Novell didn't issue that press release, SuSE did. Novell bought SuSE long after April 2001. I think the "About Novell" boilerplate at the bottom is just tacked on to all Novell press releases in that folder.
>it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.
Huh? The GPL is not and has never been promulgated as the One True License. Licensing your work under other GPL and a zillion other licenses has always been permitted. If somebody wants your code but doesn't want the license that you've chosen for it, you can arrange some other license or tell him to pound sand. You have the copyright, you do what you want. There's no subverting of the GPL if it's not used. The rights and obligations under the GPL don't change - it's just that the other party doesn't want them, so you work something else out.
>By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them.
Wrong. The creators have free will - the companies don't get them to write code without compensation.
>This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits...
How is this unfair? If a company can't provide value to the customer, then it doesn't deserve to exist. The closed-source software industry does not deserve protection from the open-source software industry. I fail to see how competition creates stagnation.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I think that's misinterpreting the law. First, the law says that the library employees can do the copying, not Google employees (1). Second, "the reproduction or distribution [must be done] without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage". I think Google, being a corporation, would be hard pressed to say that they're making copies without the purpose of commercial advantage. Why *are* they doing it if not for commercial advantage?
(1) If Google argues that it's an archive, which is possible, then this might not be an issue.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
>Since Google is essentially acting as an agent of the participating libraries, it seems like this exception is applicable.
While the law allows libraries to make copies of works, it's only under very specific circumstances, none of which apply in this case. In section 108, it says (emphasis added):
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if --
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage
Since Google is doing it for commercial advantage, they don't meet the first criterion. Further, they don't meet the criteria for sections b or c. Section b applies only to unpublished work, and section C applies to a "published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen"
So no, this library exemption is not going to help Google. These sections were very carefully crafted, and Google's not going to use them as any sort of defense. They may be able to use section 107 (fair use), but not 108.
Well, they would have to extremely stupid to do that. They know they're going to have to get past Russinovich again, so I'd doubt they'd be dumb enough to think they can pull the wool over his eyes.
Oh, and don't bother to use Firefox to try to download the "Service Pack": it's IE only. Typical.
At the risk of being pedantic, you don't need an iPod to use iTMS. I've bought songs from iTMS so that I could play them on my computer (haven't burned a CD of 'em, yet, but I could do that, too).
It's only the same thing if iTunes can't be easily uninstalled and if the DRM software hooks into the OS so that it can't be removed. I don't think that either of these are true (I don't have iTunes installed, so I can't tell).
The broadcast flag was tossed out because the court found that the FCC did not have the authority to impose it. It was only a regulation; it was not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. If the "A. Hole" bill passes and is signed, then the law will have to be proven unconstitutional. It won't be an unauthorized regulation like BF.
Frankly, this is a terrible idea. It would allow the executive branch to have almost complete control over the laws which were passed. There would be no system of checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches.
The president has enough power already, thank you. A line item veto is quite unnecessary.
If you do apprehend one member of the network, that member has very little information useful in arresting others.
I think your one line above sums up the problem nicely, but I wonder why it has to be so. Don't the people who hire "cashers" keep records of how much is owed to them by each casher? Wouldn't the casher keep track of how much is owed to various upstream people? It would seem to me that this info would be very useful in rolling up the network. "Dmitri, you're looking at 20 years of hard time. But if you give up your cashers, you'll get off with 2". If I were Dmitri, I'd give them up in a hearbeat. A distributed network can work against you sometimes.
Of course, the real problem may be that my estimates on "time to be served" are off by a factor of 100.
Microsoft playing the "60% discount if the prospect mentions Free Software" trick works only if it can keep the customer locked in. Once the deal has been lost (and it sounds like it has been in this case), offering discounts doesn't work. The cat is out of the bag. This is especially true in the OpenOffice case, because MS Office can't read OpenOffice file formats. No amount of discounts will offset the cost of switching back to MS Office: all those OO.o files which can't be read, all that retraining, rewriting StarBasic macros, explaining to parents that they have to spend $150 on the "Student and Teacher" edition of MS Office, etc. The lock-in is on the other foot, if you will.
Still, Microsoft may try this, and I wouldn't consider it immoral. But I'd be damn surprised if it works in this case. Microsoft would have a better chance of it working if this were a public school system, because the purchasing decisions would be made at a different level. Microsoft could lean on the mayor / school superintendent / district office, offer discounts on other software, etc., and get the superintendent to simply overrule the high school. But this schools sounds pretty independent, so that wouldn't work here.
Sorry, but I haven't noticed CR/CU getting softer, and I've been reading since the early 80s. I think a lot more cars are rated Not Recommended now than previously (this is mostly because of the rollover test which CR designed and which NHTSA finally implemented after years of CU bugging them. I would agree that fewer non-automotive products are getting Not Recommended, but I think that's caused primarily by manufacturers producing fewer unsafe products, not by CR getting soft. Hug a trial lawyer today (OK, maybe not).
I actually miss their old Check-Rated designation (or whatever it's called now). I can't remember the last time I saw one of those. Best Buy -- oops, CR Best Buy (TM) -- is also less frequent than in years past, but it's not gone entirely. Again, though, I think this is primarily due to the marketplace leveling out.
And I have to disagree more on online CR - not because of the content (it's basically the same as the print, though they do updates every so often online), but because of the easy access (well, easy if you're a subscriber). If the Mrs. is out shopping and looking at an impulse buy, she can give me a call on her cell and I can check it out online in a few clicks. Worth the price of admission for that, I tell ya.
I haven't read the text of the bill, but that doesn't stop me from knowing how this is not unconstitutional. The bill doubtless contains provisions such as "The states shall do such and such, or else they'll get no money for road repairs / anti-terrorism funding, etc" The SCOTUS has ruled that it's OK for Congress to attach any strings they want to funding measures. That's always how Congress gets around these pesky things known as the Bill of (Fewer and Fewer) Rights. See, for example, the way Congress raised the drinking age to 21 years old. The problem is that state governments are so dependent on the federal teat that they will do anything the feds say in order to keep their funding. The states would rather have the funding than their sovereignty.
Using RunAs is not as easy to use as Unix and su-ing, but it works. I use it everyday on several computers. If you can edit a batch file, you have have only ill-behaved programs (Quickbooks, Vantive, etc.) run with administrative privileges; everything else can run as a normal user. I'll grant that it's not going to help most users (the ones who run every executable sent to them), but for people who want to use good security principles and still install software every once in a while, it's a good thing.
>Are you of the opinion that you, the user, get to decide if you've abided by the terms and conditions of the EULA?
Yes, I think that the user can decide for himself whether he's violated the EULA (just as the person who distributes software written under the GPL can decide if this distribution is allowed under the GPL). As you note, if the user's decision is different than the copyright holder's (Microsoft's, in this case), a court may end up deciding.
I'm not trying to defend the MS EULA as a good thing. I think it sucks (except for the part about the refund - there are some very interesting ideas about that). But it's bad enough on its own - we don't need to spread FUD about how it says that MS can update it at any time without any notice, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Will there be a free BK clone? Probably. But basing it on Tridge's work wouldn't be necessary. Tridge's work would only be useful for extracting info from BK. Since BK is not the dominant SCMS, Tridge's work has limited utility. A free BK clone would duplicate BK's functionality, but using the same file format as BK would not add much value. Will this clone kill BK? Maybe, maybe not. OpenOffice.org hasn't killed MS Office, and probably will never do so.
For Larry's business to survive, he will have to provide something that's better than what his competitors provide (better meaning lower price, higher quality, more features, faster service, etc.) - just like every other business.
>Most licenses can be modified at any time, without notice, by the licensor. Bill Gates could, in theory, tell the whole world tomorrow "You can no longer use Windows."
Huh? The EULA for Windows XP says no such thing. I think you've confused typical "terms of service" for web sites, which often do say things like this (Yahoo, for example, has clauses like this). This is because Yahoo is essentially a service, not a product. Shrink-wrapped products that don't need to connect to anything else almost never have clauses like this. Why? Because nobody, except for a true sheep, would agree to such a license, for one thing.
Maybe BK did have a clause like this, but most licenses do not.
>Now Andrew Tridgell will simply implement thoses features.
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. You don't understand what you quoted. Tridge didn't write a replacement for BitKeeper. He wrote a tool that allows you interoperate with BitKeeper - to get the source code out of BK without using BK.
"This bill plugs a hole in existing law by allowing for easier and more expeditious enforcement of prerelease piracy by both the government and property owners," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We applaud Congress for taking this step."
As if copyright infringement was not a crime before. Mitch, there was no hole - the penalties just weren't as stiff as you wanted before.
Seisint, which provides data for Matrix, a crime and terrorism database project funded by the U.S. government that has raised concerns among civil liberties groups - stores millions of personal records including individuals' addresses and Social Security numbers. Customers include police and legal professionals and public and private sector organizations.
You have to wonder why they chose Matrix. Was "Big Brother" already used by some other project?
You've got a point there; I guess my idea won't work. I guess I'll go back to the point that the EULA mentions only software:
IMPORTANT--READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product.
Nothing about hardware in there. Nothing about the manufacturer. OK, maybe in the addendum. It's a little hard to say what's in an addendum.
Licensing is basically a contract. Contracts generally have to have benefits for both parties, or they will be ruled void by the court. Contracts also have to be freely entered into. "In exchange for X, you get Y. ``I agree.''"; that's a contract. "You give us Y, you get nothing"; that's not a contract and would generally be unenforceable. In the XP case, you get the benefit of using the software, and you give up the rights to reverse-engineering, the right to rent it out, and (this is the important part), the right to return it for a refund. You indicate your acceptance of this by clicking the "I agree" button. This is an exchange that reasonable people might find useful, so it's a valid contract. But it's a contract between you and Microsoft, not you and the manufacturer.
In EULAs like this, the manufacturer is trying to trying to impose conditions on the use of a product AFTER it has been purchased without any benefit to you. There's no exchange of benefits, because you already have the right to use the hardware - you paid for it. You have the right to use the software if you agree to the license. If you decline the right to use the software, you have the right to a refund.
The "IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND" part of the EULA did not just slip in there by accident. It's essential to make it a valid contract. The manufacturer may not make it easy for you to exercise your right to a refund, but that's why we have courts (and state attorneys general - or is it attorney generals?).
If the manufacturer wants to limit your use of the product, it must be done BEFORE the sale. Before you buy the product, the manufacturer needs to get your agreement to the license. Only then could the manufacturer claim that the EULA is binding on you.
There is no doubt Tridge is being cast as the villain in this piece. Here's what he had to tell us when we asked him for his side of the tale:
...(snip some other comments)
- I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license.
He wasn't license-cracking, because he wasn't subject to the license. At least, that's Tridge's side of the story. What I don't know is if Tridge had ever used BK, or if he had ever agreed to the license. That raises an interesting question of whether somebody who used BK at one point (and agreed to the license), could later reverse-engineer BK (assuming that he didn't use BK while he was reverse engineering it). I don't know how somebody could reverse engineer something without using it in some way, but I'm sure Tridge (and many others) do.
I work in the proprietary software industry, and my company has similar clauses to prohibit reverse-engineering. But you can't force someone to abide by the license if they didn't agree to it. Licensing is a contract, and if you don't agree to a contract, you're not bound by it.
You should get that statement in writing - that you can only return the product as a whole, for a full refund. Then return it - when you're done using it, in 4 or 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Novell didn't issue that press release, SuSE did. Novell bought SuSE long after April 2001. I think the "About Novell" boilerplate at the bottom is just tacked on to all Novell press releases in that folder.
Huh? The GPL is not and has never been promulgated as the One True License. Licensing your work under other GPL and a zillion other licenses has always been permitted. If somebody wants your code but doesn't want the license that you've chosen for it, you can arrange some other license or tell him to pound sand. You have the copyright, you do what you want. There's no subverting of the GPL if it's not used. The rights and obligations under the GPL don't change - it's just that the other party doesn't want them, so you work something else out.
>By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them.
Wrong. The creators have free will - the companies don't get them to write code without compensation.
>This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits ...
How is this unfair? If a company can't provide value to the customer, then it doesn't deserve to exist. The closed-source software industry does not deserve protection from the open-source software industry. I fail to see how competition creates stagnation.
(1) If Google argues that it's an archive, which is possible, then this might not be an issue.
While the law allows libraries to make copies of works, it's only under very specific circumstances, none of which apply in this case. In section 108, it says (emphasis added):
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if --
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage
Since Google is doing it for commercial advantage, they don't meet the first criterion. Further, they don't meet the criteria for sections b or c. Section b applies only to unpublished work, and section C applies to a "published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen"
So no, this library exemption is not going to help Google. These sections were very carefully crafted, and Google's not going to use them as any sort of defense. They may be able to use section 107 (fair use), but not 108.
#include "ianal.h"
Oh, and don't bother to use Firefox to try to download the "Service Pack": it's IE only. Typical.
At the risk of being pedantic, you don't need an iPod to use iTMS. I've bought songs from iTMS so that I could play them on my computer (haven't burned a CD of 'em, yet, but I could do that, too).
It's only the same thing if iTunes can't be easily uninstalled and if the DRM software hooks into the OS so that it can't be removed. I don't think that either of these are true (I don't have iTunes installed, so I can't tell).
The broadcast flag was tossed out because the court found that the FCC did not have the authority to impose it. It was only a regulation; it was not a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. If the "A. Hole" bill passes and is signed, then the law will have to be proven unconstitutional. It won't be an unauthorized regulation like BF.
The president has enough power already, thank you. A line item veto is quite unnecessary.
I think your one line above sums up the problem nicely, but I wonder why it has to be so. Don't the people who hire "cashers" keep records of how much is owed to them by each casher? Wouldn't the casher keep track of how much is owed to various upstream people? It would seem to me that this info would be very useful in rolling up the network. "Dmitri, you're looking at 20 years of hard time. But if you give up your cashers, you'll get off with 2". If I were Dmitri, I'd give them up in a hearbeat. A distributed network can work against you sometimes.
Of course, the real problem may be that my estimates on "time to be served" are off by a factor of 100.
Summary: White bicycles were scattered around Amsterdam in the 60s for people to use. They got stolen and vandalized, so the experiment didn't work.
Still, Microsoft may try this, and I wouldn't consider it immoral. But I'd be damn surprised if it works in this case. Microsoft would have a better chance of it working if this were a public school system, because the purchasing decisions would be made at a different level. Microsoft could lean on the mayor / school superintendent / district office, offer discounts on other software, etc., and get the superintendent to simply overrule the high school. But this schools sounds pretty independent, so that wouldn't work here.
I actually miss their old Check-Rated designation (or whatever it's called now). I can't remember the last time I saw one of those. Best Buy -- oops, CR Best Buy (TM) -- is also less frequent than in years past, but it's not gone entirely. Again, though, I think this is primarily due to the marketplace leveling out.
And I have to disagree more on online CR - not because of the content (it's basically the same as the print, though they do updates every so often online), but because of the easy access (well, easy if you're a subscriber). If the Mrs. is out shopping and looking at an impulse buy, she can give me a call on her cell and I can check it out online in a few clicks. Worth the price of admission for that, I tell ya.
I haven't read the text of the bill, but that doesn't stop me from knowing how this is not unconstitutional. The bill doubtless contains provisions such as "The states shall do such and such, or else they'll get no money for road repairs / anti-terrorism funding, etc" The SCOTUS has ruled that it's OK for Congress to attach any strings they want to funding measures. That's always how Congress gets around these pesky things known as the Bill of (Fewer and Fewer) Rights. See, for example, the way Congress raised the drinking age to 21 years old. The problem is that state governments are so dependent on the federal teat that they will do anything the feds say in order to keep their funding. The states would rather have the funding than their sovereignty.
Sigh. Editors.
Using RunAs is not as easy to use as Unix and su-ing, but it works. I use it everyday on several computers. If you can edit a batch file, you have have only ill-behaved programs (Quickbooks, Vantive, etc.) run with administrative privileges; everything else can run as a normal user. I'll grant that it's not going to help most users (the ones who run every executable sent to them), but for people who want to use good security principles and still install software every once in a while, it's a good thing.
Yes, I think that the user can decide for himself whether he's violated the EULA (just as the person who distributes software written under the GPL can decide if this distribution is allowed under the GPL). As you note, if the user's decision is different than the copyright holder's (Microsoft's, in this case), a court may end up deciding.
I'm not trying to defend the MS EULA as a good thing. I think it sucks (except for the part about the refund - there are some very interesting ideas about that). But it's bad enough on its own - we don't need to spread FUD about how it says that MS can update it at any time without any notice, and there's nothing you can do about it.
For Larry's business to survive, he will have to provide something that's better than what his competitors provide (better meaning lower price, higher quality, more features, faster service, etc.) - just like every other business.
Huh? The EULA for Windows XP says no such thing. I think you've confused typical "terms of service" for web sites, which often do say things like this (Yahoo, for example, has clauses like this). This is because Yahoo is essentially a service, not a product. Shrink-wrapped products that don't need to connect to anything else almost never have clauses like this. Why? Because nobody, except for a true sheep, would agree to such a license, for one thing.
Maybe BK did have a clause like this, but most licenses do not.
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. You don't understand what you quoted. Tridge didn't write a replacement for BitKeeper. He wrote a tool that allows you interoperate with BitKeeper - to get the source code out of BK without using BK.
There are 4 versions of this bill; the link above is to the version "Reported In House". I'm not sure if this is the one that was passed by the house.
For links to all 4 versions, see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.167:
I love this quote from the article:
As if copyright infringement was not a crime before. Mitch, there was no hole - the penalties just weren't as stiff as you wanted before.IMPORTANT--READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product.
Nothing about hardware in there. Nothing about the manufacturer. OK, maybe in the addendum. It's a little hard to say what's in an addendum.
Licensing is basically a contract. Contracts generally have to have benefits for both parties, or they will be ruled void by the court. Contracts also have to be freely entered into. "In exchange for X, you get Y. ``I agree.''"; that's a contract. "You give us Y, you get nothing"; that's not a contract and would generally be unenforceable. In the XP case, you get the benefit of using the software, and you give up the rights to reverse-engineering, the right to rent it out, and (this is the important part), the right to return it for a refund. You indicate your acceptance of this by clicking the "I agree" button. This is an exchange that reasonable people might find useful, so it's a valid contract. But it's a contract between you and Microsoft, not you and the manufacturer.
In EULAs like this, the manufacturer is trying to trying to impose conditions on the use of a product AFTER it has been purchased without any benefit to you. There's no exchange of benefits, because you already have the right to use the hardware - you paid for it. You have the right to use the software if you agree to the license. If you decline the right to use the software, you have the right to a refund. The "IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND" part of the EULA did not just slip in there by accident. It's essential to make it a valid contract. The manufacturer may not make it easy for you to exercise your right to a refund, but that's why we have courts (and state attorneys general - or is it attorney generals?).
If the manufacturer wants to limit your use of the product, it must be done BEFORE the sale. Before you buy the product, the manufacturer needs to get your agreement to the license. Only then could the manufacturer claim that the EULA is binding on you.
IANAL, this isn't legal advice, etc.
There is no doubt Tridge is being cast as the villain in this piece. Here's what he had to tell us when we asked him for his side of the tale:
...(snip some other comments)
- I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license.
He wasn't license-cracking, because he wasn't subject to the license. At least, that's Tridge's side of the story. What I don't know is if Tridge had ever used BK, or if he had ever agreed to the license. That raises an interesting question of whether somebody who used BK at one point (and agreed to the license), could later reverse-engineer BK (assuming that he didn't use BK while he was reverse engineering it). I don't know how somebody could reverse engineer something without using it in some way, but I'm sure Tridge (and many others) do.
I work in the proprietary software industry, and my company has similar clauses to prohibit reverse-engineering. But you can't force someone to abide by the license if they didn't agree to it. Licensing is a contract, and if you don't agree to a contract, you're not bound by it.
You should get that statement in writing - that you can only return the product as a whole, for a full refund. Then return it - when you're done using it, in 4 or 5 years.