So how do they prove that anyone actually ever downloaded a single copy of any given file? Does the law specifically state that even offering it is illegal, or only completing an actual download?
Then what are they hoping to achieve by this? If the people they are suing wouldn't have bought their stuff in the first place, what good can come from suing these people for more money than they can possibly pay? Besides, a certain percentage of downloaders actually buy *more* cds because of it. They are going to get a few of those people with these lawsuits too.
>So any vulnerabilities in the SuSE distro will be fixed automatically once the support contract runs out, right? Riiiiggghhhttt....
Maybe not, but at least you can fix them or hire someone to do so because you have the source code.
>Somehow I doubt that Munich will be hiring their own development staff to start digging through a kernel to "support" their system after 6 years. $20 says they pay someone to come in and upgrade their systems to whatever version is currently out there.
Maybe, but the option is completely theirs. Nobody can force them to do anything through lack of support, because if they want it fixed bad enough, they can always hire someone to do it instead of having to upgrade everything.
Oops. You're right. Still, how many people running freecraft bought a copy of the original just to get the better graphic files? If anything, they had to have sold some copies that they wouldn't have if freecraft hadn't existed.
As someone pointed out below, just having similar names and being in a similar business is not enough for trademark dilution. (Re. the recent Victoria's Secret and Victor's Secret case). There has to be proof of actual harm, and since Blizzard doesn't make warcraft for Linux, that's going to be hard to prove.
Yes, but you can play the game exactly as well without using those graphics. If you happen to have a copy of the original sitting around, all you get is better graphics.
IOW, Blizzard has *no* claim on anything in Freecraft.
Blizzard does not have a trademark on the word "Craft". Therefore, it is not trademark infringement to call your game (anything)Craft. Sure, if they had called it Free Warcraft, then there might be some merit to the complaint. As it is, Blizzard is just being a whiny bitch - albeit a whiny bitch with expensive lawyers.
No. You DO own the bits. You own the one copy of those bits that you've paid for and are free to use them in any way you like - within the limits of copyright law. You no more 'license' a cd or word processing program than you do a book. You own it in exactly the same way as you own anything else.
If you actually read any of the UN reports on Iraq after 1998, you'd see that Iraq had in fact destroyed most of their chemical weapons. Only about 5% of the total amount was unaccounted for, and that was supposed to be our entire justification for starting this war.
Also, many chemical weapons don't have a shelf life of more than 5 years, so unless he was making fresh stocks, the old ones would be useless.
>To suggest that companies redistributing software must do an extensive audit to ensure that none of their IP made it into the source illegally is ludicrous.
No, it is not. If you are giving something away for free, you had better be sure that you really want to part with it.
If your child 'hid' your diamonds in the trunk of his toy car and you sell it at a yard sale, good luck getting them back.
>They are redistributing, not licensing their copyrighted works.
Under the GPL, they are the same thing because you have no rights to redistribute unless you do so under the GPL. It was entirely up to them to make sure that none of their 'IP' was in the code before they distributed it.
Not that they had any ip to steal in the first place...
>It's true they have no legal leg to stand on, but unlike trademarks, patents and copyright do not diminish with disuse.
Doesn't matter. By distributing their own code under the GPL, they have given up the right to restrict the future use of that code. If they are trying to say that they didn't distribute it under the GPL, then every kernel contributor whose code they distributed can sure them into oblivion.
>But they're not in legal lala-land if so -- what they're saying is that some of their code was released by a 3rd party to the Linux kernel. They, as the copyright holder, did not authorize that release and, as such, the code is NOT under GPL.
Yes, but they did distribute that exact same code under the GPL by shipping even one copy of the kernel. They had every opportunity to have a peek at the code before they shipped it to make sure there wasn't something in there that was theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
>they're deleting anything either from, or related to SCO without even looking at it. not cool at all.
Actually, it's very cool. Why hire someone who is dumb enough not only to have continued working for SCO, but also to put it on their resume?
So how do they prove that anyone actually ever downloaded a single copy of any given file? Does the law specifically state that even offering it is illegal, or only completing an actual download?
Then what are they hoping to achieve by this? If the people they are suing wouldn't have bought their stuff in the first place, what good can come from suing these people for more money than they can possibly pay? Besides, a certain percentage of downloaders actually buy *more* cds because of it. They are going to get a few of those people with these lawsuits too.
>So any vulnerabilities in the SuSE distro will be fixed automatically once the support contract runs out, right? Riiiiggghhhttt....
Maybe not, but at least you can fix them or hire someone to do so because you have the source code.
>Somehow I doubt that Munich will be hiring their own development staff to start digging through a kernel to "support" their system after 6 years. $20 says they pay someone to come in and upgrade their systems to whatever version is currently out there.
Maybe, but the option is completely theirs. Nobody can force them to do anything through lack of support, because if they want it fixed bad enough, they can always hire someone to do it instead of having to upgrade everything.
Sure, and the fascists in Italy got the trains running on time, so they must have been great!
It's called a trademark. Since the free game is not called Warcraft, you have no point.
If I could formulate a cola that had the exact same ingredients as Coca-Cola, there isn't a damn thing they could do to stop me from selling it.
Oops. You're right. Still, how many people running freecraft bought a copy of the original just to get the better graphic files? If anything, they had to have sold some copies that they wouldn't have if freecraft hadn't existed.
As someone pointed out below, just having similar names and being in a similar business is not enough for trademark dilution. (Re. the recent Victoria's Secret and Victor's Secret case). There has to be proof of actual harm, and since Blizzard doesn't make warcraft for Linux, that's going to be hard to prove.
>It is illegal to freely provide such a close imitaion of a retail game, no matter how low-quality you can make it.
No, it is not. You cannot copyright look and feel.
Yes, but you can play the game exactly as well without using those graphics. If you happen to have a copy of the original sitting around, all you get is better graphics.
IOW, Blizzard has *no* claim on anything in Freecraft.
> Yeah they're evil for protecting their work from the likes of those who probably won't ever leave their parents basements before they die
What do you mean? That's their core audience.
>And whats the value of free software to someone with enough mony to buy all the commercial software he needs?
How about NOT WASTING MONEY?
I bet you drive an SUV too...
You mean likie Blizzard did with Warcraft?
Original? Hahahahaha!
If Blizzard didn't suck so bad that they live in fear of a "half-assed equivalent", you might have a point.
Have they ever even had an original idea for a game? Doubtful.
> Folks just want to play games not stand on idealogical grounds for or against something.
Maybe because you're a sheep. As long as you're being fattened up, you don't care what your handler does.
Blizzard does not have a trademark on the word "Craft". Therefore, it is not trademark infringement to call your game (anything)Craft. Sure, if they had called it Free Warcraft, then there might be some merit to the complaint. As it is, Blizzard is just being a whiny bitch - albeit a whiny bitch with expensive lawyers.
Just like you shouldn't make a linux system and call it Lindows?
Oops. You're wrong.
>So are masturbation and smoking. And you'll never stop any of them...
I can see how smoking is self-destructive, but masturbation?!?
At a minimum, you're getting a little exercise...
> You know, the Internet isn't there just to allow annoying kids to get free music.
Nope. That is just one of its wonderful functions!
No. You DO own the bits. You own the one copy of those bits that you've paid for and are free to use them in any way you like - within the limits of copyright law. You no more 'license' a cd or word processing program than you do a book. You own it in exactly the same way as you own anything else.
If you actually read any of the UN reports on Iraq after 1998, you'd see that Iraq had in fact destroyed most of their chemical weapons. Only about 5% of the total amount was unaccounted for, and that was supposed to be our entire justification for starting this war.
Also, many chemical weapons don't have a shelf life of more than 5 years, so unless he was making fresh stocks, the old ones would be useless.
>To suggest that companies redistributing software must do an extensive audit to ensure that none of their IP made it into the source illegally is ludicrous.
No, it is not. If you are giving something away for free, you had better be sure that you really want to part with it.
If your child 'hid' your diamonds in the trunk of his toy car and you sell it at a yard sale, good luck getting them back.
>They are redistributing, not licensing their copyrighted works.
Under the GPL, they are the same thing because you have no rights to redistribute unless you do so under the GPL. It was entirely up to them to make sure that none of their 'IP' was in the code before they distributed it.
Not that they had any ip to steal in the first place...
No, but THEY distributed the code. If some of their IP was in the kernel, they should have never distributed it under the GPL.
>It's true they have no legal leg to stand on, but unlike trademarks, patents and copyright do not diminish with disuse.
Doesn't matter. By distributing their own code under the GPL, they have given up the right to restrict the future use of that code. If they are trying to say that they didn't distribute it under the GPL, then every kernel contributor whose code they distributed can sure them into oblivion.
>But they're not in legal lala-land if so -- what they're saying is that some of their code was released by a 3rd party to the Linux kernel. They, as the copyright holder, did not authorize that release and, as such, the code is NOT under GPL.
Yes, but they did distribute that exact same code under the GPL by shipping even one copy of the kernel. They had every opportunity to have a peek at the code before they shipped it to make sure there wasn't something in there that was theirs.