The GPL very clearly states that if code cannot be freely redistributed then it cannot be distributed at all. SCO has explicitely stated that they have valid copyright claims over the Linux kernel and intend to exercise them. The minute they make a statement like that then the GPL is invalid according to them and they lose the right to distribute.
SCO is obviously acting as the ostensible authority towards releases of their software, including OpenLinux. SCO has acknowledged the usage of their copyrighted code and released it, thereby agreeing to the terms of the GPL. SCO saying that they do not agree to the GPL, and then doing it, doesn't matter. Actions speak louder than words. However, it's all up to what the court decides...
Do you have any idea when is this actually going to start going to trial?
Anybody who owns copyright for parts of the kernel can take infrigers to court.
Yeah, but you can take anybody to court for anything. Trust me, been there:)
It can turn out to be convenient that IBM actually owns the copyright for parts of the Linux kernel.
IBM will have more impact by proving this (or at least disproving SCOs encumbrance claim) in the case against them. Otherwise, IBM will just be asking for damages. What can they possibly get from SCO? Perhaps sue SCO for immunity?:)
Commercial piracy is and always has been a FELONY. It is not uncommon for the FBI to raid such ventures. It is only the Napster style piracy that is not necessarily criminal.
I'm not sure which instance you are actually talking about. Only if there was intent will there be a felony hearing for copyright infringement. I think it is very obvious there was no mal intent on behalf of SCO and it's distribution of Linux.
This is why it would be a civil matter, to be disputed using contract law (and not copyright infringement, on action against SCO, contrary to their case which is copyright infringement.) Since SCO had authority to release and distribute software under the provisions granted by the GPL, there is no commercial piracy. By failing to release under the provisions of the agreed license (contract), it becomes a civil dispute between the interested parties. It would be a very hard push to try to get a felony judgement against SCO.
They're not in breach of contract. The GPL is a license, not a contract. If they don't adhere to the terms of that license, they're (arguably) in breach of copyright. I say "arguably" because it will be up to the rights owners to show that, but it won't exactly be difficuly.
Yes, they are in breach of contract. Licenses are contracts. There are two ways to go after a license violation. IP infringment (copyright), or contract law. Depending upon the circumstances, it's easier to do either. Typically, with software, it is easier to go after copyright infringement but you can still do both. It depends upon the license. If it's a signed license, it's easy. Otherwise it gets into this:
Resolving the issue of enforceability of a "shrink-wrap" license, the court essentially decides the dilemma: was it a contract of sale in which an offer and acceptance were made at the store; or was it a licensing contract in which an offer was made at the store and acceptance was made sometimes later by an incident of use of the software.
You see the common thread there, "contract" -- in the terms of "Licensing Contract".
Oh yeah, let's not forget that by not following the GPL, they are violating *copyright* law as well, which has recently been criminalized. So strike what I just said about not being a violation of criminal law.
Well, there isn't really such thing as breaking civil law. Civil laws are statutes set to protect those who take action against other parties that wrong them. I still understand what you are saying, so it's neither here-nor-there. Just a little semantics issue...
Unfortunately there are only certain cases where violating copyright law will fall under criminal activities. Knowingly redistributing something while violating a license doesn't hit that, yet. I really wish that there was some sort of encryption scheme that went into the kernel, even if it was exceptionally trivial so that it fell under copyright-protection circumvention.
They distributed a GNU/Linux distribution. They had the source for that distribution offered until a few weeks after they launched the lawsuit. There is no plausible way that you can say that it was released by one renegade employee without authority.
Gee, do you think that's why I said that that paragraph was probably irrelevant? I was just raising a possible point SCO may make.
Does it bode you well to try to repeat what I say, except try to turn it around so it's against me?
In other words, SCO, by releasing a binary-only Linux, is violating the terms of the GNU General Public License, and hence, they are breaking the law.
Not breaking the law, they are in breach of contract. Who is going to take them to court to fight it? Nobody. However, this issue will be pressed by the IBM law team, and quite probably will have a favorable outcome on this point.
However, unless the members at SCO had authority (ostensible, I believe) to release the kernel source than it is not binding that SCO released it knowingly and willingly. Just like if I release proprietary source at my job, it would not be binding unless I had authority to do it. I think that it is a given that whomever released the packages at SCO did have the proper authority to do it, so I don't think any of this paragraph actually matters.
So the ends do justify the means! Thanks for clearing that up.
Why don't you go read a history book before making idiotic comments about things you don't understand? The "innocent civilians" were taking arms and joining militias against allied soldiers. The emporer was not willing to sign an unconditional surrender which was required for the fighting to stop.
By dropping 2 nuclear bombs and killing thousands the US got an unconditional surrender. Does it make it right? No, it doesn't. But you can't say that was the only bad decision that happened during WW2. The US stopped the fighting instantly at the sacrifice of civilians who were and would take up arms.
I'm not saying the ends justify the means. What I'm saying is that the means to get to the end were a direct way to get to the end that was guaranteed.
If you see everything as black and white, you cannot see the truth.
Don't sensationalize. I was actually really interested in what you said about this, until this point. You do realize why the nuclear bombs were dropped, right?
If you do, you would have never said it like this. If you don't, go read a history book or 5.
Judges are required to explain points of law to people who are acting as their own attorneys.
You obviously have no clue about civil law. This is wrong. If you go to a civil suit, and attempt to by-pass it by being an ignorant fool you will lose. Only in a criminal hearing do you need to understand the charges and the gravity of those charges. Typically, a judge will not explain those either.
You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.
You do understand the difference between civil and criminal law, right? If I go watch a mechanic fix my engine, does that mean I can do body work? No. Just like if you watch criminal law cases, you don't learn shit about civil law.
Present your case (in this case, that DirecTV has no evidence that you pirated signals, that posession of programmers is legal, that they have legal uses, and then go on to explain why it's not reasonable for you to be held liable for something that they "think" you might have done), and you'll be okay. What's so hard about that?
Yes, go up against lawyers who are trained, versed, and rehearsed to make you look like a pirate with your argument that there lies no proof, outside of circumstance, that you pirated anything. Yet you still have no valid use for a SmartCard programming device. Also, could you explain why you purchased the SmartCard device in question from a well-known and investigated supplier of illegal wares advertised for the sole-purpose of piracy? Could you address the reasoning why you were using a SmartCard system, instead of a more widely used and cheaper system for your supposed authentication? Such as the iButton?
Yeah, you'll do great in court, bud. Just hope and pray that you never get sued.
The man used a furniture analogy to try to prove his point that copyright infringment is piracy. He discounted Freenet because it was too clunky. If the man were any more dense he'd require life support.
Now, take a good hard look at your cubemate. You know what they do when they get home... and it's not BF1942... probably gives you good insight into their test bench naming conventions...
You have to share a cube with someone? And it's most likely they spend their nights downloading porn? I really don't want to ever end up working wherever you work.
On a more seriously joking matter, where the fuck are these people? I've worked in quite a few places and I've only met a few people with the neon signs hovering above their heads that say "Pornmonger." Yet, they seem like they are all over the place and I've just had the fortune to avoid them.
At my job, we all work in a fairly large room. We have individual cubicles but it's "our group." Out of the 7 people in this room, not one could be thought of in that manner. Are these comments just a joke or do you people actually have to put up with those folks?
ah why do they think that Nasa wil allow them to comepte eventually with the shuttle?
Because the shuttle isn't geared up for payload delivery? Or wait, maybe because NASA hopes to privatize and actually has released a lot of the technology developed in NASA to it's inventors for private commercial release?
NASA wil kill this movement if we let it..
Will has two "L"s, right next to each other. At least you prove yourself an idiot so nobody needs to take you seriously.
Now we get to see how Moz survives as a *real* open-source project (i.e., w/out funding). At least it's got a good code base (right?).
Here is why Mozilla is different than other open source projects:
It has a stable code-base, and is on more desktops than any other open source package.
It's a (hopeful) 503(c). That means tax deductible donations.
Companies will support The Mozilla Foundation, if they deploy mozilla. Some won't, a lot will. Companies will understand if they don't support it, it will go away.
b) Write five or more separate user interfaces, and have to keep them all up to date and in sync?
I was actually curious about this decision for a while. Don't get me wrong though, I like XUL. I think it serves it's purpose exceptionally well (I haven't used it on older hardware in a long while, but last time it was slow but that was on Milestone 12 or something)
What was the choice to go with XUL instead of a cross-platform toolkit like Qt or Wx? I can see why not going with Qt (Latency between Windows non-comm editions) but there are a lot of other cross-platform tool kits out there.
I'm still glad you guys went with XUL. Was really a great solution to the problem. Good luck on the Moz Foundation as well.
If m-w suggests some difference in nuance between theft and stealing, it doesn't represent common usage at all and is a much more well-hidden suggestion than all the suggestions that they're the same.
My whole stance on it is that the usage of either term is incorrect and inaccurate. So if you are going to use either term, use the one that is more accurate.
As to "stealing", there is support for using that term. But is the idea of reimbursing creators so complex, so confusing that you need to fall back on a less accurate word? "copyright infringement" is far more accurate. Why not spend your time convincing people that copyright exists for important, ethical reasons, and that infringing copyright is morally wrong?
Because people are stupid, and people like to use inaccurate and non-existent words all the time. Like "irregardless." I'm trying to educate people to use the more accurate of a choice of two inaccurate words.
Now that it is specifically a Non-Profit organization, donations are just that. Assuming they did the whole legal tax-deductible non-profit group corporation, people will be much more inclined to donate.
Companies making their corporate standard browser a free browser and getting a tax write-off by supporting the browser will be prevelant, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL very clearly states that if code cannot be freely redistributed then it cannot be distributed at all. SCO has explicitely stated that they have valid copyright claims over the Linux kernel and intend to exercise them. The minute they make a statement like that then the GPL is invalid according to them and they lose the right to distribute.
SCO is obviously acting as the ostensible authority towards releases of their software, including OpenLinux. SCO has acknowledged the usage of their copyrighted code and released it, thereby agreeing to the terms of the GPL. SCO saying that they do not agree to the GPL, and then doing it, doesn't matter. Actions speak louder than words. However, it's all up to what the court decides...
Do you have any idea when is this actually going to start going to trial?
Anybody who owns copyright for parts of the kernel can take infrigers to court.
:)
:)
Yeah, but you can take anybody to court for anything. Trust me, been there
It can turn out to be convenient that IBM actually owns the copyright for parts of the Linux kernel.
IBM will have more impact by proving this (or at least disproving SCOs encumbrance claim) in the case against them. Otherwise, IBM will just be asking for damages. What can they possibly get from SCO? Perhaps sue SCO for immunity?
Commercial piracy is and always has been a FELONY. It is not uncommon for the FBI to raid such ventures. It is only the Napster style piracy that is not necessarily criminal.
I'm not sure which instance you are actually talking about. Only if there was intent will there be a felony hearing for copyright infringement. I think it is very obvious there was no mal intent on behalf of SCO and it's distribution of Linux.
This is why it would be a civil matter, to be disputed using contract law (and not copyright infringement, on action against SCO, contrary to their case which is copyright infringement.) Since SCO had authority to release and distribute software under the provisions granted by the GPL, there is no commercial piracy. By failing to release under the provisions of the agreed license (contract), it becomes a civil dispute between the interested parties. It would be a very hard push to try to get a felony judgement against SCO.
I didn't. I didn't even say it was "bad." I'm usually not that B&W.
:)
Sorry, I interpreted the post as the Monster-US devils exerting power like children style post. Which just irritates me...
To sum it up: "Despite it's flaws, I still like to live in the USA."
I agree with you on that... although I may end up living in Japan next year anyway
Yes, they are in breach of contract. Licenses are contracts. There are two ways to go after a license violation. IP infringment (copyright), or contract law. Depending upon the circumstances, it's easier to do either. Typically, with software, it is easier to go after copyright infringement but you can still do both. It depends upon the license. If it's a signed license, it's easy. Otherwise it gets into this:
You see the common thread there, "contract" -- in the terms of "Licensing Contract".
Let's keep our terms straight.
Yes, lets.
Oh yeah, let's not forget that by not following the GPL, they are violating *copyright* law as well, which has recently been criminalized. So strike what I just said about not being a violation of criminal law.
Well, there isn't really such thing as breaking civil law. Civil laws are statutes set to protect those who take action against other parties that wrong them. I still understand what you are saying, so it's neither here-nor-there. Just a little semantics issue...
Unfortunately there are only certain cases where violating copyright law will fall under criminal activities. Knowingly redistributing something while violating a license doesn't hit that, yet. I really wish that there was some sort of encryption scheme that went into the kernel, even if it was exceptionally trivial so that it fell under copyright-protection circumvention.
That would make it especially odd.
They distributed a GNU/Linux distribution. They had the source for that distribution offered until a few weeks after they launched the lawsuit. There is no plausible way that you can say that it was released by one renegade employee without authority.
Gee, do you think that's why I said that that paragraph was probably irrelevant? I was just raising a possible point SCO may make.
Does it bode you well to try to repeat what I say, except try to turn it around so it's against me?
In other words, SCO, by releasing a binary-only Linux, is violating the terms of the GNU General Public License, and hence, they are breaking the law.
Not breaking the law, they are in breach of contract. Who is going to take them to court to fight it? Nobody. However, this issue will be pressed by the IBM law team, and quite probably will have a favorable outcome on this point.
However, unless the members at SCO had authority (ostensible, I believe) to release the kernel source than it is not binding that SCO released it knowingly and willingly. Just like if I release proprietary source at my job, it would not be binding unless I had authority to do it. I think that it is a given that whomever released the packages at SCO did have the proper authority to do it, so I don't think any of this paragraph actually matters.
Why don't you stop being a patronizing ass? And no I'm not the PP.
Because it's fun, next?
So the ends do justify the means! Thanks for clearing that up.
Why don't you go read a history book before making idiotic comments about things you don't understand? The "innocent civilians" were taking arms and joining militias against allied soldiers. The emporer was not willing to sign an unconditional surrender which was required for the fighting to stop.
By dropping 2 nuclear bombs and killing thousands the US got an unconditional surrender. Does it make it right? No, it doesn't. But you can't say that was the only bad decision that happened during WW2. The US stopped the fighting instantly at the sacrifice of civilians who were and would take up arms.
I'm not saying the ends justify the means. What I'm saying is that the means to get to the end were a direct way to get to the end that was guaranteed.
If you see everything as black and white, you cannot see the truth.
Or how we nuked innocent civilians in Japan.
Don't sensationalize. I was actually really interested in what you said about this, until this point. You do realize why the nuclear bombs were dropped, right?
If you do, you would have never said it like this. If you don't, go read a history book or 5.
Hey, are you making fun of a man's disability? (damn dyslexia) We all know that it should have been soldier.
Yeah, but see, it was funny. What if they weren't a native english speaker, then it's ok to laugh. Lighten up.
Judges are required to explain points of law to people who are acting as their own attorneys.
You obviously have no clue about civil law. This is wrong. If you go to a civil suit, and attempt to by-pass it by being an ignorant fool you will lose. Only in a criminal hearing do you need to understand the charges and the gravity of those charges. Typically, a judge will not explain those either.
You can get a decent education just by spending a few weeks sitting in on a murder trial or two, and it's free.
You do understand the difference between civil and criminal law, right? If I go watch a mechanic fix my engine, does that mean I can do body work? No. Just like if you watch criminal law cases, you don't learn shit about civil law.
Present your case (in this case, that DirecTV has no evidence that you pirated signals, that posession of programmers is legal, that they have legal uses, and then go on to explain why it's not reasonable for you to be held liable for something that they "think" you might have done), and you'll be okay. What's so hard about that?
Yes, go up against lawyers who are trained, versed, and rehearsed to make you look like a pirate with your argument that there lies no proof, outside of circumstance, that you pirated anything. Yet you still have no valid use for a SmartCard programming device. Also, could you explain why you purchased the SmartCard device in question from a well-known and investigated supplier of illegal wares advertised for the sole-purpose of piracy? Could you address the reasoning why you were using a SmartCard system, instead of a more widely used and cheaper system for your supposed authentication? Such as the iButton?
Yeah, you'll do great in court, bud. Just hope and pray that you never get sued.
Hmm, and all this time I thought software was for doing work, silly me! ... Says the man on Slashdot ...
You aren't fooling anybody.
Why does MS come out with patches so often?
Probably similar reasons as to why Linux-contributors release patches so often.
Because software has bugs. That's what software is for.
The man used a furniture analogy to try to prove his point that copyright infringment is piracy. He discounted Freenet because it was too clunky. If the man were any more dense he'd require life support.
Now, take a good hard look at your cubemate. You know what they do when they get home... and it's not BF1942... probably gives you good insight into their test bench naming conventions...
You have to share a cube with someone? And it's most likely they spend their nights downloading porn? I really don't want to ever end up working wherever you work.
On a more seriously joking matter, where the fuck are these people? I've worked in quite a few places and I've only met a few people with the neon signs hovering above their heads that say "Pornmonger." Yet, they seem like they are all over the place and I've just had the fortune to avoid them.
At my job, we all work in a fairly large room. We have individual cubicles but it's "our group." Out of the 7 people in this room, not one could be thought of in that manner. Are these comments just a joke or do you people actually have to put up with those folks?
ah why do they think that Nasa wil allow them to comepte eventually with the shuttle?
Because the shuttle isn't geared up for payload delivery? Or wait, maybe because NASA hopes to privatize and actually has released a lot of the technology developed in NASA to it's inventors for private commercial release?
NASA wil kill this movement if we let it..
Will has two "L"s, right next to each other. At least you prove yourself an idiot so nobody needs to take you seriously.
besides a spelling error on /. doesn't look to out of place
No kidding. (my sig)
Here is why Mozilla is different than other open source projects:
b) Write five or more separate user interfaces, and have to keep them all up to date and in sync?
I was actually curious about this decision for a while. Don't get me wrong though, I like XUL. I think it serves it's purpose exceptionally well (I haven't used it on older hardware in a long while, but last time it was slow but that was on Milestone 12 or something)
What was the choice to go with XUL instead of a cross-platform toolkit like Qt or Wx? I can see why not going with Qt (Latency between Windows non-comm editions) but there are a lot of other cross-platform tool kits out there.
I'm still glad you guys went with XUL. Was really a great solution to the problem. Good luck on the Moz Foundation as well.
If m-w suggests some difference in nuance between theft and stealing, it doesn't represent common usage at all and is a much more well-hidden suggestion than all the suggestions that they're the same.
:)
My whole stance on it is that the usage of either term is incorrect and inaccurate. So if you are going to use either term, use the one that is more accurate.
It's just a facetious joke
Well, if you bothered to read the d*mn article
Wait, I'm confused... What's d*mn? dumn? dzmn?
Could you try to speak a language we've all agreed upon, here?
As to "stealing", there is support for using that term. But is the idea of reimbursing creators so complex, so confusing that you need to fall back on a less accurate word? "copyright infringement" is far more accurate. Why not spend your time convincing people that copyright exists for important, ethical reasons, and that infringing copyright is morally wrong?
Because people are stupid, and people like to use inaccurate and non-existent words all the time. Like "irregardless." I'm trying to educate people to use the more accurate of a choice of two inaccurate words.
To me, it's really just a big joke though.
and B) hasn't gotten any significant donations?
Now that it is specifically a Non-Profit organization, donations are just that. Assuming they did the whole legal tax-deductible non-profit group corporation, people will be much more inclined to donate.
Companies making their corporate standard browser a free browser and getting a tax write-off by supporting the browser will be prevelant, I think.