More than that, if the judge doesn't respond carefully and exhaustively to Microsoft's appeal, it'll give Microsoft grounds to appeal the appeal, claiming that she didn't give their arguments fair consideration. Thus providing grounds to have her forced off the case, and judge number 4 appointed. As far as I can tell, Microsoft's overall strategy is to annoy the judges in their case enough that they'll make injudicious comments and let the Appellate Court have them kicked off the case. It's already worked with Posner and Jackson, after all.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
Thus, you have the right to run a program you purchased without any contract with the software company. In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must recieve consideration from the contract. Since you receive no consideration from the EULA, it's not a valid contract. (In addition to the other reasons it should be invalid.)
So how'd my Congressmen vote on the DCMA? Votes by acclamation don't allow the accountability I'd like to see. I want to see absolute, individual accountability for a Congressman in regards to his votes, and I want this to be a matter of public record.
This Kind of thinking says that it is okay to keep loaded, unlocked guns in the living room.
Hardly. That kind of thinking says that everyone shouldn't be prevented from owning guns because some people leave them loaded and unlocked in the living room.
The problem with what is called free speech is that it is whole something that is interpreted not an absolute. I cannot publically say "I will Kill X Person" if that person is in any kind of office, doesn't hat limit my free speech?
Yes, it does. The Supreme Court has ruled that in certain limited cases, the right to free speech can be limited when its exercise would prevent others from exercising their rights. Your example would be a direct threat to the other person's right to life, and so it's not Constitutionally protected. The possibility that a child who will be harmed by pornography being exposed to it in a public library is not such a direct threat, and therefore the First Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws to prevent it.
The simple fact is that filters, software or fingers on power buttons are needed
Actually, that's your opinion. Many people disagree. I'm not sure whether or not I do, but it's by no means a fact.
The simple fact is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to mandate filtering in public libraries. That is fact, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise on appeal.
We have police to enforce community standards,
No. We have police to protect the health and saftey of community members. Their purpose is not to enforce tyranny of the majority. If anything, the purpose of the government and of the police is to prevent such tyranny.
We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact is that filtering software does do this, by preventing access to sites that it shouldn't. If the library wishes to enforce a "no porn" policy (and that should be a matter for the library board to decide, not government on any level), then it should be enforced by oversight of the terminals, not by throwing poorly written software with a political agenda on the machines and washing their hands of any problems.
Yah, that's the problem with creating laws like this. It's extremely difficult to word the law so it's neither so overbroad as to allow those with the money to hire lawyers to evade liability they should have, nor is it so complex that it's impossible to apply in practice. For example, the "crime against another person" would mean that a criminal could still sue an organization such as a corporation or a church. Possibly if we restricted it to "commission of a felony offense against person or property" it might be workable. Of course, that's predicated on state and federal legislatures getting off their "let's make jaywalking a felony today!" kick...
That's one of my pet peeves. I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment providing that any Congressman who votes "aye" on three laws declared unconstitutional in whole or in part by the Supreme Court is immediately removed from office and barred from holding any elected office, appointed position, or government job. It would also be a better way of imposing term limits.:)
I'd also like to see an amendment requiring that any method of voting used by Congress create a record of the votes of Congressmen, and that that record be made available to the public. Finally, I'd like to see one that mandates all laws pass from the books after 10 years. After that, they'd have to be submitted, voted on, and signed into law again. Let's keep Congress busy by repassing older laws that deserve to stay on the books rather than by allowing them to invent new ways of invading our freedoms.
I think that if those three amendments were passed, it would probably eliminate the majority of abuses by Congress.
Hmmm... Anyone have any suggestions for starting a campaign to get the Constitution amended?
On the other hand, this guy is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves his day in court. Is there a clause in the law that says it's your own fault if you are injured (however injury is defined in the particular situation) during commission of a crime? There should be. It could be called the "Personal Responsibility Act
While I like the idea, it's not that simple. Say you're doing 60 in a 55, and the guy in the lane to your left loses control and sideswipes you. Or recall the early days of the labor movement, when striking was illegal in many areas, and company owners would hire people to assault strikers. Under your proposal, you'd have no legal recourse against the person who injured you. It also adds another loophole corporations can use to escape liability.
It's a nice idea, and I agree with it in theory, but we'd have to be very careful about implementation.
Well, since you're writing a reply to me, my suggestion would be to use that little box below the big text box that says "No Score +1 Bonus". That way, you'll be posting at 1 as well, instead of posting offtopic at 2, which people (deservedly) tend to come down hard on.
Should copyright terms be less than they are now? Perhaps, but not by much.
Why not? Why not return to the 14+14 that the founders of our nation thought was right? Why should copyright last until the creator's grandchildren are retired? Remember, the ultimate purpose of copyright is not to help the creator profit, it's to increase the amount of work in the public domain. Long copyright terms actually reduce the incentive to create new material, as the creator can sit back on his laurels and profit from his older work. In addition, people who would use copyrighted material as a springboard to create their own material cannot.
The rest of your post is completely irrelevant. The person you're responding to never claimed that people should be allowed to redistribute copyrighted material, and doing so would be a violation of the law under either the system the framers of the Constitution intended or the system we have now.
That said, this bill probably has as much respect for the tenth ammendment as the SSSCA.
Common complaint, but I disagree in this case. The question is one of ownership. Who owns my personal information? I find it hard to credit any claim that anyone except myself does. Now, what right do these companies have to use or to sell my property without my express consent? Given that the Internet is fundamentally interstate (international, actually, which really removes it from state jurisdiction), the commerce clause should give Congress the right to pass a bill preventing corporations from abusing the property of others.
So no, unlike the CPTDABCWTFA, I don't think this would fall afoul of the 10th Amendment.
They need a warrant to use it, and they can't use anything that's not in the warrant against you. Same rules as phone tapping. Why not have a big uproar about phone tapping? Granted, phone taps don't collect everything and sniff through it, but the end-result is the same.
Since the passage of the Patriot Act, they don't need a warrant anymore. They can do it whenever they want, to whoever they want, in complete secrecy. You'll never know if it is being abused, but that doesn't mean it won't be. Also, as you said, it does read every email that passes through the system. Carnivore is a black box that the FBI refuses to let anyone, even Congress, look through. What reason do you have to believe that it's discarding "interesting" emails from others?
That idiotic "if you're not doing anything illegal you don't have anything to worry about" argument has been refuted so many times in so many places that I'm not even going to bother.
And WHY would you give the FBI the benefit of the doubt? This is an organization that has been constantly abusing its authority since it was the BOI in the 1920s. And even while abusing the authority they're given, they expect us to give them more? Fuck that. When they show they deserve my trust, I'll give it to them. But it's up to them to prove they deserve it.
Yah, but of those who take it to the "next level", how many wouldn't have without being exposed to port? Doubt you'll find many. Though you'll probably find plenty of Ted Bundys using child/snuff porn as their excuse.
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Now, the author of a program is not bound by the GPL if he releases a program under it. Given a GPL'd program using, say, MSCVRT.DLL, the worst-case scenario is that no one other than the original author is allowed to distribute the program, and said author would need to include an additional clause allowing linking to non-GPL'd libraries.
You said: Now, the way Microsoft (and most other GPL-unfriendly companies) interpret this situation is that the viral nature of the GPL goes both ways -- if you link to a GPL library, you're now forced to GPL your app, and if you link a non-GPL library to your GPLed app, that library must now be GPLed.
Nope. There is no legal reason whatsoever to believe that the GPL could function in this way. In this case, the GPL'd app could not be redistributed under the GPL. Anyone who did redistribute it would be committing a copyright violation, unless the author of the GPL'd program added an exemption to allow linking to non-GPL'd libraries. The onus would fall on the redistributor; there is no possible way it could fall on Microsoft, for the very simple reason that Microsoft never accepted the GPL. The GPL applies only to a person who redistributes a GPL'd work or a derivative of a GPL'd work.
The only thing that could cause Microsoft applications to fall under the GPL would be if Microsoft themselves included or linked to GPL'd code. If someone else links a GPL'd application to Microsoft's code, that is said someone else's problem. And the problem they have is that they cannot legally distribute their application, as they cannot distribute the source to Microsoft's library. It does not affect Microsoft at all.
However, Microsoft is trying very hard to create the misunderstanding some third party using GPL'd software can cause your software to fall under the GPL. They know better, their lawyers know better, everyone knows better except the managers in other companies. Those managers are the targets for this campaign. It's standard Microsoft FUD tactics, nothing else.
This is why they use the term 'IPR Impairing Licenses' to refer to the (L)GPL. This is why they name the (L)GPL specifically, then list a number of evil conditions that the (L)GPL doesn't fall under. They're trying to create the misunderstanding that the (L)GPL does things it doesn't do. And, of course, they're laying the foundations for suing SAMBA out of existence. Which means that no, they're not defending themselves, and yes, they're being malicious.
Ted Bundy did not kill people because he was addicted to porn. Ted Bundy killed people because he was fucked in the head. Ted Bundy blamed porn because he wanted a convenient excuse for being a murdering psycho.
In a similar vein, pornography isn't responsible for your addiction any more than tobacco is responsible for mine. We have addictive personalities, and blaming porn for your problem does not help you solve your problems. The only thing that does is taking responsibility for your problem, realizing that it is your problem, and doing what needs to be done to resolve it.
Nope. That was Kevin Anderson. It's not bad enough that his characters were flat, his dialogue was stilted and trite, his plots were spectacularly unimaginative, and his humor was stale; some idiot decided to make him the "guy in charge" of the SW book universe for years. I'm guessing Lucas saw someone who could write on his level and put Anderson in charge. There were some other seriously lousy authors who wrote SW books, but most of them fortunately only wrote one. A few even failed to suck. Anderson wrote dozens, and then some even BIGGER idiot let him write the Dune prequels.
David Brin's a seriously talented author who's written a number of good books (along with a few crap books). Recommended: Startide Rising, The Uplift War, Earth (the plot kind of sucks, but the storytelling makes up for it), and the Otherness short story collection. He's worth checking out.
Another thing to remember is that David Brin is a troll.:)
He's a professional devil's advocate who loves taking contrarian positions just to make people actually engage their brains for a change. One of the reasons I like the guy. He ain't always right, but he does always make you think. Read "Otherness" sometime.
I doubt his real goal with the article was to get people to boycott Lucas or anything like that. He's not trying to convince you that he's right so much as throwing out stuff to make you think. His goal was to get people to think about the messages presented by SW and ST. More importantly, he wanted people to start thinking for themselves about democracy versus authoritarianism.
Addendum: For a license to violate the second half of the Microsoft license, it must violate clase 9 of the OSD. I'm not aware of any license that does, and if one does it's by definition not Open Source and I doubt the FSF considers it Free either.
but they refer to any language that has requirements like the GPL.
Except the GPL doesn't have the requirements they list. I explained this in my post, and many other people have pointed this out as well. Please read more carefully. The GPL, in fact, contains language specifically saying that it doesn't touch aggregate works, which is what the Microsoft language refers to.
RMS created the GPL specifically to be incompatible with a lot of existing licenses.
The GPL was not created specifically to be incompatible with any individual license. The GPL was not created specifically to allow the FSF to SLAPP an existing software project out of existence. The GPL does not contain knowingly dishonest language to further a FUD campaign.
Actually, the language prohibits the GPL and LGPL only, AFAIK. The language in Microsoft's license governs licenses that restrict software "distributed with software subject to such license". This would be licenses that require source from bundled software, and I'm not aware of any license with that requirement. The GPL doesn't require that, it requires source from derivative works. The Microsoft license doesn't mention that. The GPL is restricted because it's specifically mentioned. A non-GPL license with precisely the same terms as the GPL wouldn't be restricted by the Microsoft licensing agreement.
However, just copying and renaming the GPL wouldn't be enough, I think. My bet is that the judge would just consider that sophistry, look on it as an attempt to make him and his court look stupid, and nail you twice as hard. However, if you did a complete rewrite from scratch on the language, it might well stand up in court if you had a decent lawyer. However, Microsoft would amend their license terms in about 5 minutes to add your license.
Finally, RMS didn't create the GPL to be incompatible with the BSD license. The terms of the GPL were incompatible with the old BSD, people asked RMS about it, and they were answered. The Microsoft license, OTOH, is specifically aimed at the GPL, and at Samba in particular. Furthermore, the language is designed to make people misinterpret the GPL as you did, restricting things it doesn't. And the GPL never never contained language calling the BSD license a "bend over and let the proprietary software companies rape you" license, while Microsoft uses the terms of this license to spread even more anti-GPL FUD by calling it an "IPR Impairing" license.
Slashdot Mirror
More than that, if the judge doesn't respond carefully and exhaustively to Microsoft's appeal, it'll give Microsoft grounds to appeal the appeal, claiming that she didn't give their arguments fair consideration. Thus providing grounds to have her forced off the case, and judge number 4 appointed. As far as I can tell, Microsoft's overall strategy is to annoy the judges in their case enough that they'll make injudicious comments and let the Appellate Court have them kicked off the case. It's already worked with Posner and Jackson, after all.
No, this is the criminal case. There are and have been multiple civil antitrust cases brought against Microsoft as well, but this case is criminal.
USC Title 17 Ch. 1 Sec. 117.
Thus, you have the right to run a program you purchased without any contract with the software company. In order for a contract to be valid, both parties must recieve consideration from the contract. Since you receive no consideration from the EULA, it's not a valid contract. (In addition to the other reasons it should be invalid.)
But... but... we could have sooooo much fun with spammers before they remember to put it back. :)
So how'd my Congressmen vote on the DCMA? Votes by acclamation don't allow the accountability I'd like to see. I want to see absolute, individual accountability for a Congressman in regards to his votes, and I want this to be a matter of public record.
This Kind of thinking says that it is okay to keep loaded, unlocked guns in the living room.
Hardly. That kind of thinking says that everyone shouldn't be prevented from owning guns because some people leave them loaded and unlocked in the living room.
The problem with what is called free speech is that it is whole something that is interpreted not an absolute. I cannot publically say "I will Kill X Person" if that person is in any kind of office, doesn't hat limit my free speech?
Yes, it does. The Supreme Court has ruled that in certain limited cases, the right to free speech can be limited when its exercise would prevent others from exercising their rights. Your example would be a direct threat to the other person's right to life, and so it's not Constitutionally protected. The possibility that a child who will be harmed by pornography being exposed to it in a public library is not such a direct threat, and therefore the First Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws to prevent it.
The simple fact is that filters, software or fingers on power buttons are needed
Actually, that's your opinion. Many people disagree. I'm not sure whether or not I do, but it's by no means a fact.
The simple fact is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to mandate filtering in public libraries. That is fact, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise on appeal.
We have police to enforce community standards,
No. We have police to protect the health and saftey of community members. Their purpose is not to enforce tyranny of the majority. If anything, the purpose of the government and of the police is to prevent such tyranny.
We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact is that filtering software does do this, by preventing access to sites that it shouldn't. If the library wishes to enforce a "no porn" policy (and that should be a matter for the library board to decide, not government on any level), then it should be enforced by oversight of the terminals, not by throwing poorly written software with a political agenda on the machines and washing their hands of any problems.
I guess that's why there's jury nullification.
:)
Heh, I wish there was.
Yah, that's the problem with creating laws like this. It's extremely difficult to word the law so it's neither so overbroad as to allow those with the money to hire lawyers to evade liability they should have, nor is it so complex that it's impossible to apply in practice. For example, the "crime against another person" would mean that a criminal could still sue an organization such as a corporation or a church. Possibly if we restricted it to "commission of a felony offense against person or property" it might be workable. Of course, that's predicated on state and federal legislatures getting off their "let's make jaywalking a felony today!" kick...
That's one of my pet peeves. I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment providing that any Congressman who votes "aye" on three laws declared unconstitutional in whole or in part by the Supreme Court is immediately removed from office and barred from holding any elected office, appointed position, or government job. It would also be a better way of imposing term limits. :)
I'd also like to see an amendment requiring that any method of voting used by Congress create a record of the votes of Congressmen, and that that record be made available to the public. Finally, I'd like to see one that mandates all laws pass from the books after 10 years. After that, they'd have to be submitted, voted on, and signed into law again. Let's keep Congress busy by repassing older laws that deserve to stay on the books rather than by allowing them to invent new ways of invading our freedoms.
I think that if those three amendments were passed, it would probably eliminate the majority of abuses by Congress.
Hmmm... Anyone have any suggestions for starting a campaign to get the Constitution amended?
On the other hand, this guy is innocent until proven guilty, and deserves his day in court. Is there a clause in the law that says it's your own fault if you are injured (however injury is defined in the particular situation) during commission of a crime? There should be. It could be called the "Personal Responsibility Act
While I like the idea, it's not that simple. Say you're doing 60 in a 55, and the guy in the lane to your left loses control and sideswipes you. Or recall the early days of the labor movement, when striking was illegal in many areas, and company owners would hire people to assault strikers. Under your proposal, you'd have no legal recourse against the person who injured you. It also adds another loophole corporations can use to escape liability.
It's a nice idea, and I agree with it in theory, but we'd have to be very careful about implementation.
Well, since you're writing a reply to me, my suggestion would be to use that little box below the big text box that says "No Score +1 Bonus". That way, you'll be posting at 1 as well, instead of posting offtopic at 2, which people (deservedly) tend to come down hard on.
Should copyright terms be less than they are now? Perhaps, but not by much.
Why not? Why not return to the 14+14 that the founders of our nation thought was right? Why should copyright last until the creator's grandchildren are retired? Remember, the ultimate purpose of copyright is not to help the creator profit, it's to increase the amount of work in the public domain. Long copyright terms actually reduce the incentive to create new material, as the creator can sit back on his laurels and profit from his older work. In addition, people who would use copyrighted material as a springboard to create their own material cannot.
The rest of your post is completely irrelevant. The person you're responding to never claimed that people should be allowed to redistribute copyrighted material, and doing so would be a violation of the law under either the system the framers of the Constitution intended or the system we have now.
That said, this bill probably has as much respect for the tenth ammendment as the SSSCA.
Common complaint, but I disagree in this case. The question is one of ownership. Who owns my personal information? I find it hard to credit any claim that anyone except myself does. Now, what right do these companies have to use or to sell my property without my express consent? Given that the Internet is fundamentally interstate (international, actually, which really removes it from state jurisdiction), the commerce clause should give Congress the right to pass a bill preventing corporations from abusing the property of others.
So no, unlike the CPTDABCWTFA, I don't think this would fall afoul of the 10th Amendment.
They need a warrant to use it, and they can't use anything that's not in the warrant against you. Same rules as phone tapping. Why not have a big uproar about phone tapping? Granted, phone taps don't collect everything and sniff through it, but the end-result is the same.
Since the passage of the Patriot Act, they don't need a warrant anymore. They can do it whenever they want, to whoever they want, in complete secrecy. You'll never know if it is being abused, but that doesn't mean it won't be. Also, as you said, it does read every email that passes through the system. Carnivore is a black box that the FBI refuses to let anyone, even Congress, look through. What reason do you have to believe that it's discarding "interesting" emails from others?
That idiotic "if you're not doing anything illegal you don't have anything to worry about" argument has been refuted so many times in so many places that I'm not even going to bother.
And WHY would you give the FBI the benefit of the doubt? This is an organization that has been constantly abusing its authority since it was the BOI in the 1920s. And even while abusing the authority they're given, they expect us to give them more? Fuck that. When they show they deserve my trust, I'll give it to them. But it's up to them to prove they deserve it.
Yah, but of those who take it to the "next level", how many wouldn't have without being exposed to port? Doubt you'll find many. Though you'll probably find plenty of Ted Bundys using child/snuff porn as their excuse.
Now, the author of a program is not bound by the GPL if he releases a program under it. Given a GPL'd program using, say, MSCVRT.DLL, the worst-case scenario is that no one other than the original author is allowed to distribute the program, and said author would need to include an additional clause allowing linking to non-GPL'd libraries.
You said: Now, the way Microsoft (and most other GPL-unfriendly companies) interpret this situation is that the viral nature of the GPL goes both ways -- if you link to a GPL library, you're now forced to GPL your app, and if you link a non-GPL library to your GPLed app, that library must now be GPLed.
Nope. There is no legal reason whatsoever to believe that the GPL could function in this way. In this case, the GPL'd app could not be redistributed under the GPL. Anyone who did redistribute it would be committing a copyright violation, unless the author of the GPL'd program added an exemption to allow linking to non-GPL'd libraries. The onus would fall on the redistributor; there is no possible way it could fall on Microsoft, for the very simple reason that Microsoft never accepted the GPL. The GPL applies only to a person who redistributes a GPL'd work or a derivative of a GPL'd work.
The only thing that could cause Microsoft applications to fall under the GPL would be if Microsoft themselves included or linked to GPL'd code. If someone else links a GPL'd application to Microsoft's code, that is said someone else's problem. And the problem they have is that they cannot legally distribute their application, as they cannot distribute the source to Microsoft's library. It does not affect Microsoft at all.
However, Microsoft is trying very hard to create the misunderstanding some third party using GPL'd software can cause your software to fall under the GPL. They know better, their lawyers know better, everyone knows better except the managers in other companies. Those managers are the targets for this campaign. It's standard Microsoft FUD tactics, nothing else.
This is why they use the term 'IPR Impairing Licenses' to refer to the (L)GPL. This is why they name the (L)GPL specifically, then list a number of evil conditions that the (L)GPL doesn't fall under. They're trying to create the misunderstanding that the (L)GPL does things it doesn't do. And, of course, they're laying the foundations for suing SAMBA out of existence. Which means that no, they're not defending themselves, and yes, they're being malicious.
Ted Bundy did not kill people because he was addicted to porn. Ted Bundy killed people because he was fucked in the head. Ted Bundy blamed porn because he wanted a convenient excuse for being a murdering psycho.
In a similar vein, pornography isn't responsible for your addiction any more than tobacco is responsible for mine. We have addictive personalities, and blaming porn for your problem does not help you solve your problems. The only thing that does is taking responsibility for your problem, realizing that it is your problem, and doing what needs to be done to resolve it.
Nope. That was Kevin Anderson. It's not bad enough that his characters were flat, his dialogue was stilted and trite, his plots were spectacularly unimaginative, and his humor was stale; some idiot decided to make him the "guy in charge" of the SW book universe for years. I'm guessing Lucas saw someone who could write on his level and put Anderson in charge. There were some other seriously lousy authors who wrote SW books, but most of them fortunately only wrote one. A few even failed to suck. Anderson wrote dozens, and then some even BIGGER idiot let him write the Dune prequels.
David Brin's a seriously talented author who's written a number of good books (along with a few crap books). Recommended: Startide Rising, The Uplift War, Earth (the plot kind of sucks, but the storytelling makes up for it), and the Otherness short story collection. He's worth checking out.
Another thing to remember is that David Brin is a troll. :)
He's a professional devil's advocate who loves taking contrarian positions just to make people actually engage their brains for a change. One of the reasons I like the guy. He ain't always right, but he does always make you think. Read "Otherness" sometime.
I doubt his real goal with the article was to get people to boycott Lucas or anything like that. He's not trying to convince you that he's right so much as throwing out stuff to make you think. His goal was to get people to think about the messages presented by SW and ST. More importantly, he wanted people to start thinking for themselves about democracy versus authoritarianism.
I'd say he was successful.
Addendum: For a license to violate the second half of the Microsoft license, it must violate clase 9 of the OSD. I'm not aware of any license that does, and if one does it's by definition not Open Source and I doubt the FSF considers it Free either.
but they refer to any language that has requirements like the GPL.
Except the GPL doesn't have the requirements they list. I explained this in my post, and many other people have pointed this out as well. Please read more carefully. The GPL, in fact, contains language specifically saying that it doesn't touch aggregate works, which is what the Microsoft language refers to.
RMS created the GPL specifically to be incompatible with a lot of existing licenses.
The GPL was not created specifically to be incompatible with any individual license. The GPL was not created specifically to allow the FSF to SLAPP an existing software project out of existence. The GPL does not contain knowingly dishonest language to further a FUD campaign.
Actually, the language prohibits the GPL and LGPL only, AFAIK. The language in Microsoft's license governs licenses that restrict software "distributed with software subject to such license". This would be licenses that require source from bundled software, and I'm not aware of any license with that requirement. The GPL doesn't require that, it requires source from derivative works. The Microsoft license doesn't mention that. The GPL is restricted because it's specifically mentioned. A non-GPL license with precisely the same terms as the GPL wouldn't be restricted by the Microsoft licensing agreement.
However, just copying and renaming the GPL wouldn't be enough, I think. My bet is that the judge would just consider that sophistry, look on it as an attempt to make him and his court look stupid, and nail you twice as hard. However, if you did a complete rewrite from scratch on the language, it might well stand up in court if you had a decent lawyer. However, Microsoft would amend their license terms in about 5 minutes to add your license.
Finally, RMS didn't create the GPL to be incompatible with the BSD license. The terms of the GPL were incompatible with the old BSD, people asked RMS about it, and they were answered. The Microsoft license, OTOH, is specifically aimed at the GPL, and at Samba in particular. Furthermore, the language is designed to make people misinterpret the GPL as you did, restricting things it doesn't. And the GPL never never contained language calling the BSD license a "bend over and let the proprietary software companies rape you" license, while Microsoft uses the terms of this license to spread even more anti-GPL FUD by calling it an "IPR Impairing" license.
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Almost done...
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheeeeeeeee....
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheeee.........
Just doing a bit of modproofing, since some dickless wonder's getting his jollies out of modding my week-old Score: 1 posts as Overrated.
Wheeeeee....