But you are completely ignoring the possibility that an employee of SCO can act outside of SCO's interest. That employee is *NOT* the copyright holder. SCO is, and if they say it was unauthorized, it is.
Besides, what they are alleging is that IBM released code that belonged to SCO under the GPL. That is a completely different bag of nuts IMO. IBM would not be the copyright holder, neither would any of their employees be. They do not have the right to GPL work which is not theirs.
Your point hinges on the fact SCO has been distributing the Linux kernel, and therefore even though their code was in there, if they did not want it released they should have checked first. There are several problems with that model. First off, if it were true it would again create a scenario in which people could sneak work into the kernel that was not theirs and essentially use the GPL to steal. Contrary to popular/. belief, the GPL is not about stealing or tricking companies into giving things away. It is firmly grounded in copyright law, which was Stallman's greatest achievement (besides getting people to actually use emacs;)).
If SCO had decided as a company to put these things into the kernel and release under GPL, you would be correct. Their allegation is that they did no such thing. If it is true, then the code was GPLed by someone who is *not* the copyright holder, and therefore the license for that code is invalid.
It is not reasonable to expect a company who is distributing Linux to check every bit of the code in a distribution for every kind of possible infringement. This is why we have an adversarial legal system. The person or entity whose rights are infringed can bring up violations as they occurr, and the GPL provides for such cases by saying infringing code must be removed if it is not agreed by the copyright holder that it be GPLed. In this case SCO is the copyright holder, and they are alleging that someone at IBM put code into Linux without their knowlege which turns out to be code to which they (and not IBM) have rights.
I would also think that if an employee of IBM were to submit IBM code without management approval, this would be an illegal release and IBM woudl be within their rights to demand recall of that code, since the employee is not the copyright holder and did not act on behalf of the copyright holder.
I am so glad the slashbots are not lawyers, because I think they would do even worse than the ones we have. If the GPL really meant what people are saying it means (and legally it does not) this case would be the end of Linux, because no one could distribute Linux without performing an absolutely impossible task (knowing all the code of all the companies in all the world by heart and checking for it every time) and no one could allow their employees to ever contribute to Linux for fear they would sneak code out the door as you are suggesting they should.
Re:Position Paper still needs work...
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
It's a wonderful overview of the UNIX world, but it also underscores complacency among UNIX hackers for AT&T's license. I'm not sure the judge in the SCO v/s IBM case will look kindly on the "everybody did it so it was okay" attitude toward sharing code. Isn't that just the thing SCO is talking about?
I think you are forgetting that "everyone" includes AT&T and SCO. Apparently at least AT&T was shown to have appropriated BSD code into its products. So it might well be a pot and kettle case...
Re:Saw this on Google News a while back
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
I don't think anyone (in their right mind) is suggesting that Linux replace any of the mainframe OSes
Trade Secrets are not trade secrets if they are revealed. BUt if the revealer is breaking a contract, they are still liable for their actions. Your NDA example is also misleading. The NDA does not apply if it is broken? That would render them useless. The whole point of an NDA is that it provides remedies if it is broken. Therefore it certainly still applies.
Obviously they could prosecute the person who incorporated their code illegally into a release that they didn't authorize, but once they start distribution under a license, the people who download that code should certainly have the right to use that code as indicated by the code's license.
There seem to be a lot of people arguing this angle here, and I should not be surprised, as this is/. after all, but it really demonstrates a serious lack of understanding both of copyrights and the nature of these licenses.
Firstly, the only way you can legally release code under *any* license is to be the copyright holder. If I steal code from someone else, and do not have the copyright, then include it in a GPL project and the copyright holder finds out, they have every right to sue, and the GPL actually becomes invalid for that software because the copyright ducks are not in a row.
If I am the copyright holder and I release code under the GPL, then of course I can release code under a different license later, but I cannot take back the original license. This is essentially what happened to ssh and is why the OpenSSH project was able to be jump started. The original SSH was released under a fairly open license, and though subsequent versions were proprietary, the old version could be used and built upon.
In the case of an employee things are a bit stickier since essentially an employee represents the company they work for, who is the copyright holder. IANAL, but AIUI, if an employee acts without authorization and/or against the company's interest, they can be said not to truly represent the company in their actions and therefore are personally responsible (if I steal a printer from work, I cannot say that as a representative of the company this makes the company responsible).
Besides employees likewise sign IP agreements which specifically cover this sort of thing. Everything they do for the company is (c) TheirCompany and they are forbidden to divulge company secrets, thus creating a blanket injunction which is meant to cover just this sort of eventuality.
So in short, no, having someone "sneak in" code under a Free Software license does not make it magically legal as the basis for release (ownership of copyright) is not met in such cases. And there is precedent for such a case, ironically probably brought on by the same individuals (as the execs who were with Novell when it sued UCB for "stealing Unix code" are now with SCO).
Re:About as viral as accidentally giving away secr
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
But SCO's argument is (or was) that Un*x itself is their `IP'. They can't really argue they didn't know Linux was Un*x-based.
BUt Linux is not Unix based. Or rather it is supposed not to be. It is a kernel which loosely conforms to as much of POSIX as possible with a userland which for the most part was based on the GNU tools (GNU's Not Unix!) and BSD (also not UNIX.
Nah, as long as they donate that $50 Billion they have burning a hole in their pocket to Dick Cheney under the "fund to rebuild Iraq and liberate the hell out of random countries" they should be fine with whatever they want to do.
Also, as a side-note, it's worth pointing out that the copyright holder isn't always the artist. When a multi-billion dollar corporation offers to spend the money to turn "that cute girl on that Disney show" into "Britney Spears, international superstar and house-hold name", you can bet they're going to push to get the copyright transferred to them.
Which is exactly one of my biggest gripes about the RIAA and its members. Their press releases paint a picture of artists toiling to create these works which you are stealing (thus causing the poor poor artists to starve). The reality is the poor poor artist was toiling away and starving anyway specifically because the RIAA stole his/her work, and are now trying to steal from you, too and make you feel bad about working against them.
Be careful then. Fall below a 3.5 GPA and it's an instant trip to infantry duty for you, son!
Re:America's Army
on
Gentoo Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
America's Army is only propaganda in disguise if you are a complete illiterate and blind as well. For one thing, it is distributed at the Army Recruitment Center. That should be clue #1. Clue number 2 should be the fact that with the possible exception of this anomalous Linux Release, it has always been released with the announcement that this game is made by the US Army for the purpose of portraying life in the US Army to would-be recruits.
Honestly I think it is a good idea in theory, and the talking heads on CNN had claimed it was meant to dispel some of the myths about the army and the "glory of combat." If it is without blood, I would imagine it is designed with the specific intention of not arousing the ire of the various parent groups who would like to get rid of all violent games.
There is no real way to get the feel of the horror of war without experiencing it for yourself. And anyway, I don't know why people who want to play Doom 3 are pissed the Army made a game they can get free as in beer. As far as I am concerned, I will continue to play my ultraviolent games and they can have theirs if they like.
First off, it was a joke. I appreciate your attempt to alleviate the/. interpretation of the DMCA, however.
Second off, perhaps you can tell me how the RIAA knows whose copyrights apply to the files on grandparent's hard drive without first looking at the files? After all, in the case of the files in the article the copyright would have been held by the University (or perhaps the professor in question).
Thirdly, contrary to what the RIAA would have you believe, they do *not* represent every artist on earth, nor even every label. They represent the larger labels, yes, and probably most US labels, but not all.
Fourth, they do *not* necessarily have permission even from every label under their umbrella to execute every investigation, and certainly do not have permission from many artists, who have come out and spoken against the RIAA. They have Madonna, Lars Ulrich, and IIRC Dr Dre's permission, but even then it's not like they go and say "Hey Brittany do you think it is okay if I crack petecarlson's computer?"
The RIAA is an barely legal (if that) organization using essentially terrorist/mafia tactics and FUD to overstep any kind of boundary. Unfortunately the government has allowed them to get away with it so far and it seems there are no lawyers with the cojones to go toe to toe with theirs presently. They do not represent every copyright holder (though they wish they did, so they could screw them, too) and they are out of bounds in their attempt to attack anyone who has anything that might be copyrighted material (regardless of who truly owns the copyright).
Lets also not forget the questionable practice of routinely over booking a flight, which causes paying customers to be bumped.
They have been doing that forever. Ditto the previous posters' complaint about seizing property and never returning it. In fact they have auction houses which auction off "lost" luggage. A recent expose' of the practice revealed some pretty choice items for sale (*very* expensive jewelry, electronics, designer clothes, etc)...
I also wrote to EMI and to News Limited (in response to an earlier story they ran) about my troubles, but neither cared (possibly because I hadn't purchased the CDs in question, they were radio use only)
So EMI does not care if radio stations can't play their songs? Excellent!:)
Feel lucky the software did not break your computer. The worst problem with all copy protection is it is not very well thought out, ever. Maybe because only idiots want to work on it.
Lars forgot that the reason his band was based on a communityof fans that traded bootleg copies of their music from the garage days.
Actually he did not forget. And in the interview he gave slashdot, he even admitted that he, a millionaire rock star, still bootlegs tapes. His issue with Napster was apparently control ( he felt he should get to decide if Metallica's songs were there or not, and Napster was designed such that you really could not control content) and a need to be an asshole.
If we redefine theft as the deprivation of potential wealth, then suddenly we have a world where you are a thief if you choose to walk down a road other than the one where a hotdog vendor is waiting for customers.
Yes, well, we already have that going on right now, don't we? As in calling people who do not view pop-up ads thieves, for example...
None of these sites make money for publishing lyrics. They are all money holes, essentially. They run on donations, advertising, and the money earned by the contributors elsewhere.
There are books with music and lyrics to a good many songs, but very often they are badly written, and it is hard to find any more than a very small selection of the most popular bands, if they have deigned to publish one. They often cost as much as the CD whose songs they contain.
If all you are looking for is lyrics, there is no reason in my mind you should not be able to get that much on the internet, for free. Many bands do publish their lyrics on their site, but most do not publish the real lyrics to their songs (like some other posters have pointed out, the misheard lyrics or amateur fans' renditions are often used).
The whole situation is rather frustrating, honestly.
Funnily enough, as it turns out I often hear songs on the radio for which I might want to have the cd. Unfortunately it is practically impossible to find out what song/artist is being played on the radio. It is trivial to get such information about downloaded MP3s. Likewise, I will often search lyric sites (or google) for lyrics I remember from a song in order to figure out what I was listening to, then I know what CD to buy.
These people are just as wacked as the people that think you should have to pay a dollar every time you dare to hum a song someone else wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
But you are completely ignoring the possibility that an employee of SCO can act outside of SCO's interest. That employee is *NOT* the copyright holder. SCO is, and if they say it was unauthorized, it is.
Besides, what they are alleging is that IBM released code that belonged to SCO under the GPL. That is a completely different bag of nuts IMO. IBM would not be the copyright holder, neither would any of their employees be. They do not have the right to GPL work which is not theirs.
Your point hinges on the fact SCO has been distributing the Linux kernel, and therefore even though their code was in there, if they did not want it released they should have checked first. There are several problems with that model. First off, if it were true it would again create a scenario in which people could sneak work into the kernel that was not theirs and essentially use the GPL to steal. Contrary to popular /. belief, the GPL is not about stealing or tricking companies into giving things away. It is firmly grounded in copyright law, which was Stallman's greatest achievement (besides getting people to actually use emacs ;)).
If SCO had decided as a company to put these things into the kernel and release under GPL, you would be correct. Their allegation is that they did no such thing. If it is true, then the code was GPLed by someone who is *not* the copyright holder, and therefore the license for that code is invalid.
It is not reasonable to expect a company who is distributing Linux to check every bit of the code in a distribution for every kind of possible infringement. This is why we have an adversarial legal system. The person or entity whose rights are infringed can bring up violations as they occurr, and the GPL provides for such cases by saying infringing code must be removed if it is not agreed by the copyright holder that it be GPLed. In this case SCO is the copyright holder, and they are alleging that someone at IBM put code into Linux without their knowlege which turns out to be code to which they (and not IBM) have rights.
I would also think that if an employee of IBM were to submit IBM code without management approval, this would be an illegal release and IBM woudl be within their rights to demand recall of that code, since the employee is not the copyright holder and did not act on behalf of the copyright holder.
I am so glad the slashbots are not lawyers, because I think they would do even worse than the ones we have. If the GPL really meant what people are saying it means (and legally it does not) this case would be the end of Linux, because no one could distribute Linux without performing an absolutely impossible task (knowing all the code of all the companies in all the world by heart and checking for it every time) and no one could allow their employees to ever contribute to Linux for fear they would sneak code out the door as you are suggesting they should.
It's a wonderful overview of the UNIX world, but it also underscores complacency among UNIX hackers for AT&T's license. I'm not sure the judge in the SCO v/s IBM case will look kindly on the "everybody did it so it was okay" attitude toward sharing code. Isn't that just the thing SCO is talking about?
I think you are forgetting that "everyone" includes AT&T and SCO. Apparently at least AT&T was shown to have appropriated BSD code into its products. So it might well be a pot and kettle case...
I don't think anyone (in their right mind) is suggesting that Linux replace any of the mainframe OSes
Apparently IBM and the NYSE are...
Trade Secrets are not trade secrets if they are revealed. BUt if the revealer is breaking a contract, they are still liable for their actions. Your NDA example is also misleading. The NDA does not apply if it is broken? That would render them useless. The whole point of an NDA is that it provides remedies if it is broken. Therefore it certainly still applies.
Obviously they could prosecute the person who incorporated their code illegally into a release that they didn't authorize, but once they start distribution under a license, the people who download that code should certainly have the right to use that code as indicated by the code's license.
There seem to be a lot of people arguing this angle here, and I should not be surprised, as this is /. after all, but it really demonstrates a serious lack of understanding both of copyrights and the nature of these licenses.
Firstly, the only way you can legally release code under *any* license is to be the copyright holder. If I steal code from someone else, and do not have the copyright, then include it in a GPL project and the copyright holder finds out, they have every right to sue, and the GPL actually becomes invalid for that software because the copyright ducks are not in a row.
If I am the copyright holder and I release code under the GPL, then of course I can release code under a different license later, but I cannot take back the original license. This is essentially what happened to ssh and is why the OpenSSH project was able to be jump started. The original SSH was released under a fairly open license, and though subsequent versions were proprietary, the old version could be used and built upon.
In the case of an employee things are a bit stickier since essentially an employee represents the company they work for, who is the copyright holder. IANAL, but AIUI, if an employee acts without authorization and/or against the company's interest, they can be said not to truly represent the company in their actions and therefore are personally responsible (if I steal a printer from work, I cannot say that as a representative of the company this makes the company responsible).
Besides employees likewise sign IP agreements which specifically cover this sort of thing. Everything they do for the company is (c) TheirCompany and they are forbidden to divulge company secrets, thus creating a blanket injunction which is meant to cover just this sort of eventuality.
So in short, no, having someone "sneak in" code under a Free Software license does not make it magically legal as the basis for release (ownership of copyright) is not met in such cases. And there is precedent for such a case, ironically probably brought on by the same individuals (as the execs who were with Novell when it sued UCB for "stealing Unix code" are now with SCO).
But SCO's argument is (or was) that Un*x itself is their `IP'. They can't really argue they didn't know Linux was Un*x-based.
BUt Linux is not Unix based. Or rather it is supposed not to be. It is a kernel which loosely conforms to as much of POSIX as possible with a userland which for the most part was based on the GNU tools (GNU's Not Unix!) and BSD (also not UNIX.
Nah, as long as they donate that $50 Billion they have burning a hole in their pocket to Dick Cheney under the "fund to rebuild Iraq and liberate the hell out of random countries" they should be fine with whatever they want to do.
There's lots of infinging code! Check out these gems! :)
int a;
return 0;
for ( i=0; i
Get those lawyer-doggies rollin!
Also, as a side-note, it's worth pointing out that the copyright holder isn't always the artist. When a multi-billion dollar corporation offers to spend the money to turn "that cute girl on that Disney show" into "Britney Spears, international superstar and house-hold name", you can bet they're going to push to get the copyright transferred to them.
Which is exactly one of my biggest gripes about the RIAA and its members. Their press releases paint a picture of artists toiling to create these works which you are stealing (thus causing the poor poor artists to starve). The reality is the poor poor artist was toiling away and starving anyway specifically because the RIAA stole his/her work, and are now trying to steal from you, too and make you feel bad about working against them.
Be careful then. Fall below a 3.5 GPA and it's an instant trip to infantry duty for you, son!
America's Army is only propaganda in disguise if you are a complete illiterate and blind as well. For one thing, it is distributed at the Army Recruitment Center. That should be clue #1. Clue number 2 should be the fact that with the possible exception of this anomalous Linux Release, it has always been released with the announcement that this game is made by the US Army for the purpose of portraying life in the US Army to would-be recruits.
Honestly I think it is a good idea in theory, and the talking heads on CNN had claimed it was meant to dispel some of the myths about the army and the "glory of combat." If it is without blood, I would imagine it is designed with the specific intention of not arousing the ire of the various parent groups who would like to get rid of all violent games.
There is no real way to get the feel of the horror of war without experiencing it for yourself. And anyway, I don't know why people who want to play Doom 3 are pissed the Army made a game they can get free as in beer. As far as I am concerned, I will continue to play my ultraviolent games and they can have theirs if they like.
al jazeera and the al qaeda hacked sites
Catholic:Mormon::UNIX:Windows XP
Those poor mormons, getting associated with Windows XP.. How dare you! :)
You may as well have called them stupid satan-worshippers. Then again, perhaps that would have been better. ;)
Neither is the story of Christ. It is a very different kind of story and a very different kind of message.
First off, it was a joke. I appreciate your attempt to alleviate the /. interpretation of the DMCA, however.
Second off, perhaps you can tell me how the RIAA knows whose copyrights apply to the files on grandparent's hard drive without first looking at the files? After all, in the case of the files in the article the copyright would have been held by the University (or perhaps the professor in question).
Thirdly, contrary to what the RIAA would have you believe, they do *not* represent every artist on earth, nor even every label. They represent the larger labels, yes, and probably most US labels, but not all.
Fourth, they do *not* necessarily have permission even from every label under their umbrella to execute every investigation, and certainly do not have permission from many artists, who have come out and spoken against the RIAA. They have Madonna, Lars Ulrich, and IIRC Dr Dre's permission, but even then it's not like they go and say "Hey Brittany do you think it is okay if I crack petecarlson's computer?"
The RIAA is an barely legal (if that) organization using essentially terrorist/mafia tactics and FUD to overstep any kind of boundary. Unfortunately the government has allowed them to get away with it so far and it seems there are no lawyers with the cojones to go toe to toe with theirs presently. They do not represent every copyright holder (though they wish they did, so they could screw them, too) and they are out of bounds in their attempt to attack anyone who has anything that might be copyrighted material (regardless of who truly owns the copyright).
=Waves Hand= These aren't the deacons you are looking for.
=Waves Hand= Move Along.
;)
Lets also not forget the questionable practice of routinely over booking a flight, which causes paying customers to be bumped.
They have been doing that forever. Ditto the previous posters' complaint about seizing property and never returning it. In fact they have auction houses which auction off "lost" luggage. A recent expose' of the practice revealed some pretty choice items for sale (*very* expensive jewelry, electronics, designer clothes, etc)...
I also wrote to EMI and to News Limited (in response to an earlier story they ran) about my troubles, but neither cared (possibly because I hadn't purchased the CDs in question, they were radio use only)
So EMI does not care if radio stations can't play their songs? Excellent! :)
Feel lucky the software did not break your computer. The worst problem with all copy protection is it is not very well thought out, ever. Maybe because only idiots want to work on it.
Lars forgot that the reason his band was based on a communityof fans that traded bootleg copies of their music from the garage days.
Actually he did not forget. And in the interview he gave slashdot, he even admitted that he, a millionaire rock star, still bootlegs tapes. His issue with Napster was apparently control ( he felt he should get to decide if Metallica's songs were there or not, and Napster was designed such that you really could not control content) and a need to be an asshole.
If we redefine theft as the deprivation of potential wealth, then suddenly we have a world where you are a thief if you choose to walk down a road other than the one where a hotdog vendor is waiting for customers.
Yes, well, we already have that going on right now, don't we? As in calling people who do not view pop-up ads thieves, for example...
None of these sites make money for publishing lyrics. They are all money holes, essentially. They run on donations, advertising, and the money earned by the contributors elsewhere.
There are books with music and lyrics to a good many songs, but very often they are badly written, and it is hard to find any more than a very small selection of the most popular bands, if they have deigned to publish one. They often cost as much as the CD whose songs they contain.
If all you are looking for is lyrics, there is no reason in my mind you should not be able to get that much on the internet, for free. Many bands do publish their lyrics on their site, but most do not publish the real lyrics to their songs (like some other posters have pointed out, the misheard lyrics or amateur fans' renditions are often used).
The whole situation is rather frustrating, honestly.
Funnily enough, as it turns out I often hear songs on the radio for which I might want to have the cd. Unfortunately it is practically impossible to find out what song/artist is being played on the radio. It is trivial to get such information about downloaded MP3s. Likewise, I will often search lyric sites (or google) for lyrics I remember from a song in order to figure out what I was listening to, then I know what CD to buy.
These people are just as wacked as the people that think you should have to pay a dollar every time you dare to hum a song someone else wrote.
Since this is the US, the answer is no. A defendant has a constitutional right to face his/her accuser in court.
There are already ISPs claiming anywhere from 40-50% (AOL and MSN) to 80% of their current email traffic is spam.