Are all Linux users that watch movies criminals????
In America, yes, pretty well. But that's because the law is unjust and it is thus every patriotic American's duty to break it. After all, defying unjust laws is THE greatest American ideal of all, isn't it?
In fact, any American who is not breaking this law is a traitor to the American Revolution and should be hounded out of their homes and possibly lynched too, I think. That's my understanding of 1776, anyway.
If A is not in court, the court can only assume A is happy with the status quo. The court has no reason to believe otherwise.
This is not a case of status quo. B is actively trying to do something that A's license to B disallows. The status quo is to accept that A's license conditions bind B as stated in the licese agreement. This is particularly the case when B and C have no side agreement. Your argument makes no sense unless one assumes that the conditions in the BSD license are non-binding.
A is manifestly not prepared to allow B, or anyone else, to use and/or modify A's code unless B is prepared to extend that permission to those who would use the result of B's modifications. The only real difference between BSDL and GPL is that GPL would require that B distribute their modifications to any users, whereas BSDL permits a binary-only distribution. The original article is mearly speculating on what this means to someone who comes into possession of the source via some means not sanctioned by the modifier (B). It seems that the BSD license would undermine B's attempts to prevent C's usage of the code. Which makes sense, since B is not the copyright holder - a fact which is stated in the source itself which says that A is.
B can not restrain C's usage of something B does not own.
The court has no reason to believe otherwise.
Apart from the document from A that says so, you mean? You are trying to argue that A's explicitly expressed conditions can be set aside at B's whim and that C can not introduce A's explicitly expressed conditions - as copyright holder - as evidence in court, or at least that there's no point in C doing so.
Explain why B, who is not a copyright holder, gets to play this card. So far all you have done is make bald assertions that the BSD license is a magical device which means that those who take advantage of its permissions are not bound by its conditions. How can that be? Have you any case law that would support such a bizzare and unreasonable expectation?
I would certainly agree if you said that the BSD license is badly written and at the very least needs some definition of what constitutes "modification" of the original, but to take that lack to mean that you can simply ignore any rational implication of the language it does use is not viable.
If B and C are in court because B licensed C a commercial license for software B got from A via the BSD license, the court won't rule on the interpretation of the BSD license between A and B...
If that's how it works then I'm afraid the law is totally insane. The entire issue here, to me, is the fact that B does not own the copyright - A does. Surely the single most important question is that of what rights A has granted B, since B can not then grant additional rights to C, and in the case of the BSDL he can not put additional restrictions on either. It seems to me to be impossible for a case to proceed to any sensible conclusion without first determining what rights B had to give or withhold. And that's contained in the BSD License.
Effectively, C's defense is that the source he has in his possession gives him permission from A, the copyright holder to use the source as he sees fit, providing the conditions A set are met. B's opinion is irrelevant as B does not own the code. This is particularly true in the example where the source is leaked and C downloads it off Usenet - C has never had any dealings with B. But he does have the source with the copyright holder's permission to use and distribute the code.
If B and C do know each other - ie, it's not a leak, B is still in trouble as far as I can see. Any side agreement between B and C that prevents C from distributing or using the code puts B in violation of his agreement with the copyright holder. Once again it comes to the question of what conditions will a court allow a non-owner to place on the usage of a resource in the face of the owner's opinion to the contrary as written down in black and white in the source. It's a stronger position than in the case of the leak, but it still seems fairly risky to me from B's POV.
I thought about it... a Jack The Ripper game wouldn't be horrible to us,
Err.. actually, a Jack the Ripper game where you played the ripper and have to kill prostitutes does seem fairly horrible. The problem is not the time since the event, it's the motivation of the people you're playing.
What I tell the court, so long as it matches a reasonable reading
I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly the point I was making? If you are there you can explain your intent and argue your corner and interpretation. If the original author is not then the court must determine their intent from the agreement you have. And in the case of the BSD license that original agreement says that you must allow distribution and use by anyone who includes the BSD license. There is no provision for you reducing those rights in the BSD. If I have the modified or unmodified code then the license says I can use it. End of story.
Again, this looks like you're just trying to figure out how to claim additional rights that, oh, by the way, happen to help a third party who has no interest otherwise in the outcome of this case.
This confused me a bit since it follows on from a quote that wasn't by me. Anyway, I'm saying that it is the other way around: it is you who are trying to read a grant of additional rights into the original author's action of releasing under the BSDL. That license says that the code/binary may be used or distributed so long as the BSD license terms remain intact. You are claiming that any additional requirements you add are allowed to override the BSD portion. Specifically you are claiming the right to legally prevent distribution (as opposed to practically preventing it by keeping modified source secret) by suing for breach of a copyright which you don't own.
I do not see any part of the language in the BSDL which gives you this right. Show me.
TWW
Re:If the Republicans own the elections...
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
Please provide links to said evidence.
The more compelling the better.
I see. You've completely divorced yourself from the responsibility of being an informed voter for at least six years and now I have to fix it for you with a/. posting? I think not. Pay your nanny to do it or, better yet, get off your fat apathetic ass and do it yourself. Like I said, it's not even difficult.
TWW
Re:If the Republicans own the elections...
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
what happened in November? Did they forget to press the "cheat" button, or did they maybe lose on purpose in a conspiracy to discredit all the people who showed how they cheated before?
Or maybe the vote was 6% against them instead of the 5% they got by cheating.
Listen: we all know they cheated their balls off. It's not even difficult to find the evidence. The Republicans cheated, we all know it, put it behind you and just make sure it doesn't happen again, okay?
That way the viral interpretation of the BSD license can stay there.
It's not an interpretation; it's IN THE LICENSE in black and white. How much clearer does it need to be? I don't understand why you are so scared of this that you need to pretend that you can't read simple English. The only thing new about this article is the question of what happens if there is a leak of previously unreleased BSD licensed code. BSDL has always been viral and intentionally so. If it wasn't then the question of people removing the copyright notices from modified code would never be an issue, but it has many times. So what?
It's simple, buddy: you can take BSD code, and close it. You do not have to share your changes.
Yes, try to pay attention instead of just ranting; we're not talking about that. The question is whether such closed code and changes can be kept closed if leaked, when the license says that the possessor has permission from the original author to distribute the code and any modifications. How do you stop that and stay within the BSDL?
Why? It says right there in the code in black and white that you have permission to distribute it. If you didn't steal it (which is trade secrets, not copyright), what've you got to worry about?
Of course if the understanding of the parties do not match, then the language of a contract is picked apart--but rarely are additional rights awarded to a party in a tort case that the party did not intend to reserve.
However, in the case of BSD code you modified, the original author will not be in court and the question will be, what did they intend - because that is what YOU agreed to. In such a case, the court is even more likely to look at only the wording and take the position that your misunderstanding of the license is your problem.
please point out any source other than yourself and the FUD author which considers the BSD license to be 'viral' by any standard definition of the word.
Any license which requires a later author to include the conditions of that license in their own source is viral. You can not modify BDSL code and in the process remove the BSDL requirements. That's a viral license: one that binds all later users of the code even if they modify the code. Modified BSDL code is allowed only if the result is also BSDL:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
First of all, what exactly do you mean by "the community"???
I was quoting your use of the word. I assumed you meant anyone other than the author and the person who modified the code.
If you mean GPL code, the same thing that happens if the GPL folks swiped code from Microsoft, Apple, or any other source. The original authors could sue.
Duh.
Since inclusion of the attribution/disclaimer is not an onerous burden, anyone sensible would include it.
The BSD license REQUIRES the inclusion, otherwise the modifier of that code has broken the license agreement regardless of whether the modifications are distributed or not.
Someone stealing code and publishing it in some 'community' does nothing to destroy the original copyright.
But "original" in this case is the person who wrote the code and first attached the BSD license to it. That license specifically says that if you have the source code and include all the BSD required text then you have the right to copy the code and any modifications that have occured to it. There is no requirement to pay any attention to later authors' attempts to add further restrictions; authors after the first one have no right under the BSDL to prevent you distributing their modifications to that code if you obey the BDSL's requirements. The language in the license is very clear on that.
There may be scope by secondary authors for a "trade secrets" action, but not copyright.
Look, when I release software under a BSD-like license, my intent as the owner of the work is to do the following:
A court will not care a jot what you intended, it will look at the specific words you used. That's why it's important to read the license instead of assuming that it says what you mean.
Including an attribution/disclaimer is NOT viral under the generally held meaning of viral. All changes don't have to be given back to the community.
True, but the BSD license goes further than the disclaimer and attribution: "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.". That's the viral bit. Viral has nothing to do with giving back to the community, it is simply a question of whether the license can be removed by someone that modifies the code. BSD can't be. End of story. The interesting question here is what the implications are IF the code does find its way into "the community". What effect does that have on any copyright claims?
Call a spade a spade. It's not a 'novel interpretation', it's FUD.
It's neither. The issue is that the BSD licence must remain in modified BSD code even if not released - no one argues about that, do they?. If someone then "steals" the code and puts it on Usenet, is there any legal recourse to preventing that code from being redistributed? Simple answer is: no. The BSD licence that is in the code allows anyone to distribute it regardless of how they got it, so long as the BSD conditions are met, which is easy.
The BSD license is viral and made so by the requirement that its conditions are copied into modified versions. Which was hardly a secret, now, was it? What's the fud/novel interpretation?
So, what they seem to be arguing is that the BSD license says that the modified source is covered by the BSD license (but does not require disclosure of that source) which itself allows redistribution under simple conditions. Therefore, if previously undisclosed modified source is leaked it may not be possible to sue anyone for breach of copyright nor to gain an injunction to prevent further copying and use of that source since the source would include permission to distribute it.
It was shown that 9/11 terrorists trained on MS Flight Sim. But did ppl call for them to change it to prevent it?
Actually, yes, some did. It was suggested that the grid references of places, and particularly buildings, in the sim be changed so that they no longer matched the real world. Whether MS did or not I don't know nor care.
Anyway, the terrorists in question here can simply walk down the street and look at their targets, or buy a map, or get a job which lets them survey the area or any one of a thousand other things which are far more useful than a year-old image from Google.
Mixed. Far too long and the sequence of running through that canyon with the Brontos was just naff "this-will-be-a-level-in-the-game" material, but I enjoyed it more than most of my friends, who pretty well hated it. Perhaps I had such low expectations that I was bound to feel better after having the opposite experience with LotR where I was feeling optimistic even after seeing the trailer.
I particularly liked the touch of the other giant skeletons in Kong's cave. But, like I said, far too long and a decent editor could have cut an hour out and still had a good film; indeed, a better film.
You need to get out more; it is clearly getting worse. There simply is no argument that it isn't. The number and spread of indicators that even normal people can see is WAY beyond reasonable doubt. The world IS warmer. There is a little bit of doubt as to why but the circumstansial evidence would certainly be enough in a court of law.
And yet with your response you miss the most important part of my comment: doing our "best guess" might make things far worse!
Improving the efficiency of industry and lowering polution levels does not sound particularly dangerous, I have to say.
So it's back to my previous comment: we aren't positive of the factors in what is happening,
I think we're over the 90% certainty mark at this point, but I conceed that that is less than 100%
and we are even less sure of the effects of any given solution.
Given that the solutions being suggested boil down to not wasting energy and resources, the effects can't be that bad.
Therefore, trying a "best guess" approach has a good chance of making things worse.
"Good chance" is such a gross exaggeration that I'd be tempted to call it a lie, frankly. What are the good chances, what are these bad effects and what possible evidence have you that they are more likely to make things worse than doing nothing has?
Then look at the courthouse. Zoom out for around three to five miles (range of a morter) and look for areas of concealment, escape routes that either let you run like hell, or easily blend in with a bunch of other people, obscure line of sight directly to the court house, or obsticles that might make someone responding from that general direction slower then from another route.
I know from your other posts that you're trolling but, really, catch a grip. Anyone with the slightest clue knows all that is better done on foot. The American-funded IRA were doing it here for years without the help of Google. Using Google is a good way to discover surprises like, yes, that 2D building on the screen is too tall to get your mortar over in real life, and no, that alleyway is not open at both ends any more, oh dear, you seem to have been caught.
what a lot of people who are all about global warming seem to forget is the natural cycles of the earth.
No they don't. I've never met anyone on either side of the argument who was not aware of those cycles; yet they get dragged up in statements like yours ALL THE TIME. Why? Who did you ever meet that looked surprised at the mention of orbital cycles and ice-ages before man? Were they under 5 years old?
I admit that I've not seen Feebles, and the other two are better than his LotR; but they're still fairly bland. I get the impression from interviews that he does know a lot about cinematography, but he can't actually do it. I know a lot about art but I can't paint to save my life.
All the strong points of LotR (and there were many) were in technical areas like design. Anything Jackson himself touched turned to crap. Breakdancing wizards spring to mind. Dear GOD!
Seconded. If his adaptation was terrible, because he is a terrible director, then, the books must have been 'terrible'.
Uhn? A bad director took a book, made a complete fucking mess of adapting it to a screenplay and in addition directed the resulting crap-fest badly, and so you think the fault lies in the book? How strange.
Slashdot Mirror
In America, yes, pretty well. But that's because the law is unjust and it is thus every patriotic American's duty to break it. After all, defying unjust laws is THE greatest American ideal of all, isn't it?
In fact, any American who is not breaking this law is a traitor to the American Revolution and should be hounded out of their homes and possibly lynched too, I think. That's my understanding of 1776, anyway.
TWW
This is not a case of status quo. B is actively trying to do something that A's license to B disallows. The status quo is to accept that A's license conditions bind B as stated in the licese agreement. This is particularly the case when B and C have no side agreement. Your argument makes no sense unless one assumes that the conditions in the BSD license are non-binding.
A is manifestly not prepared to allow B, or anyone else, to use and/or modify A's code unless B is prepared to extend that permission to those who would use the result of B's modifications. The only real difference between BSDL and GPL is that GPL would require that B distribute their modifications to any users, whereas BSDL permits a binary-only distribution. The original article is mearly speculating on what this means to someone who comes into possession of the source via some means not sanctioned by the modifier (B). It seems that the BSD license would undermine B's attempts to prevent C's usage of the code. Which makes sense, since B is not the copyright holder - a fact which is stated in the source itself which says that A is.
B can not restrain C's usage of something B does not own.
The court has no reason to believe otherwise.
Apart from the document from A that says so, you mean? You are trying to argue that A's explicitly expressed conditions can be set aside at B's whim and that C can not introduce A's explicitly expressed conditions - as copyright holder - as evidence in court, or at least that there's no point in C doing so.
Explain why B, who is not a copyright holder, gets to play this card. So far all you have done is make bald assertions that the BSD license is a magical device which means that those who take advantage of its permissions are not bound by its conditions. How can that be? Have you any case law that would support such a bizzare and unreasonable expectation?
I would certainly agree if you said that the BSD license is badly written and at the very least needs some definition of what constitutes "modification" of the original, but to take that lack to mean that you can simply ignore any rational implication of the language it does use is not viable.
TWW
Would be "worthless".
If that's how it works then I'm afraid the law is totally insane. The entire issue here, to me, is the fact that B does not own the copyright - A does. Surely the single most important question is that of what rights A has granted B, since B can not then grant additional rights to C, and in the case of the BSDL he can not put additional restrictions on either. It seems to me to be impossible for a case to proceed to any sensible conclusion without first determining what rights B had to give or withhold. And that's contained in the BSD License.
Effectively, C's defense is that the source he has in his possession gives him permission from A, the copyright holder to use the source as he sees fit, providing the conditions A set are met. B's opinion is irrelevant as B does not own the code. This is particularly true in the example where the source is leaked and C downloads it off Usenet - C has never had any dealings with B. But he does have the source with the copyright holder's permission to use and distribute the code.
If B and C do know each other - ie, it's not a leak, B is still in trouble as far as I can see. Any side agreement between B and C that prevents C from distributing or using the code puts B in violation of his agreement with the copyright holder. Once again it comes to the question of what conditions will a court allow a non-owner to place on the usage of a resource in the face of the owner's opinion to the contrary as written down in black and white in the source. It's a stronger position than in the case of the leak, but it still seems fairly risky to me from B's POV.
TWW
Err.. actually, a Jack the Ripper game where you played the ripper and have to kill prostitutes does seem fairly horrible. The problem is not the time since the event, it's the motivation of the people you're playing.
TWW
I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly the point I was making? If you are there you can explain your intent and argue your corner and interpretation. If the original author is not then the court must determine their intent from the agreement you have. And in the case of the BSD license that original agreement says that you must allow distribution and use by anyone who includes the BSD license. There is no provision for you reducing those rights in the BSD. If I have the modified or unmodified code then the license says I can use it. End of story.
Again, this looks like you're just trying to figure out how to claim additional rights that, oh, by the way, happen to help a third party who has no interest otherwise in the outcome of this case.
This confused me a bit since it follows on from a quote that wasn't by me. Anyway, I'm saying that it is the other way around: it is you who are trying to read a grant of additional rights into the original author's action of releasing under the BSDL. That license says that the code/binary may be used or distributed so long as the BSD license terms remain intact. You are claiming that any additional requirements you add are allowed to override the BSD portion. Specifically you are claiming the right to legally prevent distribution (as opposed to practically preventing it by keeping modified source secret) by suing for breach of a copyright which you don't own.
I do not see any part of the language in the BSDL which gives you this right. Show me.
TWW
The more compelling the better.
I see. You've completely divorced yourself from the responsibility of being an informed voter for at least six years and now I have to fix it for you with a /. posting? I think not. Pay your nanny to do it or, better yet, get off your fat apathetic ass and do it yourself. Like I said, it's not even difficult.
TWW
Or maybe the vote was 6% against them instead of the 5% they got by cheating.
Listen: we all know they cheated their balls off. It's not even difficult to find the evidence. The Republicans cheated, we all know it, put it behind you and just make sure it doesn't happen again, okay?
TWW
It's not an interpretation; it's IN THE LICENSE in black and white. How much clearer does it need to be? I don't understand why you are so scared of this that you need to pretend that you can't read simple English. The only thing new about this article is the question of what happens if there is a leak of previously unreleased BSD licensed code. BSDL has always been viral and intentionally so. If it wasn't then the question of people removing the copyright notices from modified code would never be an issue, but it has many times. So what?
TWW
TWW
Why? It says right there in the code in black and white that you have permission to distribute it. If you didn't steal it (which is trade secrets, not copyright), what've you got to worry about?
TWW
However, in the case of BSD code you modified, the original author will not be in court and the question will be, what did they intend - because that is what YOU agreed to. In such a case, the court is even more likely to look at only the wording and take the position that your misunderstanding of the license is your problem.
TWW
Any license which requires a later author to include the conditions of that license in their own source is viral. You can not modify BDSL code and in the process remove the BSDL requirements. That's a viral license: one that binds all later users of the code even if they modify the code. Modified BSDL code is allowed only if the result is also BSDL:
Note the "provided".TWW
I was quoting your use of the word. I assumed you meant anyone other than the author and the person who modified the code.
If you mean GPL code, the same thing that happens if the GPL folks swiped code from Microsoft, Apple, or any other source. The original authors could sue.
Duh.
Since inclusion of the attribution/disclaimer is not an onerous burden, anyone sensible would include it.
The BSD license REQUIRES the inclusion, otherwise the modifier of that code has broken the license agreement regardless of whether the modifications are distributed or not.
Someone stealing code and publishing it in some 'community' does nothing to destroy the original copyright.
But "original" in this case is the person who wrote the code and first attached the BSD license to it. That license specifically says that if you have the source code and include all the BSD required text then you have the right to copy the code and any modifications that have occured to it. There is no requirement to pay any attention to later authors' attempts to add further restrictions; authors after the first one have no right under the BSDL to prevent you distributing their modifications to that code if you obey the BDSL's requirements. The language in the license is very clear on that.
There may be scope by secondary authors for a "trade secrets" action, but not copyright.
TWW
A court will not care a jot what you intended, it will look at the specific words you used. That's why it's important to read the license instead of assuming that it says what you mean.
True, but the BSD license goes further than the disclaimer and attribution: "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.". That's the viral bit. Viral has nothing to do with giving back to the community, it is simply a question of whether the license can be removed by someone that modifies the code. BSD can't be. End of story. The interesting question here is what the implications are IF the code does find its way into "the community". What effect does that have on any copyright claims?
It's neither. The issue is that the BSD licence must remain in modified BSD code even if not released - no one argues about that, do they?. If someone then "steals" the code and puts it on Usenet, is there any legal recourse to preventing that code from being redistributed? Simple answer is: no. The BSD licence that is in the code allows anyone to distribute it regardless of how they got it, so long as the BSD conditions are met, which is easy.
The BSD license is viral and made so by the requirement that its conditions are copied into modified versions. Which was hardly a secret, now, was it? What's the fud/novel interpretation?
TWW
In Australia, at least.
Seems reasonable to me.
TWW
Actually, yes, some did. It was suggested that the grid references of places, and particularly buildings, in the sim be changed so that they no longer matched the real world. Whether MS did or not I don't know nor care.
Anyway, the terrorists in question here can simply walk down the street and look at their targets, or buy a map, or get a job which lets them survey the area or any one of a thousand other things which are far more useful than a year-old image from Google.
TWW
Mixed. Far too long and the sequence of running through that canyon with the Brontos was just naff "this-will-be-a-level-in-the-game" material, but I enjoyed it more than most of my friends, who pretty well hated it. Perhaps I had such low expectations that I was bound to feel better after having the opposite experience with LotR where I was feeling optimistic even after seeing the trailer.
I particularly liked the touch of the other giant skeletons in Kong's cave. But, like I said, far too long and a decent editor could have cut an hour out and still had a good film; indeed, a better film.
TWW
You need to get out more; it is clearly getting worse. There simply is no argument that it isn't. The number and spread of indicators that even normal people can see is WAY beyond reasonable doubt. The world IS warmer. There is a little bit of doubt as to why but the circumstansial evidence would certainly be enough in a court of law.
And yet with your response you miss the most important part of my comment: doing our "best guess" might make things far worse!
Improving the efficiency of industry and lowering polution levels does not sound particularly dangerous, I have to say.
So it's back to my previous comment: we aren't positive of the factors in what is happening,
I think we're over the 90% certainty mark at this point, but I conceed that that is less than 100%
and we are even less sure of the effects of any given solution.
Given that the solutions being suggested boil down to not wasting energy and resources, the effects can't be that bad.
Therefore, trying a "best guess" approach has a good chance of making things worse.
"Good chance" is such a gross exaggeration that I'd be tempted to call it a lie, frankly. What are the good chances, what are these bad effects and what possible evidence have you that they are more likely to make things worse than doing nothing has?
I know from your other posts that you're trolling but, really, catch a grip. Anyone with the slightest clue knows all that is better done on foot. The American-funded IRA were doing it here for years without the help of Google. Using Google is a good way to discover surprises like, yes, that 2D building on the screen is too tall to get your mortar over in real life, and no, that alleyway is not open at both ends any more, oh dear, you seem to have been caught.
TWW
No they don't. I've never met anyone on either side of the argument who was not aware of those cycles; yet they get dragged up in statements like yours ALL THE TIME. Why? Who did you ever meet that looked surprised at the mention of orbital cycles and ice-ages before man? Were they under 5 years old?
All the strong points of LotR (and there were many) were in technical areas like design. Anything Jackson himself touched turned to crap. Breakdancing wizards spring to mind. Dear GOD!
Uhn? A bad director took a book, made a complete fucking mess of adapting it to a screenplay and in addition directed the resulting crap-fest badly, and so you think the fault lies in the book? How strange.