Dave Turner (Mr License) of the FSF has decreed that the steps required to use an LGPL'd Java library will actually infect client code with substantial GNU-ness via Section 6 of the LGPL.
We get statements like that all the time from the FSF and there's no validity to them.
The FSF writes their licenses. Any subsequent ambiguities are to be decided in court. There is no basis for post-facto "decrees" about what a document is supposed to mean -- the author has the opportunity to write it to cover whatever case, and has the responsibility to make his intentions clear then.
Excellent point. I would like to add another.
Because, as you note, "the author has the opportunity to write it to cover whatever case, and has the responsibility to make his intentions clear," a standard rule of contract (and a license is a form of contract) interpretation is that a contract is construed against the drafter. In other words, if a contractual provision is ambiguous, all other things geing equal, the ambiguity will be resolved against the party that drafted the contract.
Statements by the FSF regarding its interpretation of the GPL and LGPL may be useful in determining which legal positions it will assert in litigation, and whether it will file suit. However, its interpretation is useful in determining whether said position will prevail only to the extent that their reasoning is persuasive. The fact that the FSF has chosen to interpret a contractual provision is a given way is, by itself, useless for the latter purpose.
It appears the bill doesn't address the DMCA problem. As the article states:
RALEIGH, N.C. -- The state House agreed Tuesday to Senate changes to a bill that would give printer owners the right to refill any printer ink cartridge, voiding
purchase agreements that ban the practice.
It appears the North Carolina law simply declares void contractual agreements not to refill printer ink cartridges as being against the public policy of the state. While this might be necessary for such refilling to be legal, it does not appear that this law is by itself sufficient to make it legal.
The law does not address the DMCA problem. That is, even if in North Carolina a contractual provision cannot prevent someone from refilling ink cartridges because said provision is void under this North Carolina law, this doesn't prevent a printer manufacturer from filing a DMCA claim against a company that makes the refilling kits.
Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the Constitution), the State of North Carolina may have been unable to address the DMCA issue, and indeed may have recognized that fact. Article VI provides:
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu ti on.articlevi.html
When Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting state law and policy must yield.7 Although the preemptive effect of federal legislation is best known in areas governed by the commerce clause, the same effect is present, of course, whenever Congress legislates constitutionally. And the operation of the supremacy clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not express but implied.
[Footnote 7] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210 -211 (1824). See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 2608 (1992); Morales v. TWA, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (1992); Maryland v. Lousiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977).
See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article 06/02.html#4
I have to wonder if this legislation will accomplish anything. I also have to wonder if the legislature knew that it might not accomplish anything when they passed it.
Supercedes federal copyright law in North Carolina?
I doubt it, although Lexmark would be a fool to push it.
Good point. Consider the application of Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause:
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitu ti on.articlevi.html
When Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting state law and policy must yield.7 Although the preemptive effect of federal legislation is best known in areas governed by the commerce clause, the same effect is present, of course, whenever Congress legislates constitutionally. And the operation of the supremacy clause may be seen as well when the authority of Congress is not express but implied.
[Footnote 7] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 210 -211 (1824). See, e.g., Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 112 S.Ct. 2608 (1992); Morales v. TWA, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (1992); Maryland v. Lousiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977).
See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article 06/02.html#4
As of last month there were more people working on Mozilla as volunteers than as AOL/netscape employees.
Yes, but how much time were the volunteers spending on it? My guess it that after the layoff, there will be fewer people working on Mozilla full-time. There may be a big difference between somebody who works on a project as his full-time job, and somebody who works on it after coming home at night tired from a full day at work.
After everything settles down, I'd be curious to know how many *hours* were spent each month working on Mozilla before the layoff, after the layoff, six months after the layoff, a year after the layoff, etc.
Finally, can one reasonably the volunteers to be as qualified, experienced, efficient and productive and the people who worked on it full-time?
What Gerv was saying (I think) is that AOL is using v.3 to relicence _to_ the Mozilla Foundation any reamaining NPL code under the MPL so that going forward all of Mozilla will be MPL/GPL/LGPL (no NPL) so that if AOL uses future versions of these files they will have no NPL special rights. They will be able to use code from the Mozilla Foundation under the terms of any of the MPL, GPL or LGPL.
I'm not sure, but I think you are right. From the update, it appears that AOL has completely abandoned the Netscape browser (or at least making any profit from the code; it appears they will support current versions for at least awhile), and thus the NPL is superfluous. Under these conditions, it also appears that any contribution AOL makes to the Mozilla Foundation will be 100% deductible. AOL isn't going to get any economic benefit because it has given up on the code.
Note also that AOL's transactions with Mozilla are unlikely to be categorized as an "excess benefit transaction," as one person commented. Excess benefit transactions are problems with self-dealing--e.g., if a 501(c)3 pays someone who is a disqualified person (impermissibly connected to organizational decisionmakers) too much for the services rendered, then the excess benefit penalties kicks in.
Thanks for the information. I realize that I was thinking of a different issue.
As I understand it, if someone at a charity auction pays $1000 for tickets to a Broadway show that are worth $200, they get only an $800 tax deduction. That is because he is getting a ticket worth $200, and therefore making a charitable contribution of only $800.
I'm wondering if the same principle could, or should, apply to any monetary contributions AOL makes to the Mozilla Foundation ("MF"). Take AOL's $2 million contribution to the MF. Is that all "charity?" Let's assume, to make the argument easier, that the entire $2 million is used to improve "Branded Code" that falls under V.3 of the NPL:
V.3. Alternative Licensing.
Netscape may license the Source Code of Netscape's Branded Code, including Modifications incorporated therein, without such Netscape Branded Code becoming subject to the terms of this License, and may license such Netscape Branded Code on different terms from those contained in this License.
AOL can do something with this improved, modified code that noone else can do -- relicense and sell same without being bound by the requirements of the MPL, LGPL, GPL, or NPL that bind others (such as distributing the source). Doesn't this have economic value? And if it does, doesn't this decrease the amount of AOL's "charitable" contribution? Just as one must deduct the $200 value of the Broadway tickets from the $1000 paid at auction, mustn't one deduct the economic value (doesn't the taxpayer have the burden of proof on this?) AOL derives from improvements to its Branded Code from the amount of its contribution?
V.3 is the clause under which AOL is licensing all NPLed code to the Foundation under the MPL (and it'll get tri-licensed in the fullness of time), so be glad that it's there:-)
I am glad its there.:) And I'm not trying to pick on AOL / Netscape. Just issue spotting.
Let's look at V.3:
V.3. Alternative Licensing.
Netscape may license the Source Code of Netscape's Branded Code, including Modifications incorporated therein, without such Netscape Branded Code becoming subject to the terms of this License, and may license such Netscape Branded Code on different terms from those contained in this License.
If there is an argument to be made that AOL will get a disproportionate benefit from any contribution to the Mozilla Foundation (and assuming for the moment that such disproportionate benefit would make some difference), the argument will be based on V.3. Said section apparently allows Netscampe (now AOL) to relicense "modifications" to the original Netscape branded code (and thus profit from same) without complying with the MPL, LGPL, GPL, or other terms of the NPL.
Interestingly, the IRS states:
An organization will be regarded as "operated exclusively" for one or more exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of the exempt purposes specified in IRC Section 501(c)(3).
An organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. For more information concerning types of charitable organizations and their activities, download Publication 557.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of an IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any managers agreeing to the transaction.
I wonder if the last emphasized sentence might indicate that while the Mozilla Foundation may obtain 501(c)(3) status, perhaps AOL's contributions to same will not be fully deductible.
I'm just thinking out loud and playing with ideas here.
But everyone does benefit. You put public benefit in quotes, but if it's free software, then they do. It's like saying that Ford shouldn't contribute to a research foundation which publishes the results of its findings, which Ford futher takes and uses to create a new product. The public still got the results, and other corporations, government agencies or non-profits are also able to do
the same as Ford.
I'm not sure that your analogy holds up for the following reason. Unlike the situation you posit, AOL and the public do not benefit to the same degree. The NPL grants to Netscape (and now AOL) benefits that are not available to the general public:
V. Use of Modifications and Covered Code by Initial Developer.
V.1. In General.
The obligations of Section 3 apply to Netscape, except to the extent specified in this Amendment, Section V.2 and V.3.
V.2. Other Products.
Netscape may include Covered Code in products other than the Netscape's Branded Code which are released by Netscape during the two (2) years following the release date of the Original Code, without such additional products becoming subject to the terms of this License, and may license such additional products on different terms from those contained in this License.
V.3. Alternative Licensing.
Netscape may license the Source Code of Netscape's Branded Code, including Modifications incorporated therein, without such Netscape Branded Code becoming subject to the terms of this License, and may license such Netscape Branded Code on different terms from those contained in this License.
See http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.1.html
In other words, it appears that under the current triple licensing scheme, AOL gets a disproportionate benefit from any development or enhancement of Mozilla. Does this make a difference for the purposes of 501(c)(3)? I don't know. However, I think it *may* be an issue.
This is actually pretty nice, and I would like to see it become a trend. Take a large pice of internal work, turn it into free software under a non-profit, and get the writeoff. The public benefits in a big way, so it should be a writeoff.
Getting the write-off for giving away the software isn't the problem. The possible problem is getting a tax deduction for your contributions to research performed by a "non-profit public benefit corporation" when your company has attempted to profit, and intends to continue to attempt to profit, from that research in the future.
Jury nullification is very rare. It is certainly not something you can count on to say with 100% certainty that "the RIAA will *LOOSE*. And they know it."
With all due respect, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.
Frankly, I don't think the RIAA will *EVER* go to trial. They know if they loose once, their threat goes bye-bye. They will try to settle or, failing that, drop the case due to a "lack of evidence".
This also isn't realistic. If they lose one at the trial court level, it isn't a binding precedent. (Particularly if the loss is due to jury nullification.) It isn't like they can't afford to file more suits. All they have to do is keep trying until they find a jury that actually follows the law (which shouldn't be that hard to do) and then ruin somebody. Then they will have their headlines and their head on a pike.
Anyone who thought they were safe after a single case of "jury nullification" would be an utter fool.
Contributions not yet tax-deductible.
on
The Mozilla Foundation
·
· Score: 5, Informative
2. Would said contribution be tax-deductible (not all non-profit donations are)?
From http://www.mozillafoundation.org/press/mozilla-fou ndation.html
The Mozilla Foundation has been incorporated as a California public benefit corporation and is
seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit organization.
(emphasis added). Since the Mozilla Foundation is applying for 501(c)(3) status, contributions are not yet tax deductible. Which raises the interesting question, i.e., should 501(c)(3) status be granted? In particular, should contributions by AOL to the Mozilla Foundation be tax deductible when AOL will use any work performed by the "public benefit corporation" in its Netscape product? Is this a way for a for profit corporation to fund research in a tax-deductible way?
Perhaps a counter-argument is that given the license used for Mozilla (I forget which it is; it may be important), *anyone* could use the work... but could anyone use it in for-profit software?
I haven't thought this throught, but it might be an interesting issue.
If any of the cases they bring gets EFF legal support and a judge with his head out of his ass (not very likely, but possible), then gets before a jury (Federal juries tend to have a slightly higher level of intelligence), the RIAA will *LOOSE*. And they know it.
Why? I really am curious. Why to you think the RIAA not only will loose, but also that they *know* it.
Think of the test case. Somebody has downloaded, what? 500 songs? 1000 songs? They've traced the IP numbers. Go to a judge, get a civil order to raid the defendant (it is done all of the time in trademark knockoff cases), seize the computer, and find the 500 or 1000 songs. And you are so confident that the RIAA will lose. Based on what?
Re:Alas, it is already too late.
on
The Big Kerplop
·
· Score: 1
That doesn't sound half as bad as what
you said.
(emphasis added)
As indicated by my use of quotations marks, I quoted directly from the Fox News article:
SANTA MONICA -- A Santa Monica elementary school has banned the game of tag, once synonymous with youth and innocence, because they say it creates self-esteem issues among weaker and slower children.
See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55836,00.html
As the article goes on to say:
In the school's weekly newsletter, Samarge told parents that without adult supervision, the game would be banned. The principal said children playing tag suffered both physical and
emotional injuries.
If kids can't play *tag* without supervision, what can they do without supervision? Play football? LOL Soccer? But there are collisions! Basketball? You've got to be kidding. Sometimes children are knocked down!
Alas, it is already too late.
on
The Big Kerplop
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Now, that the rediscovered full-length novel about the Club, The Big Kerplop is being republished with a bit of a splash, some adults may look at stories like this and decided that there's a danger that kids might start imitating the novels. The bigger danger, though, may come if they don't.
Some of these tricks could get you some scars I guess but that's not the worst future awaiting a young reader. First, chicks dig scars -- although that theorem lies well outside of the scope of this book. Second, this may be the adult in me, but kids today seem fatter, lazier, and more hogtied than ever before.
What makes you think open source developers only copy ideas? Part of the article (you read it right?) had to do with cabilities of open source software that are unmatched by anything else.
Good point. However (and this is not a criticism), if anything you have only reinforced the parent posts's major point that:
The commercial, and particularly the retail, software industry is in big trouble from open source software.
As the old going says, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Regarding Williams (a "pop star" I have no time for) EMI are taking a cut of his tours, merchandising etc but they've paid him, or are contracted to pay him, several millions of pounds over the next few years. When the deal was announced, Williams said, "I'm rich beyond my wildest dreams!"
He'd better not speak so quickly. Mariah Carey was rich too, until Sony dropped her.
(emphasis added)
Mariah Carey was paid $21 million when she signed with EMI... and another $28 million to walk away. I think that qualifies as "rich." I don't think she has to worry too much about money.
In October EMI Recorded Music signed a deal with Brit singer Robbie Williams that gives the label a cut of the pop star's merchandise, publishing, touring revenue and sponsorship. Williams, unknown here but huge everywhere else, is a former boy-band star who has sold 26 million records since 1995 and regularly sells out concert crowds. His current European tour includes three nights at England's cavernous Knebworth Stadium, where he will cavort in front of 150,000 people each night.
Hence EMI's willingness to pay him an estimated $20 million for a 25% stake for his nonmusic revenue, in addition to hefty per-album advances.
(emhapasis added) Source: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/07 07/078.ht ml
Hmmmmm... "$20 million for a 25% stake for his nonmusic revenue, in addition to hefty per-album advances." I'm not sure EMI is taking advantage of him.:)
If pirates had just bought the damn CDs instead of illegally downloading them, the record companies wouldn't have to do this. You caused this.
I wasn't going to say this... but I was going to raise the same issue.:)
Seriously, I think the problem for many who get all of their music free from the net and haven't paid for recorded music in years (some of whom take great pride in that fact) is as follows. While you say that you don't want to punish the artists (and I believe you), and you hate and want to punish the greedy, monopolistic, dictatorial, idiotic, Britney Spears foisting record companies, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to screw the record companies without screwing the artists. Given the gross disparity of power between all but the most succesful artists and record companies, it is *always* the artists who are going to get screwed. Efforts to screw the record companies are akin to an economic drive by with artistic children wandering around the kill zone. It is always the (relatively) innocent who get hurt.
I guess artists can always just give up on the idea of making big bucks off of selling recorded music, and simply tour for a living.
p.s. Given the topic, I don't feel bad saying that a good friend of mine is in the band Drinkers Purgatory (see url above and sig below), and could use your support.:) In this case, "support" simply means checking out their (free) MP3s.
The FSF's Kuhn advised free software writers to register their copyrights in the United States, even if they do not reside in the country.
But Eric Raymond, co-founder and president of the OSI, cautioned that the industry should not respond to the SCO matter by trying to further regulate the open-source code and contribution process.
The volume and quality of contributions to open source are very sensitive to the "overheads of submission and increasing these overheads to the development process could do long-term damage to the industry," he said.
got me to thinking. Has anybody considered a poison pill scenario?
Bad Company wants to slow down Linux, the GPL, open source software, etc. Bad Company uses Bad Agent to take secret, closed-source code owned by Bad Company and "contribute" it to Linux. Bad Company then waits six months, a year, two years....
Bad Agent vanishes (with his $ millions....)
Bad Company then asserts its copyright claims. "OMG! It seems our former employee, (Bad) Agent, contributed some of our copyrighted, closed-source (and for that matter, trade secret) code to Linux two years ago, and we didn't know about it! Everybody has to rip out the code... and pay us....
While I understand Raymond's concerns, I think Kuhn is right. I'm not sure he goes far enough.
[a]n alert, either an exclamation point or an unlocked padlock, was sent to the phones in question.
We'll probably see the standard privacy (natural, fundemental, pre-existing) rights vs. untilitarian (what if the terrorists have a nucclear weapon? / are going to kill 10,000 hostages?) posts.
However, I'm just amazed that Russia issued such a warning... unless, as a matter of software determinism, they couldn't turn off the encryption without turning sending the warning.
Yes its in our constitution. Take a look at the clause about right to reasonable privacy and protections from unreasonable search and seizure. Its a fun document... tells all about how free the nation is supposed to be... look over it for a kick someday!
The Fourth Ammendment, re: unreasonable searches and seizures, was originally interpreted to be limitation only on the power of the federal government. It has subsequently been interpreted to also be a limitation on the power of state governments. This is referred to as the "state action requirement." It is *not* a limitation on power of private entities, such as Wallmart. Neither the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Ammendment, nor the Constitutional Right to Privacy inferred from Fourth Ammendment apply to this situation.
What exactly is "unfortunate" about this? If it doesn't make it into a consumer product at the point of sale, what FSCKING harm is it doing?
It makes it more likely that it will make it into a consumer products at the point of sale in the future. It will increase the demand, leading to an increase in the supply, then lower cost, then further adoption. Opponents want it to remain a high cost technology.
Further, once items are tagged for the purpose of warehouse inventory control, it may be the case that they will remain tagged for retail purposes, and the only additional cost of retail implementation will be the cost of the scanners.
In 1998, Massachusetts, together with a group of states and the United States Department of Justice, filed a civil law suit against Microsoft Corporation alleging antitrust violations. In 2000, the Court found Microsoft liable for maintaining an illegal monopoly in personal computer operating systems. In November 2002, following an appeal and several court hearings, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a judgment in the Massachusetts case prohibiting Microsoft from continuing certain unlawful conduct.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is seeking stricter and more rigorous restrictions on Microsoft's business practices than those put in place by the Court judgment, and has asked the Court of Appeals to consider the matter. Massachusetts is scheduled to argue its appeal in November 2003.
Even though Massachusetts is pursuing a further remedy, the Massachusetts Attorney General is working to ensure that Microsoft complies with the injunction issued in November 2002. If you or your business have a complaint about Microsoft's business behavior or practices, please complete a Complaint Form (File Size: 26 KB) and forward it to the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1598, Attention: Kenneth Miller, CPAD. If you have a complaint against Microsoft, you also may call Kenneth Miller at (617) 727-2200 ext. 2965.
1. Enforcement: How will they actually prosecute (or even find) spammers that violate the law? I'd say there's a pretty good chance that there will be quite a few complaints. Assuming they're even able to backtrack and find the spammers who violate the law, a large number of violations could render this law unenforceable. It takes a good amount of time to review the violation, try to track down where the e-mail came from, etc. If they can't effectivly track down violators, the law won't do much.
I suspect they will handle this the same way that the IRS handles enforcement -- i.e., a relatively small number of well publicized prosecutions against high profile defendants where they really destoy the defendants.
2. Interstate/International commerce: While this should affect spammers in all states (as explained in another post), how will this hold up with international companies? Does this stop a company in the US from sending it's spam through a Canadian e-mail advertising agency? Does it apply to non-US companies at all? I'm far from a legal expert, so if you have any ideas please share them.
I have no doubt that Michigan will take the position that it has personal jurisdiction over any person or company that intentionally sends e-mail to Michigan residents in violation of the statute. I have little doubt that the courts will uphold this assertion of jurisdiction. Traditionally, when a business specifically solicits business in a state via mail or advertising specifically targeted to residents of the state (e.g., advertising in local newspapers, local TV and radio stations, etc.) it is held to have submitted to personal jurisdiction in that state.
As you can see, this could become quite a mess of conflicting and overlapping state laws. If it does, I suspect that Congress will have to step in and enact federal legislations that preempts the entire area.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point. I would like to add another.
Because, as you note, "the author has the opportunity to write it to cover whatever case, and has the responsibility to make his intentions clear," a standard rule of contract (and a license is a form of contract) interpretation is that a contract is construed against the drafter. In other words, if a contractual provision is ambiguous, all other things geing equal, the ambiguity will be resolved against the party that drafted the contract.
Statements by the FSF regarding its interpretation of the GPL and LGPL may be useful in determining which legal positions it will assert in litigation, and whether it will file suit. However, its interpretation is useful in determining whether said position will prevail only to the extent that their reasoning is persuasive. The fact that the FSF has chosen to interpret a contractual provision is a given way is, by itself, useless for the latter purpose.
It appears the bill doesn't address the DMCA problem. As the article states:
(emphasis added) http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-371743.html
It appears the North Carolina law simply declares void contractual agreements not to refill printer ink cartridges as being against the public policy of the state. While this might be necessary for such refilling to be legal, it does not appear that this law is by itself sufficient to make it legal.
The law does not address the DMCA problem. That is, even if in North Carolina a contractual provision cannot prevent someone from refilling ink cartridges because said provision is void under this North Carolina law, this doesn't prevent a printer manufacturer from filing a DMCA claim against a company that makes the refilling kits.
Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the Constitution), the State of North Carolina may have been unable to address the DMCA issue, and indeed may have recognized that fact. Article VI provides:
See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution
As FindLaw explains:
See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/articl
I have to wonder if this legislation will accomplish anything. I also have to wonder if the legislature knew that it might not accomplish anything when they passed it.
Good point. Consider the application of Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause:
See:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution
As FindLaw explains:
See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/articl
Yes, but how much time were the volunteers spending on it? My guess it that after the layoff, there will be fewer people working on Mozilla full-time. There may be a big difference between somebody who works on a project as his full-time job, and somebody who works on it after coming home at night tired from a full day at work.
After everything settles down, I'd be curious to know how many *hours* were spent each month working on Mozilla before the layoff, after the layoff, six months after the layoff, a year after the layoff, etc.
Finally, can one reasonably the volunteers to be as qualified, experienced, efficient and productive and the people who worked on it full-time?
I'm not sure, but I think you are right. From the update, it appears that AOL has completely abandoned the Netscape browser (or at least making any profit from the code; it appears they will support current versions for at least awhile), and thus the NPL is superfluous. Under these conditions, it also appears that any contribution AOL makes to the Mozilla Foundation will be 100% deductible. AOL isn't going to get any economic benefit because it has given up on the code.
Why does that make me sad?
Thanks for the information. I realize that I was thinking of a different issue.
As I understand it, if someone at a charity auction pays $1000 for tickets to a Broadway show that are worth $200, they get only an $800 tax deduction. That is because he is getting a ticket worth $200, and therefore making a charitable contribution of only $800.
I'm wondering if the same principle could, or should, apply to any monetary contributions AOL makes to the Mozilla Foundation ("MF"). Take AOL's $2 million contribution to the MF. Is that all "charity?" Let's assume, to make the argument easier, that the entire $2 million is used to improve "Branded Code" that falls under V.3 of the NPL:
AOL can do something with this improved, modified code that noone else can do -- relicense and sell same without being bound by the requirements of the MPL, LGPL, GPL, or NPL that bind others (such as distributing the source). Doesn't this have economic value? And if it does, doesn't this decrease the amount of AOL's "charitable" contribution? Just as one must deduct the $200 value of the Broadway tickets from the $1000 paid at auction, mustn't one deduct the economic value (doesn't the taxpayer have the burden of proof on this?) AOL derives from improvements to its Branded Code from the amount of its contribution?
I am glad its there.
Let's look at V.3:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.1.html (emphasis added).
If there is an argument to be made that AOL will get a disproportionate benefit from any contribution to the Mozilla Foundation (and assuming for the moment that such disproportionate benefit would make some difference), the argument will be based on V.3. Said section apparently allows Netscampe (now AOL) to relicense "modifications" to the original Netscape branded code (and thus profit from same) without complying with the MPL, LGPL, GPL, or other terms of the NPL.
Interestingly, the IRS states:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=9609
I wonder if the last emphasized sentence might indicate that while the Mozilla Foundation may obtain 501(c)(3) status, perhaps AOL's contributions to same will not be fully deductible.
I'm just thinking out loud and playing with ideas here.
I'm not sure that your analogy holds up for the following reason. Unlike the situation you posit, AOL and the public do not benefit to the same degree. The NPL grants to Netscape (and now AOL) benefits that are not available to the general public:
See http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/NPL-1.1.html
In other words, it appears that under the current triple licensing scheme, AOL gets a disproportionate benefit from any development or enhancement of Mozilla. Does this make a difference for the purposes of 501(c)(3)? I don't know. However, I think it *may* be an issue.
Getting the write-off for giving away the software isn't the problem. The possible problem is getting a tax deduction for your contributions to research performed by a "non-profit public benefit corporation" when your company has attempted to profit, and intends to continue to attempt to profit, from that research in the future.
Jury nullification is very rare. It is certainly not something you can count on to say with 100% certainty that "the RIAA will *LOOSE*. And they know it."
With all due respect, I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.
This also isn't realistic. If they lose one at the trial court level, it isn't a binding precedent. (Particularly if the loss is due to jury nullification.) It isn't like they can't afford to file more suits. All they have to do is keep trying until they find a jury that actually follows the law (which shouldn't be that hard to do) and then ruin somebody. Then they will have their headlines and their head on a pike.
Anyone who thought they were safe after a single case of "jury nullification" would be an utter fool.
From http://www.mozillafoundation.org/press/mozilla-fo
(emphasis added). Since the Mozilla Foundation is applying for 501(c)(3) status, contributions are not yet tax deductible. Which raises the interesting question, i.e., should 501(c)(3) status be granted? In particular, should contributions by AOL to the Mozilla Foundation be tax deductible when AOL will use any work performed by the "public benefit corporation" in its Netscape product? Is this a way for a for profit corporation to fund research in a tax-deductible way?
Perhaps a counter-argument is that given the license used for Mozilla (I forget which it is; it may be important), *anyone* could use the work... but could anyone use it in for-profit software?
I haven't thought this throught, but it might be an interesting issue.
Why? I really am curious. Why to you think the RIAA not only will loose, but also that they *know* it.
Think of the test case. Somebody has downloaded, what? 500 songs? 1000 songs? They've traced the IP numbers. Go to a judge, get a civil order to raid the defendant (it is done all of the time in trademark knockoff cases), seize the computer, and find the 500 or 1000 songs. And you are so confident that the RIAA will lose. Based on what?
(emphasis added)
As indicated by my use of quotations marks, I quoted directly from the Fox News article:
See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55836,00.html
As the article goes on to say:
If kids can't play *tag* without supervision, what can they do without supervision? Play football? LOL Soccer? But there are collisions! Basketball? You've got to be kidding. Sometimes children are knocked down!
I understand the reviewer's concerns, and largely agree with them. Alas, I fear it may already be too late. Can we realistically expect that society will allow "children" to perform dangerous experiments when "[a] Santa Monica elementary school has banned the game of tag, once synonymous with youth and innocence, because they say it creates self-esteem issues among weaker and slower children."
Good point. However (and this is not a criticism), if anything you have only reinforced the parent posts's major point that:
As the old going says, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
(emphasis added)
Mariah Carey was paid $21 million when she signed with EMI... and another $28 million to walk away. I think that qualifies as "rich." I don't think she has to worry too much about money.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43736,00.html
Just to put the deal in perspective:
(emhapasis added) Source:
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0
Hmmmmm... "$20 million for a 25% stake for his nonmusic revenue, in addition to hefty per-album advances." I'm not sure EMI is taking advantage of him.
I wasn't going to say this... but I was going to raise the same issue.
Seriously, I think the problem for many who get all of their music free from the net and haven't paid for recorded music in years (some of whom take great pride in that fact) is as follows. While you say that you don't want to punish the artists (and I believe you), and you hate and want to punish the greedy, monopolistic, dictatorial, idiotic, Britney Spears foisting record companies, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to screw the record companies without screwing the artists. Given the gross disparity of power between all but the most succesful artists and record companies, it is *always* the artists who are going to get screwed. Efforts to screw the record companies are akin to an economic drive by with artistic children wandering around the kill zone. It is always the (relatively) innocent who get hurt.
I guess artists can always just give up on the idea of making big bucks off of selling recorded music, and simply tour for a living.
p.s. Given the topic, I don't feel bad saying that a good friend of mine is in the band Drinkers Purgatory (see url above and sig below), and could use your support.
This quotation from the article:
got me to thinking. Has anybody considered a poison pill scenario?
Bad Company wants to slow down Linux, the GPL, open source software, etc. Bad Company uses Bad Agent to take secret, closed-source code owned by Bad Company and "contribute" it to Linux. Bad Company then waits six months, a year, two years....
Bad Agent vanishes (with his $ millions....)
Bad Company then asserts its copyright claims. "OMG! It seems our former employee, (Bad) Agent, contributed some of our copyrighted, closed-source (and for that matter, trade secret) code to Linux two years ago, and we didn't know about it! Everybody has to rip out the code... and pay us....
While I understand Raymond's concerns, I think Kuhn is right. I'm not sure he goes far enough.
Yes, they do if they want to know: (a) what to do to improve Linux so others to use it on the desktop; and/or (b) how to promote Linux on the desktop.
We'll probably see the standard privacy (natural, fundemental, pre-existing) rights vs. untilitarian (what if the terrorists have a nucclear weapon? / are going to kill 10,000 hostages?) posts.
However, I'm just amazed that Russia issued such a warning... unless, as a matter of software determinism, they couldn't turn off the encryption without turning sending the warning.
A bug, or a feature?
The Fourth Ammendment, re: unreasonable searches and seizures, was originally interpreted to be limitation only on the power of the federal government. It has subsequently been interpreted to also be a limitation on the power of state governments. This is referred to as the "state action requirement." It is *not* a limitation on power of private entities, such as Wallmart. Neither the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Ammendment, nor the Constitutional Right to Privacy inferred from Fourth Ammendment apply to this situation.
It makes it more likely that it will make it into a consumer products at the point of sale in the future. It will increase the demand, leading to an increase in the supply, then lower cost, then further adoption. Opponents want it to remain a high cost technology.
Further, once items are tagged for the purpose of warehouse inventory control, it may be the case that they will remain tagged for retail purposes, and the only additional cost of retail implementation will be the cost of the scanners.
Source: Massachusetts Attorney General Microsoft Page
I suspect they will handle this the same way that the IRS handles enforcement -- i.e., a relatively small number of well publicized prosecutions against high profile defendants where they really destoy the defendants.
I have no doubt that Michigan will take the position that it has personal jurisdiction over any person or company that intentionally sends e-mail to Michigan residents in violation of the statute. I have little doubt that the courts will uphold this assertion of jurisdiction. Traditionally, when a business specifically solicits business in a state via mail or advertising specifically targeted to residents of the state (e.g., advertising in local newspapers, local TV and radio stations, etc.) it is held to have submitted to personal jurisdiction in that state.
As you can see, this could become quite a mess of conflicting and overlapping state laws. If it does, I suspect that Congress will have to step in and enact federal legislations that preempts the entire area.