I don't think it is particularly likely that anyone could successfully revoke the gpl on code that they had distributed, but you can't look to the FSF for that determination (only for their opinion).
It's entirely unlikely because the license itself explicitly forbids it.
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Once the rights have been granted to copy, distribute and modify the program any attempt to revoke those rights is imposing further restrictions, which as the quoted section says is forbidden.
lawyers/judges are often memebers of many many organisations, it doesn't mean they have the same rabid bias of an apple fanboy of/.
While they may be members of many organizations, they are not usually members of the board of directors of these groups. The fact that you can't see anything wrong with a judge who is on the board of directors of a pro-copyright lobby group that represents the interests of those who brought the lawsuit is amazing.
This leads us to the only part of the GPL that I think is in any way legally questionable (IANAL). I'm not sure it is entirely legally clear if the copyright holder is allowed to revoke the GPL licensing terms or not, no matter what is said in the license.
No, they can't. The FSF has already stated that if the public has had the right to use the program under the GPL that it can't be revoked.
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
So if Oracle are able to somehow prevent the use of this code, either due to terms of employment of the pricinple devs or by claiming ownership of the code and rescinding the free license, it'll make all these licenses worthless. Oracle has deep pockets. Individual developers don't.
Unless those principle devs are still working at Oracle they can't do the former, and the latter is only possible on future versions of MySQL so one can fork the last free version of the software and Oracle can't do a damn thing about it.
Occam's Razor is that the simplest answer is true,
Sorry, but no. Occam's Razor says that the explanation of a phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible. In no way does this translate to "the simplest answer is true" because in many cases the simplest answer isn't true.
Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.
Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?
It also seems quite ironic that they have a fair use right to the full work for the goal in enforcing that no one else can reuse even the smallest snippet.
Actually that would be "for the goal in enforcing that no one else can reuse even the smallest snippet without proper attribution".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it is particularly likely that anyone could successfully revoke the gpl on code that they had distributed, but you can't look to the FSF for that determination (only for their opinion).
It's entirely unlikely because the license itself explicitly forbids it.
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Once the rights have been granted to copy, distribute and modify the program any attempt to revoke those rights is imposing further restrictions, which as the quoted section says is forbidden.
lawyers/judges are often memebers of many many organisations, it doesn't mean they have the same rabid bias of an apple fanboy of /.
While they may be members of many organizations, they are not usually members of the board of directors of these groups. The fact that you can't see anything wrong with a judge who is on the board of directors of a pro-copyright lobby group that represents the interests of those who brought the lawsuit is amazing.
This leads us to the only part of the GPL that I think is in any way legally questionable (IANAL). I'm not sure it is entirely legally clear if the copyright holder is allowed to revoke the GPL licensing terms or not, no matter what is said in the license.
No, they can't. The FSF has already stated that if the public has had the right to use the program under the GPL that it can't be revoked.
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty
So if Oracle are able to somehow prevent the use of this code, either due to terms of employment of the pricinple devs or by claiming ownership of the code and rescinding the free license, it'll make all these licenses worthless. Oracle has deep pockets. Individual developers don't.
Unless those principle devs are still working at Oracle they can't do the former, and the latter is only possible on future versions of MySQL so one can fork the last free version of the software and Oracle can't do a damn thing about it.
no one who uses this site uses the alexa spyware tool
Fix'd for accuracy.
Occam's Razor is that the simplest answer is true,
Sorry, but no. Occam's Razor says that the explanation of a phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible. In no way does this translate to "the simplest answer is true" because in many cases the simplest answer isn't true.
And I will remind you that the DMCA was cosponsored in both houses by a Republican and very few of them voted against it.
Shouldn't publicly funded research flow to the benefit of ALL of the public?
Sure, but allowing a bunch of multinationals to make billions of the fruits of public research? No.
No shit... It's almost as if that troll post specifically misspells that word on purpose...
Since when did Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc fund the CSIRO?
Are international companies violating the patents held by publicly funded research companies based in the US? If so, I don't see the parallel.
Why is this news again??
kdawson didn't have any Microsoft FUD articles to post today so timothy is picking up the slack.
Or maybe companies should stop trying to think they can steal someone else's research and profit from it.
Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.
Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?
Posted Anonymously for a reason.
Fear of a chair to the head?
We're fucked economically, and have no manufacturing base to speak of.
It's amazing that with no manufacturing base to speak of that we are the largest manufacturer in the world.
Yes, but that will do you no good if your CD is magnetized! You need to rush out and buy a CD demagnetizer to get the full audio experience!
http://www.gcaudio.com/cgi-bin/store/showProduct.cgi?id=190
It also seems quite ironic that they have a fair use right to the full work for the goal in enforcing that no one else can reuse even the smallest snippet.
Actually that would be "for the goal in enforcing that no one else can reuse even the smallest snippet without proper attribution".
No it's just slashdot fucked up the links.
http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/dragonflybsd
http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/freebsd
http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/netbsd
Because an HR drone will discard your resume because you don't have a degree?
Why?
too lazy to rtfa, but the numbers in the summary add up to 459, not "over a [sic] 1000"
Probably because the numbers in the article weren't an exhaustive list of all participants.
Before he can write any code he needs you to send him a money advance so he can get his computer and coding books out of holding.
Were the BSDs not involved in GSoC this year?
Did you even look at the list?
DragonflyBSD: http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/dragonflybsd/
FreeBSD: http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/freebsd/
NetBSD: http://socghop.appspot.com/org/home/google/gsoc2009/netbsd/
epresent more than a 5 million dollar investment this summer, which is not petty cash or an insignificant investment for *any* organization.
It is a petty amount when your total cash on hand is 17 billion dollars.