I wonder how many of the OEM's would ``accidentally'' have buggy implementations of the RIAA's kill switch? Of course the buggyswitch would be in the hardware (probably at the RIAA's insistence), so a software upgrade wouldn't fix it.;-)
If there's a kill-switch in the hardware you use to play the both mp3 and SDMI encoded music on, the RIAA, as part of licensing the SDMI technology to the hw manufacturer, would also have a kill switch implemented in the hw. Once this kill switch was used, you'd no longer be able to use mp3's.
The 2.3.1 patch is ~5.3 times larger than the 2.2.9 patch (bzipped). Though most of 2.2.9 is probably in the 2.3.1, there's still alot of other stuff in it.
...or you get value from/pay for using it. Would be a good extension to your quote. For me Linux equivalent to a perpetual motion machine, because I get more from it than I put into it.
You're redefining the usage of the term ``free''. This is a distinct no-no. If you want to get technical about it, nothing in the world is a can either, because nothing in the world will fit all 50+ definitions of the word ``can'' and all 1000+ usages of such definitions.
It sounds like ``infringing activites'' is in the present tense. That and the words, ``facts and circumstances'' and expecially ``apparent'' would seem to prevent them from doing this before-the-fact. I haven't read the DMA and IANAL though. After all, the ISP cannot ``remove or disable access'' to material that isn't currently in existence.
"In fact, it would be insane to suggest that anyone would."
Jean-Paul Sartre (1964 Nobel Prize for Lit) and Le Duc Tho (1973 Nobel Prize for Peace) did, for ideologically sound reasons thou. Sartre's reason. Searching around at www.nobel.se will show a few other who didn't want to get, or were forced to refuse, the prize.
The point is that Mitnick didn't sign an NDA, therefore faces none of the legal repercussions the NDA states. If you sign the NDA, then break it, Sun can do to you whatever the NDA states it can do to you. Since Mitnick didn't sign an NDA, they can't do anything the NDA states. The only way they can get him is through criminal IP law prosecution.
If someone tried, but didn't succeed, in stealing $20 from you, they would still be charged the same. So you're not "out $20", but the criminal still gets the same punishment.
No, but you'd be charged the full price of the copy. Companies don't normally sell source cdoe that has absolutely no restrictions on it. They can value what they would sell said code.schematics for however they wish. Valuing it at costs alone is pretty nice of them. As they "got it back", there were no actual damages involved, but Mitnick, or any other criminal would be charged accordiing to the value of what was stolen. If you went and stole a $1000 bike from someone, but you were caught and they got it back, you would still be charged with a $1000 theft.
Things get a little more screwy with ip, but this kind of ip can be seen to have some kind of material value. Code/schematics aren't books whose "source" is published, they are more similar to a bike that only one person owns (but can rent/lend to others). The damages aren't as severe as stealing a $100 Million jet, but is definitely more severe than stealing a DVD of a movie that grossed $100 Million. With the jet you get an actual product (can be disassembled with work), with the DVD/MOV, you only get a movie (though if you go on to burn and sell copies, it's a whole other matter).
Did Mitnick release the stolen source code? If he did, then the companies would definnnitely have taken a loss that needed reporting. If he didn't, then the loss was only ever potential, not actual, and doesn't need reporting. IANAL, though. The FBI asked for certain numbers, the companies gave it to them. If the FBI agent took this to mean actual, as opposed to potential, losses, that's her fault. It doesn't seem she took it that way.
What about losses do to downtime, searching for security loopholes, etc.... At least one company mentions this, and the value of it is very high.
Mitnick took the code. As he took it illegally, it came with no license, and he was free to do anything he wanted with it, including selling it. The companies have the right to determine how much their source code, with a licensing agreement equivalent in what it allows as Mitnick's was, will cost. They determined what it cost them, what it would cost another company to develop had they been hired to develop it royalty free for another company (ie. the development costs). This is how much Mitnick would have had to pay to get this legally, yet he didn't do it. In the real world, Mitnick would have had to pay alot more (profit margin), but these companies graciously limited the value to costs alone. If Mitnick never spread the merchandise (source) around, and was soon apprehended, the actual loss to the company would be nothing.
That's what change of venue is about, if you were allowed it. A DA that didn't do everything in his/her power to prosecute could possibly be open for disbarment, as well as given excellent grounds for appeal.
What would happen if a lawsuit was brought against a GPL-stealing company outside of the US? If the GPL doesn't hold up in the US, the company could always be sued in a different country.
It's called a class-action suit by the users/programmers of the GPL'd program. The programmers, at least, get the assett of recognition. The recognition is a form of currency that can be bartered for wealth, position, etc....
If the thief makes money off of the source code, the FSF."other GPL author" is losing the code, they would have to make it available. As the author(s) of the GPL'd code could also make it proprietary, legally, they are losing what money they could have made doing so. This amount of money, coincidentally:), is equal to the profit made from the software product sold by the company.
PDP-1's, and a host of other old architectures are still ``in the market'', if the market is expanded to include what's being sold/"given away" 2nd and 3rd hand at flee markets and the like. When the number of architectures Linux does run on is at least 50% of all architectures ever created (possibly including Babbage's machines) this statement will no longer be true.
Only if they're modifying code that states it can only be ``used'' under the new GPL License, or later. v3 copylefted code can be added to a body of code that is protected ``under version 2 or later'', though not to code that is only protected ``under version 2''. Version 2 code cannot be added to version 3 code, except at the discretion of the current copyright holders of the code, or unless the added code's copyright is changed to the v3 Copyleft.
"...and/or modify it..." Linus, Cox, or Schmoe could add one line to the code and rerelease it as 2.2.9-Schmoe1, with the License stating "... under version 3 or later".
"...and/or modify it..." Linus, Cox, or Schmoe could add one line to the code and rerelease it as 2.2.9-Schmoe1, with the License stating "... under version 3 or later".
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many of the OEM's would ``accidentally'' have buggy implementations of the RIAA's kill switch? Of course the buggyswitch would be in the hardware (probably at the RIAA's insistence), so a software upgrade wouldn't fix it. ;-)
If there's a kill-switch in the hardware you use to play the both mp3 and SDMI encoded music on, the RIAA, as part of licensing the SDMI technology to the hw manufacturer, would also have a kill switch implemented in the hw. Once this kill switch was used, you'd no longer be able to use mp3's.
The 2.3.1 patch is ~5.3 times larger than the 2.2.9 patch (bzipped). Though most of 2.2.9 is probably in the 2.3.1, there's still alot of other stuff in it.
...or you get value from/pay for using it. Would be a good extension to your quote. For me Linux equivalent to a perpetual motion machine, because I get more from it than I put into it.
You're redefining the usage of the term ``free''. This is a distinct no-no. If you want to get technical about it, nothing in the world is a can either, because nothing in the world will fit all 50+ definitions of the word ``can'' and all 1000+ usages of such definitions.
It sounds like ``infringing activites'' is in the present tense. That and the words, ``facts and circumstances'' and expecially ``apparent'' would seem to prevent them from doing this before-the-fact. I haven't read the DMA and IANAL though. After all, the ISP cannot ``remove or disable access'' to material that isn't currently in existence.
"In fact, it would be insane to suggest that anyone would."
Jean-Paul Sartre (1964 Nobel Prize for Lit) and Le Duc Tho (1973 Nobel Prize for Peace) did, for ideologically sound reasons thou.
Sartre's reason. Searching around at www.nobel.se will show a few other who didn't want to get, or were forced to refuse, the prize.
It looks like there might be a good chance of this award becoming the ideological equivalent of the Nobel Prize, but for computers/internet work.
Bill didn't write the OS. It wouldn't be quite fair.
They didn't "leave the door open" (at least not all of them did), it's more like having one of those old fashioned locks that skeleton keys work in.
The point is that Mitnick didn't sign an NDA, therefore faces none of the legal repercussions the NDA states. If you sign the NDA, then break it, Sun can do to you whatever the NDA states it can do to you. Since Mitnick didn't sign an NDA, they can't do anything the NDA states. The only way they can get him is through criminal IP law prosecution.
But it's theft of a source license with absolutely no license terms. A lot more liberal than the rights a normal source license gives you.
If someone tried, but didn't succeed, in stealing $20 from you, they would still be charged the same. So you're not "out $20", but the criminal still gets the same punishment.
If he used it for "his own jollies", then he did "gain" from it, and therefore took part in industrial espionage. ;)_
No, but you'd be charged the full price of the copy. Companies don't normally sell source cdoe that has absolutely no restrictions on it. They can value what they would sell said code.schematics for however they wish. Valuing it at costs alone is pretty nice of them. As they "got it back", there were no actual damages involved, but Mitnick, or any other criminal would be charged accordiing to the value of what was stolen. If you went and stole a $1000 bike from someone, but you were caught and they got it back, you would still be charged with a $1000 theft.
Things get a little more screwy with ip, but this kind of ip can be seen to have some kind of material value. Code/schematics aren't books whose "source" is published, they are more similar to a bike that only one person owns (but can rent/lend to others). The damages aren't as severe as stealing a $100 Million jet, but is definitely more severe than stealing a DVD of a movie that grossed $100 Million. With the jet you get an actual product (can be disassembled with work), with the DVD/MOV, you only get a movie (though if you go on to burn and sell copies, it's a whole other matter).
Did Mitnick release the stolen source code? If he did, then the companies would definnnitely have taken a loss that needed reporting. If he didn't, then the loss was only ever potential, not actual, and doesn't need reporting. IANAL, though. The FBI asked for certain numbers, the companies gave it to them. If the FBI agent took this to mean actual, as opposed to potential, losses, that's her fault. It doesn't seem she took it that way.
What about losses do to downtime, searching for security loopholes, etc.... At least one company mentions this, and the value of it is very high.
Mitnick took the code. As he took it illegally, it came with no license, and he was free to do anything he wanted with it, including selling it. The companies have the right to determine how much their source code, with a licensing agreement equivalent in what it allows as Mitnick's was, will cost. They determined what it cost them, what it would cost another company to develop had they been hired to develop it royalty free for another company (ie. the development costs). This is how much Mitnick would have had to pay to get this legally, yet he didn't do it. In the real world, Mitnick would have had to pay alot more (profit margin), but these companies graciously limited the value to costs alone. If Mitnick never spread the merchandise (source) around, and was soon apprehended, the actual loss to the company would be nothing.
That's what change of venue is about, if you were allowed it. A DA that didn't do everything in his/her power to prosecute could possibly be open for disbarment, as well as given excellent grounds for appeal.
What would happen if a lawsuit was brought against a GPL-stealing company outside of the US? If the GPL doesn't hold up in the US, the company could always be sued in a different country.
It's called a class-action suit by the users/programmers of the GPL'd program. The programmers, at least, get the assett of recognition. The recognition is a form of currency that can be bartered for wealth, position, etc....
If the thief makes money off of the source code, the FSF."other GPL author" is losing the code, they would have to make it available. As the author(s) of the GPL'd code could also make it proprietary, legally, they are losing what money they could have made doing so. This amount of money, coincidentally :), is equal to the profit made from the software product sold by the company.
Ever heard of punitive damages?
the subject says it all.
PDP-1's, and a host of other old architectures are still ``in the market'', if the market is expanded to include what's being sold/"given away" 2nd and 3rd hand at flee markets and the like. When the number of architectures Linux does run on is at least 50% of all architectures ever created (possibly including Babbage's machines) this statement will no longer be true.
Only if they're modifying code that states it can only be ``used'' under the new GPL License, or later. v3 copylefted code can be added to a body of code that is protected ``under version 2 or later'', though not to code that is only protected ``under version 2''. Version 2 code cannot be added to version 3 code, except at the discretion of the current copyright holders of the code, or unless the added code's copyright is changed to the v3 Copyleft.
"...and/or modify it..." Linus, Cox, or Schmoe could add one line to the code and rerelease it as 2.2.9-Schmoe1, with the License stating "... under version 3 or later".
This wouldn't affect 2.2.9's code though.
"...and/or modify it..." Linus, Cox, or Schmoe could add one line to the code and rerelease it as 2.2.9-Schmoe1, with the License stating "... under version 3 or later".