why is it more irresponsible than for mirror sites to allow downloading of incomplete distros? It's human nature to want to grab as soon as possible. There are any number of simple ways that the high priests could hide the mirrors till they are ready. convincing a small number of high priests should be a lot simpler than reeducating tens of thousands of new downloaders... I plan to grab it just as soon as I can.
Sorry, but that's not how trademark law works. It just isn't, and it's not a good idea to give this poor schmuck the impression that he this is an open and shut win for him. I'm not saying that a jury would rule against him, no question, but his case has some real problems.
I don't know the entire law on this issue, but that quote he gave from the law was referring to one specific clause. As unsure as I am, I am really sure that you don't know what you are talking about.
fact is, they chose the name "barbie" because they are trying to associate themselves with the good will created by the Barbie doll company. Please, feel free to explain
He said that it was targetted at young girls. Duh! ask any ten year old girl what Barbie means to them and they'll tell you the doll. Then, he posted his "joke" domain name sale... hmmm... seems like he is aware of the cybersquatting aspect of the name. Not that intent matters much. Even if you don't intend to infringe, you still can't if a jury thinks you are. I think a jury would interpret the facts the way I am suggesting. You are free to disagree, but I think it's a good idea to listen to criticism so you (or him, really) don't go sailing into court thinking this case is airtight: it ain't.
censor
please! Ever read the Boy Who Cried Wolf? This is not censorship. He is free to deliver whatever speech/message he wants. He is not free to make the whiff of suggestion that Barbie/Mattel is endorsing the speech.
I'm getting bored of replying to every point. No, you can't make a drink called NotCoke...:(
it would mean that the 'Munky' people didn't have full control of their site
they used language like this too, and I think it is a cheezey attempt to take the moral high ground. They did have full control of their site. They did not have full control of the name "Chunky Monkey". It is as if they were allowed to call their site "Coca Cola" but just to sell soft drinks. There is no high principle involved here. Yeah, they couldn't make T-shirts because there is somebody else already making T-shirts called Chunky Monkey. Oooooh! a chilling effect on their free speech! Spare me.
The ChunkyMunky boyz are a bunch of jerks, looks like to me. It says the woman who owns the "Chunky Monkey" trademark agreed to not stand in their way! She had no objection to them using their domain for non-profit purposes along the lines of what they were currently doing. But they refused to go along with it and posted their bitter bile instead. I don't get it.
Why is this moderated up so high? It is basically wrong.
I'm not saying that you choose a bad name for the clan;
fact is, they chose the name "barbie" because they are trying to associate themselves with the good will created by the Barbie doll company. How would Slashdotters like it if someone set up a "linux" site devoted to Microsoft Windows? Should anyone be allowed to "redefine" what trademarks mean, may the richest man win? If you answer this question "yes," great, go tell your congressman. Because trademark law says you can't.
outside of web space, it's very hard to connect names and the like to trademarks (and I'd love to see anyone try to inforce that).
This sentence is something less than understandable it is so inarticulate. However, trademark enforcement outside of web space goes back a long time. If anything, trademark enforcement on the web is less than in meatspace because there are some unique issues: TLDs do not map to trademark international classes, and the registry/"phone number" nature of DNS is not exactly like meatspace naming.
Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD.com with a non-commerical entity? An.org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.
it would have made no difference to Mattel. And if it's your personal nit, why are you even posting to a profit-making.org?
you should also have a bit more on your page as it stands now as to avoid issues with cybersquatting. Explain that this will be a clan page for "Tribes", and also state that in no way the page is connected with the Barbie trademark or MAttle. That might have also calmed the lawyers and made your case stronger when ICANN reviews it.
That will barely make the defense stronger. You can't sell soda named Coca Cola and write on the can, "this is not real Coca Cola".
The value of that depends on what your primary concern is -- protecting your code from misuse or encouraging others to work with it.
I understand what you are saying, but I think that this issue is a little bit more subtle. "Punishing" a GPL violator would raise awareness of what the GPL is and would not deter anyone legit. There is no such thing as bad PR: awareness is always good. The only companies who would be deterred would be the ones who did not intend to release source, but they should be deterred, the license does not allow that. And as a said in my previous post, I think that the individual who copies the source is aware that it is against the rules. I don't think it is credible to believe that anybody is not aware of this essense of copyright law.
However, if that were sufficient, then so would be Microsoft's... click license
That's the point: a software publisher who used EULAs and copied GPLed source could't very well take the position that EULAs are not binding...
And MS could say "well, we got the code using an unarchiver which never showed us this so-called license thing
...especially if they were a publisher that also believed that the DMCA stopped the circumvention of copy-protection as you describe.
Or, to put it a different way, I'd love to see Microsoft win with your defense because it would entail total capitulation with regard to what they say about all of their own licenses. Ebay would become a huge software bazaar and the "microsoft" user would have to get it's negative evals back:)
OK, so Bruce Perens-dot is not Bruce Perens. It's an interesting point. The original author of the GPL'ed code, however, could still litigate for the initial violation.
... and the damages would at least be what Microsoft earned from selling the original author's code. I'm not so sure that faced with that they wouldn't just open the source.
could "more teeth" be put in the GPL by creating an archive format that came with a EULA click-wrap that said: "acceptance of this license indicates that you agree to release the source if you incorporate this source in your product. no chance to rewrite, you give all recipients the right to source on demand [+ viral boilerplate]"
include a thin layer of archive encryption and make it a violation of the DMCA to create versions without the EULA.
yes, it was sarcasm:) I've now seen two fascinating definitions of "better"
it doesn't support one of the most ubiquitous features of its alternative, so it's better!
some other standard supports that feature, but it is not actually on any desktops so advertisers should definitely adopt it because it's so clearly better
Unfortunately, neither of those definitions of better is better than the one that 99% of the web is indicating support for.
don't be so sensitive. it is MHO, that's irrefutable. I hate the "oh, it's such a burden for me to set everyone else straight" sighs, especially when they come from someone who is wrong.
yes, your clarification is correct, but your orginal post was wrong. A more appropriate clarification would be, "oh, I'm sorry, I didn't say that right", rather than accusing me of not reading the article when I clearly had.
How do you prove damages on a program you charge nothing for?
You do raise an interesting issue, but it does not necessarily go the way you are assuming. The non-source-releaser is not covered by the GPL. Since you, as the copyright holder, own and have the right to sell your work, you are at least entitled to any proceeds from someone else selling it, plus punitive damages. If you can show that they were selling it cheaper than you could have, it's worth even more. Might be good to let 'em go for awhile, your rights don't evaporate:)
diagnosis: attention deficit disorder, leading to profound anti-social tendencies.
take a deep breath and focus on some reasonably topical point you wish to make. GPL is a license allowing one to distribute copyrighted works. It is not an economics ideology, nor is it a judicial system, nor is it totalitarianism. I know, I know... you feel oppressed.
you are ignoring a point I tried to make, or at least being fuzzy with your language.
Making a mistake by accidently incorporating GPLed code? I don't buy it. Everybody knows that source is copyrighted and you would by default need to inquire as to by what license do you come by having that source.
Making a mistake of knowingly violating the license? OK, you don't need to slit your wrists, but you should make restitution. It's the socially responsible thing to do.
And why do you keep talking about prying and crowbarring source away? Open source is a good thing: you're doing people a favor if you convince them to open their source. Closed source is dying, but open provides life everlasting. With all those eyes, your bugs become shallow. There are many itches out there: you can't scratch them all. You (the copier) know the benefit of open source... that's why you chose it! time to feel the power by releasing it that way too.
mmmm... since you are being picky, you need to clean up your language: not releasing the source code means you are not covered by the GPL license. So, you are violating a copyright and the remedies for copyright violations go beyond simply stopping.
One perfectly good reason is that we don't have wads of cash in our pockets
certainly, that's a good reason. but, in every case I've seen, the cave-in takes place on day one, and comes with statements that say it was never considered. I think the GPL would have a lot more teeth if it were enforced. Get creative. Lawyers will work on contingency: these companies should be willing to pay a settlement if their precious source is worth so much to them. They have, after all, broken the law. Also, they have competitors: how much of a lawsuit would one MB mfr pay to spank another, and see their source. So, doesn't seem like that good a reason.
Another, we'd rather have a company fix their mistake and take a public 'we screwed up' spanking than duking it out in court.
who is "we"? If "we" believe that open source is a good thing, then we believe it's a good thing even if some of the participants get dragged kicking and screaming into the quicksand that they stepped into. Your reasoning seems to imply that you think that open source is something to be avoided.
Finally, because we're the good guys. Just because most everyone else on earth would bend you over in court for a nickel doesn't mean you have to hand out the shaft as well.
Again, open source is not the shaft. It's a good thing. And, the GPL should be and would be meaningful. You release a binary, you release the source. We all benefit, including you, as you will discover when you release the source which you have to release because of the choices you have made.
Perhaps the GPL should add a UCITA click-wrap to the license: you use this source, and you agree to abide by the terms. We'll see how much "the industry" likes UCITA when it applies to the technology they steal;)
why does every GPL violator get a "second chance" to rewrite the software so they don't infringe and don't have to release?
GPL authors: if your code gets released in binary form only, you (and only you) have the right to demand that the source code be released. Everyone else can ask, but if it is not released that means the license to copy is revoked. But only the copyright owner can enforce the copyright.
If we wish to encourage the opening of source, why aren't these violations used as the wedge to say, "open, or be sued!"? It seems to me that GPLed software is being used as a fast-time-to-market convenience. It would do a lot to raise awareness of the GPL if it were enforced. These companies would never (or would they?) think of stealing other copyrighted software. Why should they think they can steal GPLed? Let me say it again: if you start with someone elses source code, you know you need a license. IMHO, these violations are not accidental, and should not be treated that way.
Slashdot Mirror
why is it more irresponsible than for mirror sites to allow downloading of incomplete distros? It's human nature to want to grab as soon as possible. There are any number of simple ways that the high priests could hide the mirrors till they are ready. convincing a small number of high priests should be a lot simpler than reeducating tens of thousands of new downloaders... I plan to grab it just as soon as I can.
----
Sorry, but that's not how trademark law works. It just isn't, and it's not a good idea to give this poor schmuck the impression that he this is an open and shut win for him. I'm not saying that a jury would rule against him, no question, but his case has some real problems.
----
I don't know the entire law on this issue, but that quote he gave from the law was referring to one specific clause. As unsure as I am, I am really sure that you don't know what you are talking about.
----
He said that it was targetted at young girls. Duh! ask any ten year old girl what Barbie means to them and they'll tell you the doll. Then, he posted his "joke" domain name sale... hmmm... seems like he is aware of the cybersquatting aspect of the name. Not that intent matters much. Even if you don't intend to infringe, you still can't if a jury thinks you are. I think a jury would interpret the facts the way I am suggesting. You are free to disagree, but I think it's a good idea to listen to criticism so you (or him, really) don't go sailing into court thinking this case is airtight: it ain't.
censor
please! Ever read the Boy Who Cried Wolf? This is not censorship. He is free to deliver whatever speech/message he wants. He is not free to make the whiff of suggestion that Barbie/Mattel is endorsing the speech.
I'm getting bored of replying to every point. No, you can't make a drink called NotCoke... :(
----
The case of a public person's name is slightly different, not the same as a trademark.
----
they used language like this too, and I think it is a cheezey attempt to take the moral high ground. They did have full control of their site. They did not have full control of the name "Chunky Monkey". It is as if they were allowed to call their site "Coca Cola" but just to sell soft drinks. There is no high principle involved here. Yeah, they couldn't make T-shirts because there is somebody else already making T-shirts called Chunky Monkey. Oooooh! a chilling effect on their free speech! Spare me.
----
The ChunkyMunky boyz are a bunch of jerks, looks like to me. It says the woman who owns the "Chunky Monkey" trademark agreed to not stand in their way! She had no objection to them using their domain for non-profit purposes along the lines of what they were currently doing. But they refused to go along with it and posted their bitter bile instead. I don't get it.
----
I'm not saying that you choose a bad name for the clan;
fact is, they chose the name "barbie" because they are trying to associate themselves with the good will created by the Barbie doll company. How would Slashdotters like it if someone set up a "linux" site devoted to Microsoft Windows? Should anyone be allowed to "redefine" what trademarks mean, may the richest man win? If you answer this question "yes," great, go tell your congressman. Because trademark law says you can't.
outside of web space, it's very hard to connect names and the like to trademarks (and I'd love to see anyone try to inforce that).
This sentence is something less than understandable it is so inarticulate. However, trademark enforcement outside of web space goes back a long time. If anything, trademark enforcement on the web is less than in meatspace because there are some unique issues: TLDs do not map to trademark international classes, and the registry/"phone number" nature of DNS is not exactly like meatspace naming.
Secondly, and more of my nit, why are you polluting the TLD .com with a non-commerical entity? An .org name would be better here, and would probably have taken mattle's site off from you.
it would have made no difference to Mattel. And if it's your personal nit, why are you even posting to a profit-making .org?
you should also have a bit more on your page as it stands now as to avoid issues with cybersquatting. Explain that this will be a clan page for "Tribes", and also state that in no way the page is connected with the Barbie trademark or MAttle. That might have also calmed the lawyers and made your case stronger when ICANN reviews it.
That will barely make the defense stronger. You can't sell soda named Coca Cola and write on the can, "this is not real Coca Cola".
----
The value of that depends on what your primary concern is -- protecting your code from misuse or encouraging others to work with it.
I understand what you are saying, but I think that this issue is a little bit more subtle. "Punishing" a GPL violator would raise awareness of what the GPL is and would not deter anyone legit. There is no such thing as bad PR: awareness is always good. The only companies who would be deterred would be the ones who did not intend to release source, but they should be deterred, the license does not allow that. And as a said in my previous post, I think that the individual who copies the source is aware that it is against the rules. I don't think it is credible to believe that anybody is not aware of this essense of copyright law.
----
That's the point: a software publisher who used EULAs and copied GPLed source could't very well take the position that EULAs are not binding...
And MS could say "well, we got the code using an unarchiver which never showed us this so-called license thing
...especially if they were a publisher that also believed that the DMCA stopped the circumvention of copy-protection as you describe.
Or, to put it a different way, I'd love to see Microsoft win with your defense because it would entail total capitulation with regard to what they say about all of their own licenses. Ebay would become a huge software bazaar and the "microsoft" user would have to get it's negative evals back :)
----
... and the damages would at least be what Microsoft earned from selling the original author's code. I'm not so sure that faced with that they wouldn't just open the source.
----
include a thin layer of archive encryption and make it a violation of the DMCA to create versions without the EULA.
----
- it doesn't support one of the most ubiquitous features of its alternative, so it's better!
- some other standard supports that feature, but it is not actually on any desktops so advertisers should definitely adopt it because it's so clearly better
Unfortunately, neither of those definitions of better is better than the one that 99% of the web is indicating support for.----
yes, png animation is so much better than gif animation that I'm amazed anyone would still use gifs.
----
steal your U-boat stories? There you go again, stealing German U-boat stories and trying to finger us.
----
yes, there is an element of truth to the history you are recounting, but still, the GPL is just a license.
Just like Marx was wrong about most of what he said, but still, religion is the opiate of the masses.
----
yes, your clarification is correct, but your orginal post was wrong. A more appropriate clarification would be, "oh, I'm sorry, I didn't say that right", rather than accusing me of not reading the article when I clearly had.
----
How do you prove damages on a program you charge nothing for?
You do raise an interesting issue, but it does not necessarily go the way you are assuming. The non-source-releaser is not covered by the GPL. Since you, as the copyright holder, own and have the right to sell your work, you are at least entitled to any proceeds from someone else selling it, plus punitive damages. If you can show that they were selling it cheaper than you could have, it's worth even more. Might be good to let 'em go for awhile, your rights don't evaporate :)
----
take a deep breath and focus on some reasonably topical point you wish to make. GPL is a license allowing one to distribute copyrighted works. It is not an economics ideology, nor is it a judicial system, nor is it totalitarianism. I know, I know... you feel oppressed.
----
Making a mistake by accidently incorporating GPLed code? I don't buy it. Everybody knows that source is copyrighted and you would by default need to inquire as to by what license do you come by having that source.
Making a mistake of knowingly violating the license? OK, you don't need to slit your wrists, but you should make restitution. It's the socially responsible thing to do.
And why do you keep talking about prying and crowbarring source away? Open source is a good thing: you're doing people a favor if you convince them to open their source. Closed source is dying, but open provides life everlasting. With all those eyes, your bugs become shallow. There are many itches out there: you can't scratch them all. You (the copier) know the benefit of open source... that's why you chose it! time to feel the power by releasing it that way too.
----
mmmm... since you are being picky, you need to clean up your language: not releasing the source code means you are not covered by the GPL license. So, you are violating a copyright and the remedies for copyright violations go beyond simply stopping.
----
Anyway, you're confused: they aren't using the license, that's the problem. They're distributing the code without a license.
----
IMHO, the nerd "sigh" is a giant flag that says, "I've got a stick up my ass"
----
certainly, that's a good reason. but, in every case I've seen, the cave-in takes place on day one, and comes with statements that say it was never considered. I think the GPL would have a lot more teeth if it were enforced. Get creative. Lawyers will work on contingency: these companies should be willing to pay a settlement if their precious source is worth so much to them. They have, after all, broken the law. Also, they have competitors: how much of a lawsuit would one MB mfr pay to spank another, and see their source. So, doesn't seem like that good a reason.
Another, we'd rather have a company fix their mistake and take a public 'we screwed up' spanking than duking it out in court.
who is "we"? If "we" believe that open source is a good thing, then we believe it's a good thing even if some of the participants get dragged kicking and screaming into the quicksand that they stepped into. Your reasoning seems to imply that you think that open source is something to be avoided.
Finally, because we're the good guys. Just because most everyone else on earth would bend you over in court for a nickel doesn't mean you have to hand out the shaft as well.
Again, open source is not the shaft. It's a good thing. And, the GPL should be and would be meaningful. You release a binary, you release the source. We all benefit, including you, as you will discover when you release the source which you have to release because of the choices you have made.
Perhaps the GPL should add a UCITA click-wrap to the license: you use this source, and you agree to abide by the terms. We'll see how much "the industry" likes UCITA when it applies to the technology they steal ;)
----
GPL authors: if your code gets released in binary form only, you (and only you) have the right to demand that the source code be released. Everyone else can ask, but if it is not released that means the license to copy is revoked. But only the copyright owner can enforce the copyright.
If we wish to encourage the opening of source, why aren't these violations used as the wedge to say, "open, or be sued!"? It seems to me that GPLed software is being used as a fast-time-to-market convenience. It would do a lot to raise awareness of the GPL if it were enforced. These companies would never (or would they?) think of stealing other copyrighted software. Why should they think they can steal GPLed? Let me say it again: if you start with someone elses source code, you know you need a license. IMHO, these violations are not accidental, and should not be treated that way.
----