Does the expectation of improved code from others constitute sufficient consideration?
I don't think so because it's an expectation and not an enforcable promise.
Now that you mention it, the "Open Source" licenses that require code changes to be given back to the original author might pass the consideration hurdle. There I've given a promise to send back future code changes in exchange for seeing the code now and the right to redistribute derivative works. I realize that these types of licenses are deprecated, but they may actually be more enforcable.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It seems to me that we are fighting large multi-national companies on their turf. Even worse it seems that national borders aren't very effective at stoping litigation.
We need to enlist the media more effectively. Instead of releasing a program to decrypt the blocked list sites, release the blocked list to the New York Times or Washington Post. Those guys will defend their first amendment rights.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Let's say Bob does put it in the form of an if... then... statement and Alice clearly assents in writing. There still isn't an enforcable contract because there is no consideration.
Alice can't force Bob to haul the ship away if he's reluctant to do so and Bob can't force Alice to turn the wreck (or the monetary value of the wreck) over to him if she disposes of it otherwise.
Consideration has to be an element of any contract. Here's a link which discusses consideration in Minnesota law, but it is general enough to apply to other states. I learned from this page that consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Gifts or promises to make a gift, I believe, are not enforcable. I also learned that each party to a contract needs to give some consideration.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It means "most of the time". It means that there might be some specifics of an individual case that would made the statement untrue, but that, in the absence of some specifics, the statement is true. Generally, an arbitrary integer, n, is not prime. It could be prime if n has one of a specific set of values, but generally, integers are not prime.
About the validity of the GPL: I don't see what's the difference between it and a shrink-wrap-type license. So the DMCA (may it rot in hell) could for once be turned in our favor, adding weight to it.
Don't confuse the DCMA (Federal Copyright Law) with UCITA (the proposed Uniform state law that would govern shrinkwrap licenses).
About the revokability of the GPL: if (as stated by the DMCA) the GPL (being a shrink-wrap-type license) is fully binding, and since it doesn't have a termination clause (the only termination condition covers the case when the license's terms are violated), the copyright holder can do absolutely nothing to terminate it.
Assuming you mean UCITA and not the DCMA, the GPL is only enforcable as a contract if it meets the standard for a contract. I found this quote at this website on Minnesota contract law, but the concepts are general enough (that word again) to apply anywhere in the US.
Consideration
Consideration is a legal concept which describes something of value that is given in exchange for a performance or a promise to perform. The presence of consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Consideration can be a promise to do something there is no legal obligation to do, or a promise to not do something there is a legal right to do. Promises to exchange money, goods, or services are forms of consideration. All parties in an agreement must give consideration in order to create a contract, but courts typically do not look at the adequacy of consideration unless there is evidence of some type of wrongdoing by the party benefiting most from the contract.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I think that it may very well have to do with consideration. It's clear that the licensee gets rights from the GPL. The question is does the licensee give any consideration in exchange for those rights.
I've done a web search for legal discussions of consideration and the GPL and nothing pertinant came up.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Generally speaking, for any contract to be enforcable there needs to be a consideration. Money is one form of consideration, but not the only one. The user of the software gets some rights, but does the grantor get anything? In the days of the old BSD Advertising-clause license, the answer is, probably yes. In the case of the GPL, I'm not so sure.
Why is consideration important? To distinguish real contracts that have been entered into from hypothetical ones.
Sally, a sceptic, exchanges email with Bob, a firm believer in UFOs and alien visits to this planet. Sally willingly grants that Bob can have any alien spaceships that crash land on her property. Lo and behold, an alien spacecraft, low on fuel, crashes in her backyard. Several spooky fellows come by and offer Sally $500,000 for the steaming pile of spacejunk and she jumps at the offer. Bob sues Sally under the theory that their emails constituted a contract for Sally to turn over any alien spacecraft to him. Sally's lawyer, having read Slashdot, says "Nuh huh! There's no consideration and hence no contract! Bob didn't pay Sally anything for the valuable residual rights to disabled alien spacecraft on her property." The Judge rules in favor of Sally and dismisses the case. Bob gets an anal probe by some very pissed off aliens.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I think that the commentator is confusing assignment of software to the FSF with the GPL license. Yes, assigning a copyright to the FSF or to any other party legally requires a signed agreement. Granting a GPL license dosn't. I think that the article is inaccurate and misleading on this point. Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The very end of the story raises this thorny issue. Someone states that a non-exclusive license granted without charge may be revocable even if the license states that it isn't.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It a DCMA Section 1201 claim just like the MPAA v. Goldstein et al. The DCMA makes it illegal to bypass encryption that protects access to a copyrighted work. Hence my argument that the stuff protected by the encryption is a functional list of blocked sites (i.e. facts) and not copyrightable expression.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I've heard of the principle of end-to-end in the design of the Internet, but frankly, I'd forgotten it and I needed this piece to apply it to these very policy issues. I knew open access was good but couldn't articulate it as he has done. Now I won't forget it.
I see the pressure of the network provider at work in my wireless internet provider. Windows and Windows CE are supported products. I've had to call tech support twice in the last few days and pretend that I used Windows and their software (which I've never actually seen in operation) to access the wireless network. Now they want everyone to get a proprietary, network-compression protocol that isn't available for Linux. I may not be able to keep a service that I've used for almost a year.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Note that that the loss of weight is _not_ in the superconductor it'self, but in another piece of material held above it. Further, this sample is specifically stated to be non-conductin and non magnetic.
What if he spun the superconductor in the other direction? 0.05%-0.3% is a pretty small amount that might arise from small magnetic effects in a "non-magnetic, non-conducting" material.
He really needs to rule out common alternatives before settling on fanciful ones.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The original claim was a copyright claim. From the Wired article/
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, claims that Jansson and Skala violated U.S. copyright laws by reverse-engineering the software and then distributing source code and binaries that allow users to bypass CyberPatrol's encryption.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The DCMA is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It is a federal law that only deals with copyright. Trade secrets are covered by state law. There's a big difference between the two. Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Any bugfixes, additions, modifications, kernel patches, etc. produced by the DoD are probably under this also. OTOH, they can justify classifying just about anything as SECRET. Because of their ability to classify, DoD is a poor test case for Linux in government.
I think that the GPL is incompatable with section 105 for a number of reasons. Of course if they just add things to the stock kernel and redistribute the mods separately, there is no problem.
Title 17 Section 105 just says that works created by the government are public domain and can not be copyrighted. That government pamphlet that you received with your census form is public domain and can not by copyrighted. You can print and give away or sell as many copies as you want.
There is no problem at all from government employees maintaining their own Linux systems. There is no problem with the government making their own customizations of the stock Linux kernel. They may not be able to distribute them outside of the government, but that's not their job. So what if the DoD classifies tham SECRET if they can't be distributed legally anyway?
Now, how is this incompatible with the GPL?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Let us also remember that Netpliance likely doesn't make a dime on their hardware. Do we really think that if LCDs were this cheap that someone else wouldn't have thought of this sooner? I imagine netpliance is making its money on the service (similar to the `buy a 3 year subcription to MSN and save $400 dollars on your new puter' deals). This is a valid business model and they shouldn't be criticized for it on its face.
My objection is not with the business model. If that is in fact their business model and they expect people to live up to it, they must express that in a contract with appropriate cancellation penalties and not express it in a closed box that happens to be not so closed once someone peeks inside. My cell phone contract lasts for a year and has a hefty cancellation fee. I know what my end of the bargain is because it's down in writing.
I declare my right to hack any piece of hardware and software that I buy.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The other point that they are probably reselling other people's POPs is almost certainly the case.
I wonder if there is actually excess capacity in POPs in some areas. There is a trend towards broadband and the people actually running POPs like MSN are offering rebates for long term contracts. I wonder if they are worried about their long term financial investment in POPs.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I don't know. Probably Mattel wrote the agreement and offered it on a take it or leave it basis. Whether the agreement was fraudulent or not probably turns on whether the GPL is an assignment of rights or a granting of a license.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The encrypted portion of the software is a list of sites to be blocked. I think that someone can argue that the lists are factual like a telephone directory and not copyrightable expression. If the encrypted bit is not copyrightable, then section 1201 of the DCMA does not apply because it only covers encryption which protects a copyrighted work.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I settled because I have made my point and don't need the headaches. I don't think it's appropriate to characterise this as Microsystems et al "winning". The document is out there, I know the mirror sites aren't going to take it down without a fight (even with my copyright assignment), and judging by the level of conspiracy theory here on Slashdot, the companies' public relations nightmares have only just begun.
I can't fault your decision to settle. Deep pocket corporations can bleed defendants with nothing to gain from winning the suit dry.
Unfortunately, I can't see this as anythng but a win for Microsystems. The assignment of copyright gives them a case to supress the software when they didn't have a case before. I would have rather that the issues were heard in court, but we won't have that now with this case. Bring on the next one.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
All I can say is that you must have been so fascinated at seeing the guy go into spasm that you didn't notice the filmmakers standing there looking at him in concern and even reaching to help while others there told them to go and get their award.
Their concern with getting on stage fast had to do with the fact that they were practically sitting in the back row. What other winner had to walk up from the area under the balcony to accept their award? They obviously insisted on bringing the guy they filmed with them and the Shrine was unprepared to seat a wheelchair anywhere but the very back of the place.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Can you say "rewrite"? Probably just one reason why the movie would suck. Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
but why isn't offsite cookie rejection built into all browsers?
Once you get out of.com,.net and.org and into national domains, how do you define what is offsite?
This issue came up on bugtraq when someone found an "evil" cookie on their machine that was sent to all sites in *.com.au. (or *.co.au -- whatever). Two top level domains is insufficient to distinguish different sites in.au and.uk, but it is sufficient in, say,.ca. Even three is insufficient in *.us. *.nyc.ny.us are machines run by lots of different people. Should browsers contain policy for every TLD?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Nasa chief Dan Goldin recently told his managers that the MPL report will be "the Rogers Commission of space science", referring to the devastating critique delivered by a panel that examined the 1986 Challenger disaster.
My impression of the Rogers Commission (gleaned from Richard Feynman's autobiographical stories) was that it was a whitewash that failed and ultimately was a truthful and accurate assessment of management problems of some, but not all, parts of the SST program. Is this what Dan Goldin means?
As far as NASA's credibility goes, I just don't know. While I believe that they may have known the ways that the craft was likely to fail, that does not constitute knowledge that it would fail. Furthermore, if this was known only three days before the final landing, it really was too late to do anything about it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Slashdot Mirror
Does the expectation of improved code from others constitute sufficient consideration?
I don't think so because it's an expectation and not an enforcable promise.
Now that you mention it, the "Open Source" licenses that require code changes to be given back to the original author might pass the consideration hurdle. There I've given a promise to send back future code changes in exchange for seeing the code now and the right to redistribute derivative works. I realize that these types of licenses are deprecated, but they may actually be more enforcable.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It seems to me that we are fighting large multi-national companies on their turf. Even worse it seems that national borders aren't very effective at stoping litigation.
We need to enlist the media more effectively. Instead of releasing a program to decrypt the blocked list sites, release the blocked list to the New York Times or Washington Post. Those guys will defend their first amendment rights.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Let's say Bob does put it in the form of an if ... then ... statement and Alice clearly assents in writing. There still isn't an enforcable contract because there is no consideration.
Alice can't force Bob to haul the ship away if he's reluctant to do so and Bob can't force Alice to turn the wreck (or the monetary value of the wreck) over to him if she disposes of it otherwise.
Consideration has to be an element of any contract. Here's a link which discusses consideration in Minnesota law, but it is general enough to apply to other states. I learned from this page that consideration distinguishes contracts from gifts. Gifts or promises to make a gift, I believe, are not enforcable. I also learned that each party to a contract needs to give some consideration.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It means "most of the time". It means that there might be some specifics of an individual case that would made the statement untrue, but that, in the absence of some specifics, the statement is true. Generally, an arbitrary integer, n, is not prime. It could be prime if n has one of a specific set of values, but generally, integers are not prime.
About the validity of the GPL: I don't see what's the difference between it and a shrink-wrap-type license. So the DMCA (may it rot in hell) could for once be turned in our favor, adding weight to it.
Don't confuse the DCMA (Federal Copyright Law) with UCITA (the proposed Uniform state law that would govern shrinkwrap licenses).
About the revokability of the GPL: if (as stated by the DMCA) the GPL (being a shrink-wrap-type license) is fully binding, and since it doesn't have a termination clause (the only termination condition covers the case when the license's terms are violated), the copyright holder can do absolutely nothing to terminate it.
Assuming you mean UCITA and not the DCMA, the GPL is only enforcable as a contract if it meets the standard for a contract. I found this quote at this website on Minnesota contract law, but the concepts are general enough (that word again) to apply anywhere in the US.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I think that it may very well have to do with consideration. It's clear that the licensee gets rights from the GPL. The question is does the licensee give any consideration in exchange for those rights.
I've done a web search for legal discussions of consideration and the GPL and nothing pertinant came up.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Generally speaking, for any contract to be enforcable there needs to be a consideration. Money is one form of consideration, but not the only one. The user of the software gets some rights, but does the grantor get anything? In the days of the old BSD Advertising-clause license, the answer is, probably yes. In the case of the GPL, I'm not so sure.
Why is consideration important? To distinguish real contracts that have been entered into from hypothetical ones.
Sally, a sceptic, exchanges email with Bob, a firm believer in UFOs and alien visits to this planet. Sally willingly grants that Bob can have any alien spaceships that crash land on her property. Lo and behold, an alien spacecraft, low on fuel, crashes in her backyard. Several spooky fellows come by and offer Sally $500,000 for the steaming pile of spacejunk and she jumps at the offer. Bob sues Sally under the theory that their emails constituted a contract for Sally to turn over any alien spacecraft to him. Sally's lawyer, having read Slashdot, says "Nuh huh! There's no consideration and hence no contract! Bob didn't pay Sally anything for the valuable residual rights to disabled alien spacecraft on her property." The Judge rules in favor of Sally and dismisses the case. Bob gets an anal probe by some very pissed off aliens.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I think that the commentator is confusing assignment of software to the FSF with the GPL license. Yes, assigning a copyright to the FSF or to any other party legally requires a signed agreement. Granting a GPL license dosn't. I think that the article is inaccurate and misleading on this point.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The very end of the story raises this thorny issue. Someone states that a non-exclusive license granted without charge may be revocable even if the license states that it isn't.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
It a DCMA Section 1201 claim just like the MPAA v. Goldstein et al. The DCMA makes it illegal to bypass encryption that protects access to a copyrighted work. Hence my argument that the stuff protected by the encryption is a functional list of blocked sites (i.e. facts) and not copyrightable expression.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I've heard of the principle of end-to-end in the design of the Internet, but frankly, I'd forgotten it and I needed this piece to apply it to these very policy issues. I knew open access was good but couldn't articulate it as he has done. Now I won't forget it.
I see the pressure of the network provider at work in my wireless internet provider. Windows and Windows CE are supported products. I've had to call tech support twice in the last few days and pretend that I used Windows and their software (which I've never actually seen in operation) to access the wireless network. Now they want everyone to get a proprietary, network-compression protocol that isn't available for Linux. I may not be able to keep a service that I've used for almost a year.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Note that that the loss of weight is _not_ in the superconductor it'self, but in another piece of material held above it. Further, this sample is specifically stated to be non-conductin and non magnetic.
What if he spun the superconductor in the other direction? 0.05%-0.3% is a pretty small amount that might arise from small magnetic effects in a "non-magnetic, non-conducting" material.
He really needs to rule out common alternatives before settling on fanciful ones.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The DCMA is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It is a federal law that only deals with copyright. Trade secrets are covered by state law. There's a big difference between the two.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Any bugfixes, additions, modifications, kernel patches, etc. produced by the DoD are probably under this also. OTOH, they can justify classifying just about anything as SECRET. Because of their ability to classify, DoD is a poor test case for Linux in government.
I think that the GPL is incompatable with section 105 for a number of reasons. Of course if they just add things to the stock kernel and redistribute the mods separately, there is no problem.
Title 17 Section 105 just says that works created by the government are public domain and can not be copyrighted. That government pamphlet that you received with your census form is public domain and can not by copyrighted. You can print and give away or sell as many copies as you want.
There is no problem at all from government employees maintaining their own Linux systems. There is no problem with the government making their own customizations of the stock Linux kernel. They may not be able to distribute them outside of the government, but that's not their job. So what if the DoD classifies tham SECRET if they can't be distributed legally anyway?
Now, how is this incompatible with the GPL?
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Let us also remember that Netpliance likely doesn't make a dime on their hardware. Do we really think that if LCDs were this cheap that someone else wouldn't have thought of this sooner? I imagine netpliance is making its money on the service (similar to the `buy a 3 year subcription to MSN and save $400 dollars on your new puter' deals). This is a valid business model and they shouldn't be criticized for it on its face.
My objection is not with the business model. If that is in fact their business model and they expect people to live up to it, they must express
that in a contract with appropriate cancellation penalties and not express it in a closed box that happens to be not so closed once someone peeks inside. My cell phone contract lasts for a year and has a hefty cancellation fee. I know what my
end of the bargain is because it's down in writing.
I declare my right to hack any piece of hardware and software that I buy.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
So, let's crunch the numbers.
The other point that they are probably reselling other people's POPs is almost certainly the case.
I wonder if there is actually excess capacity in POPs in some areas. There is a trend towards broadband and the people actually running POPs like MSN are offering rebates for long term contracts. I wonder if they are worried about their long term financial investment in POPs.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I don't know. Probably Mattel wrote the agreement and offered it on a take it or leave it basis. Whether the agreement was fraudulent or not probably turns on whether the GPL is an assignment of rights or a granting of a license.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The encrypted portion of the software is a list of sites to be blocked. I think that someone can argue that the lists are factual like a telephone directory and not copyrightable expression. If the encrypted bit is not copyrightable, then section 1201 of the DCMA does not apply because it only covers encryption which protects a copyrighted work.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
I settled because I have made my point and don't need the headaches. I don't think it's appropriate to characterise this as Microsystems et al "winning". The document is out there, I know the mirror sites aren't going to take it down without a fight (even with my copyright assignment), and judging by the level of conspiracy theory here on Slashdot, the companies' public relations nightmares have only just begun.
I can't fault your decision to settle. Deep pocket corporations can bleed defendants with nothing to gain from winning the suit dry.
Unfortunately, I can't see this as anythng but a win for Microsystems. The assignment of copyright gives them a case to supress the software when they didn't have a case before. I would have rather that the issues were heard in court, but we won't have that now with this case. Bring on the next one.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
All I can say is that you must have been so fascinated at seeing the guy go into spasm that you didn't notice the filmmakers standing there looking at him in concern and even reaching to help while others there told them to go and get their award.
Their concern with getting on stage fast had to do with the fact that they were practically sitting in the back row. What other winner had to walk up from the area under the balcony to accept their award? They obviously insisted on bringing the guy they filmed with them and the Shrine was unprepared to seat a wheelchair anywhere but the very back of the place.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
The MS Monopoly Game
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
it's just just for MP3s anymore. Now it does warez too!
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Can you say "rewrite"? Probably just one reason why the movie would suck.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
but why isn't offsite cookie rejection built into all browsers?
.com, .net and .org and into national domains, how do you define what is offsite?
.au and .uk, but it is sufficient in, say, .ca. Even three is insufficient in *.us. *.nyc.ny.us are machines run by lots of different people. Should browsers contain policy for every TLD?
Once you get out of
This issue came up on bugtraq when someone found an "evil" cookie on their machine that was sent to all sites in *.com.au. (or *.co.au -- whatever). Two top level domains is insufficient to distinguish different sites in
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Nasa chief Dan Goldin recently told his managers that the MPL report will be "the Rogers Commission of space science", referring to the devastating critique delivered by a panel that examined the 1986 Challenger disaster.
My impression of the Rogers Commission (gleaned from Richard Feynman's autobiographical stories) was that it was a whitewash that failed and ultimately was a truthful and accurate assessment of management problems of some, but not all, parts of the SST program. Is this what Dan Goldin means?
As far as NASA's credibility goes, I just don't know. While I believe that they may have known the ways that the craft was likely to fail, that does not constitute knowledge that it would fail. Furthermore, if this was known only three days before the final landing, it really was too late to do anything about it.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected