...way back in the day when I swapped floppies on my 128k ram macintosh for hours on end. I became the floppy swapping machine, and I had a killer one-hand technique.
In the USA , commercial gain is not a factor in judging the seriousness of a copyright.
The U.S. Copyright Act takes an infringer's commercial gain into consideration when determining whether the infringement is punishible as a criminal act.
The GPL can be successfully contested in a court of law. I can personally think of a few hundred arguments that would defeat its enforceability. I'm sure any lawyer worth $200+/hour can too.
Apple lost a law suit that contended that all GUI's with certain functional characteristics were proprietary. Most of the other GUI lawsuits were based on similar claims.
However, the similarity of Aqua themes to Aqua is MUCH greater than the similarity of Mac OS to Windows.
Do your homework. You are looking for case law dealing with trade dress infringement.
You are correct that you can place restrictions on a grant of a license of a copyright up to the limits of the law and public interest.
My point is that the GPL is a very poorly drafted document that does not accomplish any of what it sets out to do. Just read it. The first paragraph (para. 0) does not make any sense whatsoever. Since that paragraph defines the scope of the terms and conditions, the document is crippled before it can even start the race. I've never read an agreement as redundant and inarticulate and misguided as the GPL. Well, that's a bit hyperbolic, but IAAL and I do this for a living. The GPL is going to fail in its purpose once a judge gets to rule on it.
If I say in an interview "I think it is likely Ektanoor is a criminal" then I've commited libel unless I can make a case for that.
Libel is disparagement of a person's reputation with commercial consequences. You can't libel a company, only individuals. I think what this whole stupid thread is trying to understand is the notion of trademark tarnishment. Strike 1.
Infringing a patent is a criminal act.
Only under exceptional circumstances will an intellectual property violation be a crime. For instance, willful copyright infringement for commercial gain (e.g., bootlegging). Strike 2.
Ok. I concede that there is a philosophical school of thought based on the (IMO, naive) notion that if I scratch backs, mine will be scratched too.
That does not address the mechanical ineptitudes that cripple the document known as the GPL. It will take a better agreement to effectuate the aspirations of that philosophy.
Do me a favor. Read Paragraph 0 of the GPL, and tell me you understand what the scope of its terms are. I guarantee you that if I ask 9 other people the same question, I will have 10 unique and useless answers. The scope of the GPL is vague and poorly drafted. The document will not hold water. This dog won't hunt, people. This horse refuses to run. What more can I tell you.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
You said: The exact moral and legal purpose of the GPL is to make sure that you have absolutely no protection against competitors using all your secrets, because Sharing Is Good.
So, the incentive for disclosure is a desire to be good? The GPL is a philosophical document that will suffer the fate of all philosophies: it will bow down to the reality that life is "nasty, brutish and short." Ergo, the patent system.
Ever tried to call Verizon? I guarantee that they will get you to slam your phone against the wall in digust and hatred and make you throw yourself out of a tall building in the face of the futility of attempting to make any resemblance of an intelligent or meaningful contact with their mindless minions of overpaid unionist social leech drones.
My point is that if everybody calls the 800 number, everyone will commit suicide to escape the horrific determinist nightmare that is the Verizon phone tree.
As a long time dreamcaster, I played SSX and thought, remember that POS game for DC called Rippin Riders that no one bought? Apparently it's now the best PS2 launch title. SSX == sux.
Microsoft cannot stop anyone from describing a bug in language other than the language copyrighted by Microsoft.
Therefore, if I read M$'s bus report, and then re-phrase, they shouldn't have any rights against me except perhaps if I have misstated the problem in a way that commercially harms them.
Yes. You have been rendered delusional and are under the misimpression that those large faces on billboards and buses are actually looking at you. Ads don't give a fuck about your privacy or Taco's either. He's confusing ads for advertisers.
I wouldn't exactly call a license agreement that doesn't hold water low maintenance. IAAL, and I can tell you that if anyone ever sued based on the GPL, you'd find out just how low maintenance that POS really is. Keep on dreamin', though.
So what if sys admin, purchasing and procurement are difficult tasks? That's no excuse for violating a software license agreement that they SHOULD have been able to read and understand. They got sloppy and they paid for it. Next time they should arm themselves with the requisite knowledge that keeps these things from happening. Apologists like you can't survive in the cold, hard, cruel world of law and business.
The audit right was reserved by Microsoft in the damn EULA's for the software that VA beach installed. VA Beach was contractually bound to let M$ perform the audit. Their only defense would be that the audit right was an adhesionary term (not a bad argument against a monopolist.)
Now, please allow me to rant. When I see a thread with such a thorough misunderstanding of how the law work (and license agreements in particular), I get so annoyed because/.er's spend so damn much time griping and pontificating about these topics. It is to my chagrin that I have to endure the arduous, ambivalent and agonizing education of tunnel visionary, cubicle drone "engineers" in matters of the law.
I have a suggestion for those of you who moan about free software vs. open software and violations of the GPL -- read Farnsworth on Contracts and then go read Nimmer on Copyrights.
First of all, Microsoft select license agreements are designed to confuse and distort reality. IAAL, and I can't read the damn thing without getting a headache. Add to that the licensee's administrative burden in managing the thousands and thousands of enrollment forms and the pernicious audit rights that M$ reserves for itself. There's no hope in negotiating the agreement, since M$ is a truly a 1600 pound gorilla.
I would tell you what to negotiate out of the agreement if you are about to spend some real money with M$, but no one on slashdot is in any position to control a spend on the magnitude that can dictate terms to M$. I've done it myself, on behalf of very, very big clients.
Judging by the conversation here, people seem to think that this $130K audit settlement is a big deal. Remember, some of M$'s customer's sneeze $130K on a slow day. I've seen license agreements with M$ that contemplate a few million $$ recurring monthly in maintenance fees. The one-time license fees figures are staggering. How do you think they got so rich? It wasn't VA beach's measly little 129K. VA beach was just being used as an example, because it has public books.
The fundamental flaw in your reactionary babble is the fact that ICANN walked all over the domain names that are already being used by the alternative root systems.
The least ICANN could have done is let the alternative enjoy their existing domains in peace.
What's even more troubling is the fact that the domain names in controversy are downright silly. Dot biz? Being a New Yorker, I'd say ".biz" reeks of self-satisfied Northern California cultural demagogues like Esther Dyson (*gack* 'scuse me while I puke).
Let's face the facts: ICANN is about as competent as a sixth grade model United Nations. The great legacy of the San Francisco counter-culture is their remarkable ability to shit on their own doorstep, and sell out while doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
...way back in the day when I swapped floppies on my 128k ram macintosh for hours on end. I became the floppy swapping machine, and I had a killer one-hand technique.
In the USA , commercial gain is not a factor in judging the seriousness of a copyright. The U.S. Copyright Act takes an infringer's commercial gain into consideration when determining whether the infringement is punishible as a criminal act.
how incredibly funny it is to see the dotcoms eat it!
They failed because they thought that nerf, ping-pong and sandals were the end of the rainbow. Remember when nerds had no taste, AND they were smart.
no matter how often they claim otherwise, I have two freakin' eyes and PBS has freakin' commercials.
Paragraph 0 is both circular in its logic, and extremely ambiguous in defining the scope of the license grant. Since IAAL, I will not say any more.
The GPL can be successfully contested in a court of law. I can personally think of a few hundred arguments that would defeat its enforceability. I'm sure any lawyer worth $200+/hour can too.
Apple lost a law suit that contended that all GUI's with certain functional characteristics were proprietary. Most of the other GUI lawsuits were based on similar claims.
However, the similarity of Aqua themes to Aqua is MUCH greater than the similarity of Mac OS to Windows.
Do your homework. You are looking for case law dealing with trade dress infringement.
nccusl.org?!
It's not that hard to pull the UCITA from nccusl.com and look up the provision that you claim is in there.
If you're going to make public claims about what the law says, you really ought to provide a citation or do your research first.
You are correct that you can place restrictions on a grant of a license of a copyright up to the limits of the law and public interest.
My point is that the GPL is a very poorly drafted document that does not accomplish any of what it sets out to do. Just read it. The first paragraph (para. 0) does not make any sense whatsoever. Since that paragraph defines the scope of the terms and conditions, the document is crippled before it can even start the race. I've never read an agreement as redundant and inarticulate and misguided as the GPL. Well, that's a bit hyperbolic, but IAAL and I do this for a living. The GPL is going to fail in its purpose once a judge gets to rule on it.
If I say in an interview "I think it is likely Ektanoor is a criminal" then I've commited libel unless I can make a case for that.
Libel is disparagement of a person's reputation with commercial consequences. You can't libel a company, only individuals. I think what this whole stupid thread is trying to understand is the notion of trademark tarnishment. Strike 1.
Infringing a patent is a criminal act.
Only under exceptional circumstances will an intellectual property violation be a crime. For instance, willful copyright infringement for commercial gain (e.g., bootlegging). Strike 2.
Ok. I concede that there is a philosophical school of thought based on the (IMO, naive) notion that if I scratch backs, mine will be scratched too.
That does not address the mechanical ineptitudes that cripple the document known as the GPL. It will take a better agreement to effectuate the aspirations of that philosophy.
Do me a favor. Read Paragraph 0 of the GPL, and tell me you understand what the scope of its terms are. I guarantee you that if I ask 9 other people the same question, I will have 10 unique and useless answers. The scope of the GPL is vague and poorly drafted. The document will not hold water. This dog won't hunt, people. This horse refuses to run. What more can I tell you.
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
You said: The exact moral and legal purpose of the GPL is to make sure that you have absolutely no protection against competitors using all your secrets, because Sharing Is Good. So, the incentive for disclosure is a desire to be good? The GPL is a philosophical document that will suffer the fate of all philosophies: it will bow down to the reality that life is "nasty, brutish and short." Ergo, the patent system.
Ever tried to call Verizon? I guarantee that they will get you to slam your phone against the wall in digust and hatred and make you throw yourself out of a tall building in the face of the futility of attempting to make any resemblance of an intelligent or meaningful contact with their mindless minions of overpaid unionist social leech drones.
My point is that if everybody calls the 800 number, everyone will commit suicide to escape the horrific determinist nightmare that is the Verizon phone tree.
As a long time dreamcaster, I played SSX and thought, remember that POS game for DC called Rippin Riders that no one bought? Apparently it's now the best PS2 launch title. SSX == sux.
Microsoft cannot stop anyone from describing a bug in language other than the language copyrighted by Microsoft.
Therefore, if I read M$'s bus report, and then re-phrase, they shouldn't have any rights against me except perhaps if I have misstated the problem in a way that commercially harms them.
...I enjoyed this ridiculously idiotic thread. Believe it or not, it is people like you that make Slashdot great. Thank you. Take a bow! Hoorah!!
Yes. You have been rendered delusional and are under the misimpression that those large faces on billboards and buses are actually looking at you. Ads don't give a fuck about your privacy or Taco's either. He's confusing ads for advertisers.
I wouldn't exactly call a license agreement that doesn't hold water low maintenance. IAAL, and I can tell you that if anyone ever sued based on the GPL, you'd find out just how low maintenance that POS really is. Keep on dreamin', though.
So what if sys admin, purchasing and procurement are difficult tasks? That's no excuse for violating a software license agreement that they SHOULD have been able to read and understand. They got sloppy and they paid for it. Next time they should arm themselves with the requisite knowledge that keeps these things from happening. Apologists like you can't survive in the cold, hard, cruel world of law and business.
The audit right was reserved by Microsoft in the damn EULA's for the software that VA beach installed. VA Beach was contractually bound to let M$ perform the audit. Their only defense would be that the audit right was an adhesionary term (not a bad argument against a monopolist.)
/.er's spend so damn much time griping and pontificating about these topics. It is to my chagrin that I have to endure the arduous, ambivalent and agonizing education of tunnel visionary, cubicle drone "engineers" in matters of the law.
Now, please allow me to rant. When I see a thread with such a thorough misunderstanding of how the law work (and license agreements in particular), I get so annoyed because
I have a suggestion for those of you who moan about free software vs. open software and violations of the GPL -- read Farnsworth on Contracts and then go read Nimmer on Copyrights.
First of all, Microsoft select license agreements are designed to confuse and distort reality. IAAL, and I can't read the damn thing without getting a headache. Add to that the licensee's administrative burden in managing the thousands and thousands of enrollment forms and the pernicious audit rights that M$ reserves for itself. There's no hope in negotiating the agreement, since M$ is a truly a 1600 pound gorilla.
I would tell you what to negotiate out of the agreement if you are about to spend some real money with M$, but no one on slashdot is in any position to control a spend on the magnitude that can dictate terms to M$. I've done it myself, on behalf of very, very big clients.
Judging by the conversation here, people seem to think that this $130K audit settlement is a big deal. Remember, some of M$'s customer's sneeze $130K on a slow day. I've seen license agreements with M$ that contemplate a few million $$ recurring monthly in maintenance fees. The one-time license fees figures are staggering. How do you think they got so rich? It wasn't VA beach's measly little 129K. VA beach was just being used as an example, because it has public books.
Nice catch, yourself! Bwahahahahaaa.
Sorry, all this talk about forking got me excited.
The fundamental flaw in your reactionary babble is the fact that ICANN walked all over the domain names that are already being used by the alternative root systems.
The least ICANN could have done is let the alternative enjoy their existing domains in peace.
What's even more troubling is the fact that the domain names in controversy are downright silly. Dot biz? Being a New Yorker, I'd say ".biz" reeks of self-satisfied Northern California cultural demagogues like Esther Dyson (*gack* 'scuse me while I puke).
Let's face the facts: ICANN is about as competent as a sixth grade model United Nations. The great legacy of the San Francisco counter-culture is their remarkable ability to shit on their own doorstep, and sell out while doing it.