1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising? Sure. There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits people from profiting.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL? Yes - that's the point of the GPL:)
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL. Yes, and as evidenced in that Nvidia scandal, while you can't take rights away from people once you've given them away, you can give them more. So if you want to alter the code some and rerelease a binary-only version, you have the right to relicense your code and do just that.
IIRC, the different layers are intended for different purposes. MPEG-2 is designed for higher resolutions with a limited bandwidth - hardly required, since TV has a low res and a tape provides plenty of storage space.
Once a consumer has passed over money in order to receive something, they should be able to expect that it works. I can't think of a single other field that this doesn't apply to - they all have some form of consumer watchdog/ombudsman/etc that regulates the quality of output.
The issue becomes hazy when it comes to free software. On one hand, nobody wants to rely on it when there's no guarantee. On the other hand, you can't expect people to contribute to the free software community if they could get their ass sued over a bug that resulted from a 2.30am coding session. They lack any sort of protection - as opposed to professional coders, in which case the company rather than the individual coder would be liable. Even doctors, etc.. in many countries are personally protected from personal damages by way of liability insurance, and/or protection by the law.
There is some precedent IRL for this... if a friend volunteers to help me decorate and knocks over an expensive vase, I and most other people would just write it off. A court would probably be dubious if I tried to sue them. (remember, I'm in Australia, not America:) But it's a different story if I'm paying a professional to decorate for me.
I reckon that if software is not advertised as working (free software coders: be liberal with the 'alpha' and 'beta' tags), then a certain degree of slack is permissible. However, once a software house is taking out full page adverts claiming that their software will be good for a company, they have an obligation to uphold those claims and make sure the software works.
Because you "agreed" to a "contract" absolving the vendor of all liability Then maybe the law should not allow the disclaiming of such reponsibilities, by contract or otherwise.
Oh, and you don't own your software, either. You gave title back to the vendor when you "agreed" to the "license. Just because I don't own something that I paid for doesn't mean I'm not entitled to receive something that works. I'd stand by the above if I leased my lawnmower.
This applies particularly to for-profit software. If a company chooses to profit as a result of the positive aspects of it's software, then it should be liable to losses as a result of the negative aspects. You've been paid money for making it, and when people buy something with their dollars then I'd say whoever's selling it has a moral, if not legal, obligation to make sure that it works.
Why is it that this sort of thing seems to apply only to software? If somebody buys a lawnmower and it's faulty, resulting in a blade spinning out and maiming someone, then the manufacturer is going to be taken to task.
They'd have to recall the product, fix it, and they'd be liable for damages to the person maimed. And if they said "this lawnmower is sold on the basis that if something goes wrong, it's not our fault" and tried to use that as an excuse, people would react with either outrage or downright laughter.
Metallica, you've always supported the recording and trading of bootlegs. In fact, they're the only Metallica music I have on MP3.. after all, I've got the rest on CD:)
A while ago www.metshrine.com got slammed.. it was a site that traded in bootleg MP3s. I went there to get the MP3s of a Metallica gig I went to a couple of years ago and all the bootleg MP3 trading had been shut down - the reasons specified were that Metallica were obligated to through their contract with Elektra.
Given that it seems fans can't openly trade these bootlegs on websites, and now that Napster is no longer an avenue for live Metallica MP3s, have you guys considered setting up your own website, or similar, for fans to discuss and trade bootlegs?
My Napster client is set so that Maximum Uploads is zero.. in other words, I *never* send out any music. (BTW, this is because for a couple of weeks I'm stuck on a 33.6) Therefore, I never send out any MP3 files, guaranteed. By this reasoning, doesn't it mean that I should be completely safe from this, despite the fact that I have Metallica mp3s in my file sharing directory?
Taking this further, I don't believe offering files for upload is a copyright violation in itself. Isn't it all perfectly legal until an *actual* upload takes place?
Another issue to consider is that none of the MP3s above that I don't upload anyway, are in violation of copyright. I own every single album that Metallica has released here in Australia, and everything in there is just encoded off of my own CD collection.
Oh, and The Metallica Shrine is down for the moment, but it would have been a juicy link - it was a site that published MP3s of bootleg Metallica concerts. I went there to grab MP3s of the Perth gig (which I paid money to go see, fyi) and discovered that metallica's lawyers had gone shut it down.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Can I use code protected by GPL on a web site that has advertising?
Sure. There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits people from profiting.
2. If I write a commercial program that uses a line from GPL protected code, do I have to make all my code GPL? :)
Yes - that's the point of the GPL
3. Do I still own the copyright if I license something under GPL.
Yes, and as evidenced in that Nvidia scandal, while you can't take rights away from people once you've given them away, you can give them more. So if you want to alter the code some and rerelease a binary-only version, you have the right to relicense your code and do just that.
Just watch out, because in the distant future, you may bite down on a cookie and find a worm...
IIRC, the different layers are intended for different purposes. MPEG-2 is designed for higher resolutions with a limited bandwidth - hardly required, since TV has a low res and a tape provides plenty of storage space.
Once a consumer has passed over money in order to receive something, they should be able to expect that it works. I can't think of a single other field that this doesn't apply to - they all have some form of consumer watchdog/ombudsman/etc that regulates the quality of output.
The issue becomes hazy when it comes to free software. On one hand, nobody wants to rely on it when there's no guarantee. On the other hand, you can't expect people to contribute to the free software community if they could get their ass sued over a bug that resulted from a 2.30am coding session. They lack any sort of protection - as opposed to professional coders, in which case the company rather than the individual coder would be liable. Even doctors, etc.. in many countries are personally protected from personal damages by way of liability insurance, and/or protection by the law.
There is some precedent IRL for this... if a friend volunteers to help me decorate and knocks over an expensive vase, I and most other people would just write it off. A court would probably be dubious if I tried to sue them. (remember, I'm in Australia, not America :) But it's a different story if I'm paying a professional to decorate for me.
I reckon that if software is not advertised as working (free software coders: be liberal with the 'alpha' and 'beta' tags), then a certain degree of slack is permissible. However, once a software house is taking out full page adverts claiming that their software will be good for a company, they have an obligation to uphold those claims and make sure the software works.
Then maybe the law should not allow the disclaiming of such reponsibilities, by contract or otherwise.
Oh, and you don't own your software, either. You gave title back to the vendor when you "agreed" to the "license.
Just because I don't own something that I paid for doesn't mean I'm not entitled to receive something that works. I'd stand by the above if I leased my lawnmower.
This applies particularly to for-profit software. If a company chooses to profit as a result of the positive aspects of it's software, then it should be liable to losses as a result of the negative aspects. You've been paid money for making it, and when people buy something with their dollars then I'd say whoever's selling it has a moral, if not legal, obligation to make sure that it works.
They'd have to recall the product, fix it, and they'd be liable for damages to the person maimed. And if they said "this lawnmower is sold on the basis that if something goes wrong, it's not our fault" and tried to use that as an excuse, people would react with either outrage or downright laughter.
A while ago www.metshrine.com got slammed.. it was a site that traded in bootleg MP3s. I went there to get the MP3s of a Metallica gig I went to a couple of years ago and all the bootleg MP3 trading had been shut down - the reasons specified were that Metallica were obligated to through their contract with Elektra.
Given that it seems fans can't openly trade these bootlegs on websites, and now that Napster is no longer an avenue for live Metallica MP3s, have you guys considered setting up your own website, or similar, for fans to discuss and trade bootlegs?
Andrew Francis (remove the n0sp4m. to mail)
Yes, I did. I don't have a single track off a Metallica album in c:\windows\desktop\mp3 that I didn't encode myself, off a CD that I own.
I think you've confused metalheads and bogans with goths *ugh* don't even put us in the same category.
Incidentally, if you think goths are mindless and repetitive, check out the "everything Metallica released since 1989 is crap" crowd..
Taking this further, I don't believe offering files for upload is a copyright violation in itself. Isn't it all perfectly legal until an *actual* upload takes place?
Another issue to consider is that none of the MP3s above that I don't upload anyway, are in violation of copyright. I own every single album that Metallica has released here in Australia, and everything in there is just encoded off of my own CD collection.
Oh, and The Metallica Shrine is down for the moment, but it would have been a juicy link - it was a site that published MP3s of bootleg Metallica concerts. I went there to grab MP3s of the Perth gig (which I paid money to go see, fyi) and discovered that metallica's lawyers had gone shut it down.