Which is why I said that if Microsoft isn't happy with the time frame in which the copyright on GPL'd code will expire (and thus fall into the public domain), then they should spend some of their money to lobby congress to reduce the term of copyright on software. I suggest a term of five years.
If they were to do that, then everybody wins, because even if they took expired GPL code and made proprietary improvements, the shorter copyright term would ensure those improvements coming back to the public domain in a timely manner (after a reasonable time period to recoup their investment and make a profit). --
t really doesn't matter what the GPL considers a derivative work. The question is what constitutes a derivative work in copyright law. I'm sure the FSF would love to be able to declare that dynamically linking to an object (e.g. COM, CORBA) constitutes a derivation, but unfortunately it's not so.
True, The FSF can't define what constitutes derivation under copyright law, but they can do something just as effective: By defining what constitutes derivation under the GPL, the license will automaticaly terminate if violated. Then, if anything else the company has done would be a copyright violation if not allowed under the GPL license, the FSF can pursue that.
This is the way the GPL works. If you violate the GPL license, then the license terminates, and anything that would not be permitted under copyright is forbidden.
In theory, a company could only use GPL'd code for study, and never redistribute any of it, so the derivation clause would be a toothless dog (except as defined by copyright). But if a company redistributes any GPL'd works, then they must comply with the derivation clause of the license for all of them, or they run the risk of having the license to redistribute yanked due to their violation. --
This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.
You're right. This is the greedy part of the GPL, where it tries to lay claim to work that doesn't belong to it.
Eliminating the derivative work clause might make the GPL less pervasive, but it would make it more legitimate.
That isn't what I said. I am not in favor of eliminating the "derivative work" language of the GPL. I am only advocating that an unambiguous definition of derivation be included.
For example, it is clear that incorporating source from a GPL'd work is derivation. It is less clear if reimplementing the same idea, using the same algorithms, in the same language, is also derivation according to the GPL, and even less clear if you start dropping the language and algorithms. At what point do you cross over the line from copying the underlying idea (which is permitted) to copying the expression of that idea (which is not)?
That is what the problem is. By looking at GPL'd source code, and implementing the same idea, would a proprietary software developer be violating the copyright (and therefore the GPL)? RMS needs (IMHO) to address this in the next version of the GPL by clearly defining the line between fair use and infringement. --
We are concerned about the potential implications of the GPL for use
in disseminating the results of academic or government-funded
research. The GPL in this context effectively erects a wall that
prevents the public and private sectors from working together. By
restricting severely the rights of anyone who incorporates GPL code
into their own software program, the GPL makes it impossible for
commercial software companies to build on the types of academic works
that have been put in the public domain and have helped fuel
innovation the last half-century.
What Mr. Mundie fails to note here, is that GPL'd works, being copyrighted, eventually are put into the public domain, at which time companies are perfectly free to create proprietary derived works. If Microsoft doesn't want to wait for the copyright to expire and the GPL'd work to enter the public domain, maybe they should lobby for shorter copyright terms on software.
Furthermore, copyrighted and GPL'd works are available in source form, which is the most useful form for creating derived works, but since Microsoft's products though copyrighted have hidden source code, even when their copyright expires no-one is likely to be able to make derived works, as the source code was never 'published'.
Moreover,
because there is no clear definition of a "derivative" work under the
GPL, companies play a game of legal chance even if their employees
only study GPL code before creating their own software.
This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL. --
I think that we need to acknowledge that for-profit corporations will do whatever they can, within the law, to advance their own interests, and it is the responsibility of government to protect the public interest.
As I see it, the basic problem with the framework within corporations must operate is that they are not allowed to do anything that might threaten their bottom line. If a corporation doesn't do everything in it's power (as long as it's legal) to maximize profitability, including things like paying lobbyists to undermine the constitution, change environmental regulations in their favor, etc. Then they actually risk a shareholder lawsuit.
Simply put, the natural tropism of corporations towards more money is bolstered (in an unnatural way) by a legal obligation to do so, with heavy penalties for doing anything else.
I think that this has trapped many corporations in 'local minima' that they are unable to break out of, such as screwing their customers for every dime they can, when a longer term strategy would be to cultivate their customer base and keep them happy. --
That's only because Mundie refused to actually debate. He never responded to any of Bruce Perens' posts, even when Bruce was asking him direct questions. --
An interesting development: After being pressured by the audience to answer "Yes or No", Microsoft's David Stutz claimed that it would be possible to complete a Hailstorm transaction without it going through the servers at Redmond. While this sort of vendor independence is important, The DNS system has had alternatives to Network Solutions like AlterNIC for a while, but the DNS system is still very centralized as a result of it's architecture. This bears more watching. --
I only have two of my 35 domain names registered through Verisign/Network Solutions. I never bothered transfering them to my prefered registrar, since the extra cost wasn't worth the hassle.
This is the last straw, though. I'm transfering them as soon as I can.
If, like me, you have your companies intranet deployed on Zope, then you need to check out the excellently simple Meerkat client for Zope. It's a nice little utility that (among other things) caches the expensive XML-RPC queries to the Meerkat server. --
You might look into Progeny Linux, a new debian distribution, with a focus on improving the installation process and user friendliness. It is also intended as a base for Progeny's Linux NOW, (Network of Workstations), an open source technology intended to create loosely coupled resource sharing networks, making all extra CPU cycles, memory, and storage available on-demand to any application running on any of the participating workstations.
These jovian type planets in the habitable zone of their stars may have tidally-locked moons that are dense enough to harbour life. In our own solar-system, Jupiter's moon Europa is suspected of having a liquid water layer under an ice crust, maintained in that state by a constantly deforming rocky core.
Larger mars-size satelites (or even larger earth- or venus-sized ones) could be orbiting these planets at distances that lock them tidally, or further out, giving them an even more tectonically active crust than we have as a result of our moon.
In any case, such a world (they wouldn't technically be planets) would have all the same ingredients for life that we do, just in varying proportions, possibly leading to life, not as we know it, but at least recognizable as such by us.
Ali-Baba, Robin Hood, The Grey Mouser, and other literary figures have been romanticised for long time.
Actually, this particular story reminds me of a 1960 movie, The great Imposter, starring Tony Curtis.
Here's the plot summary:
"Based on the real life of Ferdinand Waldo Demara Jr., The Great Impostor tells a clever little tale of a man who refuses to accept that he should be content with less than his dreams. He discovers a talent for faking credentials and pretending to be other people. Lacking the patience to work his way up the professional ladder in the conventional manner, he takes a few shortcuts here and there as it suits him. The interesting moral question here is that, since he usually does good in the positions he obtains dubiously, is he really doing wrong?"
Check out the aerobot. This VTOL aircraft uses ducted fans insead of a conventional rotating airfoil, and is capable of autonomous take-offs and landings. Also check out the wankel-poweredSkycar.
The idea is not copyrightable but the expression of the idea is copyrightable. So, for example, the idea to create a book cover using a certain combination of type faces and a negative image of someone's eyes that partially cuts off some of the type (the idea for the cover of Looking Closer 2) is not copyrightable, but the actual cover as created by Michael Bierut is copyrightable.
Later in the article he states:
If a book cover has been scanned and slightly altered, it will clearly be an infringement. If the idea for it has been stolen, it will depend on how closely the expression (as opposed to the idea) has been plagiarized. For example, a book cover that placed an image between the words of a title and shaved off the bottom of the type in the top word and the top of the type in the bottom word would presumably not infringe the cover of Looking Closer 2.
If you want to see the cover that Mr. Crawford is talking about, Look here.
Generally, if a work is at least 30% different, it will not violate the copyright on the original work. Determining the amount of difference is usually left up to a judge, since it needs to pass a 'reasonable person' test.
Though I have not seen the site in question (it seems to be slashdotted), I have little doubt, from reading others descriptions, that it does in fact violate copyright. As far as Trademark law (and the related category of Trade Dress law) is concerned, his site does not seem to be in the same industry, or have the intent to confuse or mislead the public that is a neccessary prerequisite for trademark violations.
This is why slapping a 'Star Wars' poster on a lunchbox would be both a copyright violation and a trademark violation; because you are not only using someones copyrighted image, but using the 'Star Wars' image is likely to mislead a 'reasonable person' that the product had been endorsed by LucasFilm. However, if I create and sell a 'DreamWorks' line of carpentry tools, I am unlikely to get in trouble, because a 'reasonable person' is not likely to conclude that they had been endorsed by DreamWorks Pictures. --
You might want to check out Zope. Digital Creations took a moderately successful commercial product, and turned it into a category killer by open sourcing it. Here is their account of how the decision was reached, and here is a presentation. --
I'm not sure how much these two tools will overlap, but you might try checking out the IB Designer mailing list. They're currently debating what license to use, leaning heavily toward an MPL variant. --
Although Inprise has lost the support of the community, the codebase has not.
The developers are rallying, have set up a separate CVS repository on Sourceforge, and have an extensive set of mailing lists as well.
The group now known as NewCo has been getting a lot of VC interest, and more importantly, a lot of interest from current Interbase customers who want to drop Inprise as their support provider.
There are also several commercial software vendors whose products are based on InterBase, who are also willing to throw their weight behind NewCo.
In short, the codebase is not being abandoned by the only people who really matter, it's users and developers. --
Slashdot Mirror
If they were to do that, then everybody wins, because even if they took expired GPL code and made proprietary improvements, the shorter copyright term would ensure those improvements coming back to the public domain in a timely manner (after a reasonable time period to recoup their investment and make a profit).
--
This is the way the GPL works. If you violate the GPL license, then the license terminates, and anything that would not be permitted under copyright is forbidden.
In theory, a company could only use GPL'd code for study, and never redistribute any of it, so the derivation clause would be a toothless dog (except as defined by copyright). But if a company redistributes any GPL'd works, then they must comply with the derivation clause of the license for all of them, or they run the risk of having the license to redistribute yanked due to their violation.
--
For example, it is clear that incorporating source from a GPL'd work is derivation. It is less clear if reimplementing the same idea, using the same algorithms, in the same language, is also derivation according to the GPL, and even less clear if you start dropping the language and algorithms. At what point do you cross over the line from copying the underlying idea (which is permitted) to copying the expression of that idea (which is not)?
That is what the problem is. By looking at GPL'd source code, and implementing the same idea, would a proprietary software developer be violating the copyright (and therefore the GPL)? RMS needs (IMHO) to address this in the next version of the GPL by clearly defining the line between fair use and infringement.
--
Furthermore, copyrighted and GPL'd works are available in source form, which is the most useful form for creating derived works, but since Microsoft's products though copyrighted have hidden source code, even when their copyright expires no-one is likely to be able to make derived works, as the source code was never 'published'.
This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL.--
Simply put, the natural tropism of corporations towards more money is bolstered (in an unnatural way) by a legal obligation to do so, with heavy penalties for doing anything else.
I think that this has trapped many corporations in 'local minima' that they are unable to break out of, such as screwing their customers for every dime they can, when a longer term strategy would be to cultivate their customer base and keep them happy.
--
--
An interesting development: After being pressured by the audience to answer "Yes or No", Microsoft's David Stutz claimed that it would be possible to complete a Hailstorm transaction without it going through the servers at Redmond. While this sort of vendor independence is important, The DNS system has had alternatives to Network Solutions like AlterNIC for a while, but the DNS system is still very centralized as a result of it's architecture. This bears more watching.
--
That this will put the kibosh on Wal-Mart's plans of outdoing Amazon, or suing them if they can't outcompete them...
--
I only have two of my 35 domain names registered through Verisign/Network Solutions. I never bothered transfering them to my prefered registrar, since the extra cost wasn't worth the hassle.
This is the last straw, though. I'm transfering them as soon as I can.
You should too.
--
If, like me, you have your companies intranet deployed on Zope, then you need to check out the excellently simple Meerkat client for Zope. It's a nice little utility that (among other things) caches the expensive XML-RPC queries to the Meerkat server.
--
This is the so called ASP Loophole.
Hopefully this will in fact be fixed in version 3.0 of the GPL.
--
You might look into Progeny Linux, a new debian distribution, with a focus on improving the installation process and user friendliness. It is also intended as a base for Progeny's Linux NOW, (Network of Workstations), an open source technology intended to create loosely coupled resource sharing networks, making all extra CPU cycles, memory, and storage available on-demand to any application running on any of the participating workstations.
Think that could come in handy?
--
--
These jovian type planets in the habitable zone of their stars may have tidally-locked moons that are dense enough to harbour life. In our own solar-system, Jupiter's moon Europa is suspected of having a liquid water layer under an ice crust, maintained in that state by a constantly deforming rocky core.
Larger mars-size satelites (or even larger earth- or venus-sized ones) could be orbiting these planets at distances that lock them tidally, or further out, giving them an even more tectonically active crust than we have as a result of our moon.
In any case, such a world (they wouldn't technically be planets) would have all the same ingredients for life that we do, just in varying proportions, possibly leading to life, not as we know it, but at least recognizable as such by us.
--
Ali-Baba, Robin Hood, The Grey Mouser, and other literary figures have been romanticised for long time.
Actually, this particular story reminds me of a 1960 movie, The great Imposter, starring Tony Curtis.
Here's the plot summary:
Does this sound familiar?
--
Check out the aerobot. This VTOL aircraft uses ducted fans insead of a conventional rotating airfoil, and is capable of autonomous take-offs and landings. Also check out the wankel-powered Skycar.
--
The announcement can also be found here: ;
http://www.python.org/digicool.html ;
--
I would recomend checking out Pahantasm: The Weaving, if this sort of 'shadow world' appeals to you.
--
Dang! That is an excellent review. I'd like to post it on my site, if you'll contact me.
--
In Tad Crawfords article Influence Versus Infringement, he uses the example of a book cover layout:
Later in the article he states:
If you want to see the cover that Mr. Crawford is talking about, Look here.
Generally, if a work is at least 30% different, it will not violate the copyright on the original work. Determining the amount of difference is usually left up to a judge, since it needs to pass a 'reasonable person' test.
Though I have not seen the site in question (it seems to be slashdotted), I have little doubt, from reading others descriptions, that it does in fact violate copyright. As far as Trademark law (and the related category of Trade Dress law) is concerned, his site does not seem to be in the same industry, or have the intent to confuse or mislead the public that is a neccessary prerequisite for trademark violations.
This is why slapping a 'Star Wars' poster on a lunchbox would be both a copyright violation and a trademark violation; because you are not only using someones copyrighted image, but using the 'Star Wars' image is likely to mislead a 'reasonable person' that the product had been endorsed by LucasFilm. However, if I create and sell a 'DreamWorks' line of carpentry tools, I am unlikely to get in trouble, because a 'reasonable person' is not likely to conclude that they had been endorsed by DreamWorks Pictures.
--
You might want to check out Zope. Digital Creations took a moderately successful commercial product, and turned it into a category killer by open sourcing it. Here is their account of how the decision was reached, and here is a presentation.
--
I realized that it was a joke. I was playing the 'straight-man'.
Sigh. No one appreciates deadpan humor anymore...
--
First, although Bruce hosts the site, he's not otherwise involved.
Second, fijagdh.com has been registered since May 14th to a Martin Horvat of Stayton, OR.
Third fijagdh.net and fijagdh.org seem to still be available.
(FIJAGDH - Fandom is Just A G*d Damned Hobby, is an approach to Fandom that is antithetical to FIAWOL - Fandom Is A Way Of Life).
--
I'm not sure how much these two tools will overlap, but you might try checking out the IB Designer mailing list. They're currently debating what license to use, leaning heavily toward an MPL variant.
--
Although Inprise has lost the support of the community, the codebase has not.
The developers are rallying, have set up a separate CVS repository on Sourceforge, and have an extensive set of mailing lists as well.
The group now known as NewCo has been getting a lot of VC interest, and more importantly, a lot of interest from current Interbase customers who want to drop Inprise as their support provider.
There are also several commercial software vendors whose products are based on InterBase, who are also willing to throw their weight behind NewCo.
In short, the codebase is not being abandoned by the only people who really matter, it's users and developers.
--