through the clause in the GPL license that acts as a virus. By licensing MySQL from us under a commercial license you will avoid this problem.
You have a commercial application that ONLY works with MySQL and ships the application with the MySQL server. This is because we view this a linking even if it is done over the network.
You have a distribute MySQL and you don't provide the source code for your copy of the MySQL server, as defined in the GPL license.
my questions
if they intend to licence MySQL for commercial use, does this mean that they won't be accepting contributions which don't sign over the copyright?
is the second term likely to hold up in court?
if they don't intend to accept contributions, and their second term is held up, their licence really hasn't changed, has it?
aren't we supposed to be boycotting google since they are trying to patent their software? or has google somehow escaped the wrath of the gplheads? have we deemed their technology patent-worthy?
the replier, brain-dead forgets how to break-lines, and then forgets also how to make a haiku which he actually didn't even know in the first place, just figured it had something to do with 5 7 5
My only question is what happens in the cases of a virus like the famed "Melissa" who automatically passes it's self around? " what other kind of virii are there?
if you can prove that the hacker is who you think she is, hacking back is only going to decrease your chances of winning a settlement to compensate for your damages. if you can't prove who it is, then you are risking hacking an innocent bystander (and possibly being sued/arrested, rightfully so).
If I buy a program which uses encryption in europe, and then take it into the US, is it illegal for me to take it back into europe? If I download a GPLed program from a european site, can I make changes and distribute them? What if I only distribute the diffs? Does that violate US law? Would it violate the GPL?
This virus doesn't go far enough. Sure, it blocks access to executables, but I can still think of at least one virus that would still get through:
The "I love Shue" virus: this virus is originally downloaded from the "I love Shue" homepage. It claims to be a jpeg of Elisabeth Shue naked. Instead, when executed, it runs a web server of another "I love Shue" homepage, complete with the executable to download. It then steals all your address book entries, and mails an email to those people telling them "I found this really cool homepage with Elisabeth Shue naked". It looks up your local ip address, and puts the url http://youripaddress/nakedshue.jpg.exe in the nessage. That is a link of course to the exe of the virus. Notice how the ingenious virus writer put.jpg in the file name, just to make it impossible to notice that it's an executable.
Microsoft is now working on a fix for this virus. Their current plan is to block the copy feature of outlook, so that users can't copy urls into their webbrowser.
I transferred all of my domains from network solutions to opensrs. Every one of them went through, and it took about 10 days. Most of the people who have had problems waited until after their domain had expired before transferring it (or even never had paid for it). If you do it early enough, everything should go through just fine.
NEW YORK--A federal lawsuit filed today in California could establish important protections for Internet privacy and anonymity, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The suit, filed against Yahoo! by a user of the service's popular financial message boards, challenges the company's practice of disclosing a user's personal information to third parties without prior notice to the user.
Privacy and free speech advocates, including EPIC and the ACLU, have criticized Yahoo!'s policy on the ground that Internet users have a right to communicate anonymously and usually do so for valid reasons.
Over the past year, Yahoo! has been inundated with subpoenas issued by companies seeking the identities of individuals anonymously posting information critical of the firms and their executives.
"The right to anonymous speech should not be breached so easily," said Chris Hansen, a national ACLU lawyer who specializes in Internet speech.
Without notifying the targeted users, and without assessing the validity of the legal claims underlying the subpoenas, Yahoo! systematically discloses identifying information such as users' names, e-mail addresses and Internet protocol addresses. Yahoo! is unique among major online companies in its refusal to notify its users of such subpoenas and provide them with an opportunity to challenge the information requests.
Hansen said that the ACLU favors at least two legal protections for anonymous chatters. "Any complaint filed in court against an unknown Internet defendant should include specifics of the allegedly objectionable postings," he said.
"Also, a judge should not allow a lawyer to issue subpoenas in these cases without requiring that the Internet service provider notify the potential defendant that someone is seeking information about him and giving him an opportunity to enter court to protect his anonymity."
According to David L. Sobel, EPIC's General Counsel, "online anonymity plays a critical role in fostering free expression on the Internet, and has clearly contributed to the popularity of the medium."
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that anonymity is a constitutional right, but practices such as those of Yahoo! may make that right illusory online," he added.
The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles by "Aquacool_2000," a pseudonymous Yahoo! user whose personal information was disclosed to AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc., a publicly held company.
A copy of the lawsuit (in PDF) is available at: http://www.epic.org/anonymity/aquacool_complaint.p df
The letter didn't look sworn or written to me. I'd ignore it (and talk to the lawyers in preparation for when they do send the written and sworn under penalty of perjury copy). Then you gotta remove, and hope that the users that aren't in the wrong have the balls to appeal. Of course, if it _is_ clearly illegal content, you should remove it immediately for moral as well as legal reasons.
according to the audio home recording act, No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright [...] based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of [a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium] for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
so, by my interpretation, (and IANAL), I can copy metallica for personal use, as long as I store it on a DAT tape! I've already paid Metallica for it, when I paid the DAT tax on the tape.
mp3 was making copies for commercial purposes, so it did not fall under fair use. individuals are doing this for personal use, so it may. just like someone can have a superbowl party at their house legally, but a bar with a cover has to pay for public display.
I don't think the point was that it was sendmail's fault. The point is that it was more cost effective to use a different system than it was to pay someone to figure out what the problem was.
I hope it is... if not poor ispyder@mail.com is probably getting tons of hate mail right now. from the same people dumb enough to click on the attachment in the first place.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to can download the binary with the infringing code, reverse engineer it, and use/put it in anything they want. Likewise, if you can find someone who works at the company you could get the source code and distribute that too. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so don't try this at home (unless you are willing to risk the consequences).
If two people upload the same file (mp3 or otherwise), you store both of the files, but your special "compression algorithm" recognizes that they are exactly the same and "compresses" the files to slightly more than the size of one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
"There are deeper problems on the horizon. Some companies are now "loaning" or "renting" software. In some cases, you don't even keep copies on your local machine. You just download it from the server and use it for a bit."
Not without permission. This is illegal under the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990:
(b)(1)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), and in the case of a sound recording in the musical works embodied therein, neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program), may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending.
"The limit is wherever copyright law puts the limit. If the proprietary weather application is not, under copyright law, considered a derivative work, then the GPL can't touch it.
Remember, GPL's only power comes from copyright."
At least one of the points brought up in the article could be solved within the GPL, even though copyright law would not consider it a derivative work: Tivo. If the GPL stated that when the covered product is distributed for a fee as part of a larger aggregation, all other works within that aggregation must also be licensed under the GPL (IANAL, so this would probably have to be worded better). Of course, this would also force every GNU/Linux distribution to consist of only GPLed products. Whether this would be a Good Thing is left as an excercise to the reader.
added a ", should be http://www.intel.com/p ressroom/archive/releases/dp062800.htm
http://www.mysql.com/sup port/arrangements/example/isp.html
"If you charge for MySQL installation and administrative support as part of your customer service, then you need a license because you are selling a service that includes MySQL."
I sure hope this is just something which mysql forgot to take out of the website, because this is certainly not a valid interpretation of the GPL.
- You link a part of the of [sic] MySQL that has a GPL Copyright to a program which is not free software (embedded usage of the MySQL server). In this case your application would also become GPL through the clause in the GPL license that acts as a virus. By licensing MySQL from us under a commercial license you will avoid this problem.
- You have a commercial application that ONLY works with MySQL and ships the application with the MySQL server. This is because we view this a linking even if it is done over the network.
- You have a distribute MySQL and you don't provide the source code for your copy of the MySQL server, as defined in the GPL license.
my questionsaren't we supposed to be boycotting google since they are trying to patent their software? or has google somehow escaped the wrath of the gplheads? have we deemed their technology patent-worthy?
the replier, brain-dead
forgets how to break-lines, and then
forgets also how to make a haiku
which he actually didn't even know in the first
place, just figured it had something to do with
5
7
5
the poster, whoring trying to gain 8 karma replies to himself
My only question is what happens in the cases of a virus like the famed "Melissa" who automatically passes it's self around? "
what other kind of virii are there?
if you can prove that the hacker is who you think she is, hacking back is only going to decrease your chances of winning a settlement to compensate for your damages. if you can't prove who it is, then you are risking hacking an innocent bystander (and possibly being sued/arrested, rightfully so).
redundant array of inexpensive processors
If I buy a program which uses encryption in europe, and then take it into the US, is it illegal for me to take it back into europe? If I download a GPLed program from a european site, can I make changes and distribute them? What if I only distribute the diffs? Does that violate US law? Would it violate the GPL?
This virus doesn't go far enough. Sure, it blocks access to executables, but I can still think of at least one virus that would still get through:
.jpg in the file name, just to make it impossible to notice that it's an executable.
The "I love Shue" virus: this virus is originally downloaded from the "I love Shue" homepage. It claims to be a jpeg of Elisabeth Shue naked. Instead, when executed, it runs a web server of another "I love Shue" homepage, complete with the executable to download. It then steals all your address book entries, and mails an email to those people telling them "I found this really cool homepage with Elisabeth Shue naked". It looks up your local ip address, and puts the url http://youripaddress/nakedshue.jpg.exe in the nessage. That is a link of course to the exe of the virus. Notice how the ingenious virus writer put
Microsoft is now working on a fix for this virus. Their current plan is to block the copy feature of outlook, so that users can't copy urls into their webbrowser.
I transferred all of my domains from network solutions to opensrs. Every one of them went through, and it took about 10 days. Most of the people who have had problems waited until after their domain had expired before transferring it (or even never had paid for it). If you do it early enough, everything should go through just fine.
They only support it. "The suit, filed against Yahoo! by a user of the service's popular financial message boards..."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
p df
Thursday, May 11, 2000
NEW YORK--A federal lawsuit filed today in California could establish important protections for Internet privacy and anonymity, according to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
The suit, filed against Yahoo! by a user of the service's popular financial message boards, challenges the company's practice of disclosing a user's personal information to third parties without prior notice to the user.
Privacy and free speech advocates, including EPIC and the ACLU, have criticized Yahoo!'s policy on the ground that Internet users have a right to communicate anonymously and usually do so for valid reasons.
Over the past year, Yahoo! has been inundated with subpoenas issued by companies seeking the identities of individuals anonymously posting information critical of the firms and their executives.
"The right to anonymous speech should not be breached so easily," said Chris Hansen, a national ACLU lawyer who specializes in Internet speech.
Without notifying the targeted users, and without assessing the validity of the legal claims underlying the subpoenas, Yahoo! systematically discloses identifying information such as users' names, e-mail addresses and Internet protocol addresses. Yahoo! is unique among major online companies in its refusal to notify its users of such subpoenas and provide them with an opportunity to challenge the information requests.
Hansen said that the ACLU favors at least two legal protections for anonymous chatters. "Any complaint filed in court against an unknown Internet defendant should include specifics of the allegedly objectionable postings," he said.
"Also, a judge should not allow a lawyer to issue subpoenas in these cases without requiring that the Internet service provider notify the potential defendant that someone is seeking information about him and giving him an opportunity to enter court to protect his anonymity."
According to David L. Sobel, EPIC's General Counsel, "online anonymity plays a critical role in fostering free expression on the Internet, and has clearly contributed to the popularity of the medium."
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that anonymity is a constitutional right, but practices such as those of Yahoo! may make that right illusory online," he added.
The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles by "Aquacool_2000," a pseudonymous Yahoo! user whose personal information was disclosed to AnswerThink Consulting Group, Inc., a publicly held company.
A copy of the lawsuit (in PDF) is available at:
http://www.epic.org/anonymity/aquacool_complaint.
The letter didn't look sworn or written to me. I'd ignore it (and talk to the lawyers in preparation for when they do send the written and sworn under penalty of perjury copy). Then you gotta remove, and hope that the users that aren't in the wrong have the balls to appeal. Of course, if it _is_ clearly illegal content, you should remove it immediately for moral as well as legal reasons.
according to the audio home recording act, No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright [...] based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of [a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium] for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
so, by my interpretation, (and IANAL), I can copy metallica for personal use, as long as I store it on a DAT tape! I've already paid Metallica for it, when I paid the DAT tax on the tape.
ok, so when are these hacks going to be incorporated into download accellerator? :)
mp3 was making copies for commercial purposes, so it did not fall under fair use. individuals are doing this for personal use, so it may. just like someone can have a superbowl party at their house legally, but a bar with a cover has to pay for public display.
I don't think the point was that it was sendmail's fault. The point is that it was more cost effective to use a different system than it was to pay someone to figure out what the problem was.
I hope it is... if not poor ispyder@mail.com is probably getting tons of hate mail right now. from the same people dumb enough to click on the attachment in the first place.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to can download the binary with the infringing code, reverse engineer it, and use/put it in anything they want. Likewise, if you can find someone who works at the company you could get the source code and distribute that too. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so don't try this at home (unless you are willing to risk the consequences).
If two people upload the same file (mp3 or otherwise), you store both of the files, but your special "compression algorithm" recognizes that they are exactly the same and "compresses" the files to slightly more than the size of one of them.
See, they should have picked a harder to guess default password, like "JSD3$@KJ". These people don't know anything about security.