They just effed up. There's no "test case" to be had. The way that the GPL works is a derivative works and publication license.
What that means is that releasing your modifications to the code so licensed and the means for which you used to build binaries from it is the royalty payment for being able to use it. Without such payment, you aren't licensed to produce derivative works or publish complete copies. In the act of making a copy and giving it to someone else, you're publishing.
There's nothing unreasonable/illegal about the royalty payment being required, so there's nothing really out of the ordinary for courts to "invalidate". If it's able to be invalidated, each and every rights deal for book, music, video/movie, or software publishing deal is equally invalid.
Binaries are governed by the terms of the GPL just as the source is- unless you're the sole rights holder for the source code (Microsoft ISN'T...), they can't license under anything other than the GPL, no matter what they might say. Adding additional terms or taking them away is only allowed for the original rights holder- and you're bound to the terms they set aside for you. Since this is the Linux kernel they cribbed from- GPLv2 is the only license they can really use at that point.
Yeah, but you'll have to use Windows to actually USE the Verizon offering. Boingo's providing it, but only on a rebranded deal that Verizon's providing the access software with.
On the rest, I'd have to concur. I was one of the early adopters and I've been tickled with it ever since I got it set up.
Only on the WiFi access plan deal. For everything else, it's a push. If I wanted, I could get 50/20 service from FiOS, but I think the ~$100/mo over what I'm paying for the 20/20 service I am currently getting isn't worth the extra speed lift for download.
What they're wanting people to not do is cheat a bit and have one DSL/FiOS connection and then have somebody elsewhere (Other family members) DX an AP with a Cantenna or other high-gain directional on a home machine or router. Not that this will stop people from futzing with the setup anyhow...
And if they do, I'll be fighting the passing of those laws and fighting the removal thereof.
They're not entitled to money from me if I don't buy/consume their crap. Unless the laws in question allow me to consume ANYTHING from them without any further interference, what basis would they have for collecting that money from me? Potential piracy? Uh...I don't see how that would stick.
Seriously. If you don't like what you're seeing. Don't buy it. Don't share it.
Hell...don't listen to it wherever possible.
There's enough cool music from indies that have no connections whatsoever with RIAA that you can satisfy your musical tastes in most cases without making deals with the devil.
If you do that, they won't have your money. If you do that, they won't have a leg to stand on to come after you.
Opt. Out.
You're customers, not consumers- and if you don't like what you're seeing, you need to stop buying. If you're not buying and using, you're consuming, but not paying- which is playing the game wholly by their rules and you will eventually lose.
Heh... That's if you're not already getting it. I'm already spending the cash (and a bit more than that...) for my FiOS service, so it's annoying to say the least that I can't take them up on the silly thing- all because they're Windows happy (and they are that...) over there at Verizon.
This is Verizon you're talking about here. They have this control thing- and moreover, if you're using a Cellphone/PDA, you're supposed to be using their more expensive EvDO service you know...:-D
Here's the Link And here's the VerizonWiFi link for the service...:-)
Verizon Wi-Fi is not available for PDAs, phones, desktop PCs or Macs.
The software's only available for Windows and only intended for "laptops" right at the moment- they're not using Boingo's usual software, it's something special for Verizon.
Heh... But what if you're not using a laptop, hm? There's quite a few devices that would have used this nicely enough, including WinCE devices that just won't be doing anything of the sort now.
It's quite a bit less useful than they could have made it, regardless of how useful it might have been to you...
If you use MacOS or Linux, it truly IS worthless. Moreover, it axes many useful usages, like a Nokia N770/N8X0/N9XXX mobile device, which uses Linux as it's main OS; and we won't get into the other WinCE devices which would have used it as well.
It's a short-sighted thing they've done here. Seriously.
I don't blame you. There is absolutely no upsides to DRM for the end-user's side of things. Even for honest people there's not. It needs to be said. Perhaps a little more calmly- but it still needs to be said every time it comes up that there's a plus to the people using the content.
Heh... The smart meters would help them make it easier to bill you.
Now, if it was done in concert with some very, very clever things done at each residence with regards to heavy loads like HVAC systems and clothes washers and dryers, you could actually do something useful to adjust consumption (and in a way that nobody would ever really notice...).
Having said this, that's not what "Phase 1" of the NIST spec talks to... It only talks about meters, taking better steps to secure things physically and over the network ("cyber"- and there IS a real cause for concern on that...), and the like.
No... That's been proven out in the SCOX case as being incorrect. (Otherwise, they might still have a case, of which, they do, but they're the defendant on those...;-) )
I'd have to concur with your position. I don't hate Microsoft, but I do distrust them and do remember all the things they have said done in the past regarding FOSS. I'm not going to not accept their contributions (albeit along with making a few jokes about Hell having froze over and pigs flying...more because of their past positions than about anything else...), but in the same breath, I don't think they're even close to having convinced me that they're doing it for what they said they were- or that they're now even remotely members of the FOSS community as a whole. Linus is sort of right in that it's a problem with the "hatred"- but in the same breath, I strongly think Microsoft has wholly earned the dislike and distrust that is showing with their two releases.
There really is no call for calling them "Microshaft", "Micro$oft", and the like- they might deeply and truly deserve that, yes, but it reflects poorly on yourself and the community when you do it.
But, in the same vein, there is no good reason to even give them the time of day past thanking them for their contributions and going on. This ISN'T them any more changing their tune than them "changing it" over the last 4 or so years.
In the case of the first GPL release, it's a bit of both. I wouldn't know in the second one's case, though...I'm thinking that's liable to be the case as well.
Heh... They'll buy a winter coat for him, but there'll be as many strings attached to it as there are to these two GPL releases. Patents still apply and you might get lucky and have the Judge apply in re Bilski to the decision and get you out, you might not- at the least you'll spend quite a bit of money if they choose to sue you over anything patented.
Slashdot Mirror
They just effed up. There's no "test case" to be had. The way that the GPL works is a derivative works and publication license.
What that means is that releasing your modifications to the code so licensed and the means for which you used to build binaries from it is the royalty payment for being able to use it. Without such payment, you aren't licensed to produce derivative works or publish complete copies. In the act of making a copy and giving it to someone else, you're publishing.
There's nothing unreasonable/illegal about the royalty payment being required, so there's nothing really out of the ordinary for courts to "invalidate". If it's able to be invalidated, each and every rights deal for book, music, video/movie, or software publishing deal is equally invalid.
Not even MS wants to go there.
Uh, no, you can't.
Binaries are governed by the terms of the GPL just as the source is- unless you're the sole rights holder for the source code (Microsoft ISN'T...), they can't license under anything other than the GPL, no matter what they might say. Adding additional terms or taking them away is only allowed for the original rights holder- and you're bound to the terms they set aside for you. Since this is the Linux kernel they cribbed from- GPLv2 is the only license they can really use at that point.
It won't work.
It needs access to the WLAN drivers to do it's thing- and there's no virtualization of those (yet) to be able to do what you're talking to.
Yeah, but you'll have to use Windows to actually USE the Verizon offering. Boingo's providing it, but only on a rebranded deal that Verizon's providing the access software with.
On the rest, I'd have to concur. I was one of the early adopters and I've been tickled with it ever since I got it set up.
Only on the WiFi access plan deal. For everything else, it's a push. If I wanted, I could get 50/20 service from FiOS, but I think the ~$100/mo over what I'm paying for the 20/20 service I am currently getting isn't worth the extra speed lift for download.
Or USB dongle Wireless devices, for that matter.
What they're wanting people to not do is cheat a bit and have one DSL/FiOS connection and then have somebody elsewhere (Other family members) DX an AP with a Cantenna or other high-gain directional on a home machine or router. Not that this will stop people from futzing with the setup anyhow...
That depends on whether you're using a PDA phone or not...but yeah...they want you using THAT instead of WiFi... :-D
The funny thing is, they're not.
And if they do, I'll be fighting the passing of those laws and fighting the removal thereof.
They're not entitled to money from me if I don't buy/consume their crap. Unless the laws in question allow me to consume ANYTHING from them without any further interference, what basis would they have for collecting that money from me? Potential piracy? Uh...I don't see how that would stick.
...don't use their stuff.
Seriously. If you don't like what you're seeing. Don't buy it. Don't share it.
Hell...don't listen to it wherever possible.
There's enough cool music from indies that have no connections whatsoever with RIAA that you can satisfy your musical tastes in most cases without making deals with the devil.
If you do that, they won't have your money.
If you do that, they won't have a leg to stand on to come after you.
Opt.
Out.
You're customers, not consumers- and if you don't like what you're seeing, you need to stop buying. If you're not buying and using, you're consuming, but not paying- which is playing the game wholly by their rules and you will eventually lose.
Heh... That's if you're not already getting it. I'm already spending the cash (and a bit more than that...) for my FiOS service, so it's annoying to say the least that I can't take them up on the silly thing- all because they're Windows happy (and they are that...) over there at Verizon.
This is Verizon you're talking about here. They have this control thing- and moreover, if you're using a Cellphone/PDA, you're supposed to be using their more expensive EvDO service you know... :-D
Arrgh... Boggled the link to the service webpage...
Here it is, in unbroken form
Oh, no... This is truly a Verizon gem.
Here's the Link :-)
And here's the VerizonWiFi link for the service...
The software's only available for Windows and only intended for "laptops" right at the moment- they're not using Boingo's usual software, it's something special for Verizon.
Heh... You'll get better results without the language... ;-)
Heh... But what if you're not using a laptop, hm? There's quite a few devices that would have used this nicely enough, including WinCE devices that just won't be doing anything of the sort now.
It's quite a bit less useful than they could have made it, regardless of how useful it might have been to you...
It's not an anti-Windows troll...
If you use MacOS or Linux, it truly IS worthless. Moreover, it axes many useful usages, like a Nokia N770/N8X0/N9XXX mobile device, which uses Linux as it's main OS; and we won't get into the other WinCE devices which would have used it as well.
It's a short-sighted thing they've done here. Seriously.
I don't blame you. There is absolutely no upsides to DRM for the end-user's side of things. Even for honest people there's not. It needs to be said. Perhaps a little more calmly- but it still needs to be said every time it comes up that there's a plus to the people using the content.
Hey there, Dan Quayle! I didn't know you were posting under a pseudonym on /.
Heh... The smart meters would help them make it easier to bill you.
Now, if it was done in concert with some very, very clever things done at each residence with regards to heavy loads like HVAC systems and clothes washers and dryers, you could actually do something useful to adjust consumption (and in a way that nobody would ever really notice...).
Having said this, that's not what "Phase 1" of the NIST spec talks to... It only talks about meters, taking better steps to secure things physically and over the network ("cyber"- and there IS a real cause for concern on that...), and the like.
Does it?
Does it come with a patent license on any of the code (forget their Community Promise, it's not the same thing in any way, shape, or form...)?
If not, the GPL doesn't protect you from that problem.
While the GPL is an awesome license and brings much to the table, your blind faith in it protecting you in any circumstance is rather disappointing.
No... That's been proven out in the SCOX case as being incorrect. (Otherwise, they might still have a case, of which, they do, but they're the defendant on those... ;-) )
I'd have to concur with your position. I don't hate Microsoft, but I do distrust them and do remember all the things they have said done in the past regarding FOSS. I'm not going to not accept their contributions (albeit along with making a few jokes about Hell having froze over and pigs flying...more because of their past positions than about anything else...), but in the same breath, I don't think they're even close to having convinced me that they're doing it for what they said they were- or that they're now even remotely members of the FOSS community as a whole. Linus is sort of right in that it's a problem with the "hatred"- but in the same breath, I strongly think Microsoft has wholly earned the dislike and distrust that is showing with their two releases.
There really is no call for calling them "Microshaft", "Micro$oft", and the like- they might deeply and truly deserve that, yes, but it reflects poorly on yourself and the community when you do it.
But, in the same vein, there is no good reason to even give them the time of day past thanking them for their contributions and going on. This ISN'T them any more changing their tune than them "changing it" over the last 4 or so years.
In the case of the first GPL release, it's a bit of both.
I wouldn't know in the second one's case, though...I'm thinking that's liable to be the case as well.
Heh... They'll buy a winter coat for him, but there'll be as many strings attached to it as there are to these two GPL releases. Patents still apply and you might get lucky and have the Judge apply in re Bilski to the decision and get you out, you might not- at the least you'll spend quite a bit of money if they choose to sue you over anything patented.