The BSD guy, once copying the Linux code into the repository, essentially made it impossible for BSD to have any similar functionality in that driver compared to the Linux implementation. That's probably the biggest "mistake" that was made. The copyright infringement can be dealt with. Now however, the BSD driver will be plagued with being tainted and will never be able to implement a similar driver (without the approval of the original copyright holder of course).
Linux and BSD communities are generally friendly to each other. So, it should really be a non-issue in the end.
I think it's your decision to make how you reply to the situation. I respect your decision to "go public" with the information, and I do not defend the "backlash" that you're getting from doing so.
However, I think you didn't play your cards in the right order. Because you've decided to play your ace out front, you're getting clobbered in the PR department.
It's like the people who find vulnerabilities in proprietary software. The respectable thing for them to do is disclose the problem to the software company, privately first. If the company decides not to address the problem, then you go public. It's the "politically correct" (for lack of a better term) way to handle the situation.
Same thing here. You could have written the maintainer of the code directly and sought a resolution off the public record. If the maintainer didn't come to an appropriate agreement (as decided by you and the other copyright holders), then you would be forced to go public with the information (or alternatively seek legal action).
You're right, of course. The BSD folks made a mistake including your code. They should deal with the consequences of that mistake and make amends for it. However, you could have played it a bit cooler too and the whole issue wouldn't have gotten so out of hand.
The way you've handled it makes it look like you've got an ax to grind or some political statement to make.
I would also suspect that the BSD developer was just using the Linux code as a drop-in replacement for the time being until he rewrote it with a BSD license
Once the BSD developer did this, he can't very easily claim to have a "clean" implementation of the copyrighted code. You can't "drop-in" a copyrighted work and expect to duplicate it somehow cleanly under a new license.
It would, of course, take a court to hash out the issue in this case. And of course, the two parties would likely find an agreement before that time. But none-the-less, it's just not possible to temporarily have copyrighted source code in your product and not be "tainted" by it.
Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.
Uh, you're a lawyer? And, this is your statement?
IANAL, but at least I know that in the lack of written contract, the courts have nothing more to rely on than laws and previous case history; in this case, the AT WILL laws. If the terms weren't given in written form and signed by the employee, there is absolutely no other terms than what has been established by the government.
That's not to say the guy shouldn't seek council, however his stance should be, "My previous employer never submitted any terms or conditions for my employment and therefore my employment contract was AT WILL."
The employer doesn't have anything on the guy. He's free to go, without any previously signed contract stating otherwise. He has to be careful about not sharing proprietary information, but other than that, he's set.
Well, you got to save that sick day for something else. I mean, at work you're just sick and miserable anyway, there's no difference if you've got a cold or not.
Around here (in the Rockies), when you take a sick day, they call it "powder flu" which quite coincidently comes around just after a big snow storm has hit.
You're obviously not employed as an IT Support person for a non-technology (traditional industrial) company like I am. Yes, people just randomly click on just about any little linky they see. It's still 1996 here, the whole "novelty" of the interweb hasn't passed. Crazy waste of time. Who am I to say though, I spend more than enough time reading/.:)
When I choose a vacation, I choose a location or activity that is completely removed from the modern world. For example, I like to go on multiday whitewater rafting trips, especially those in the west where you can get 5 or more days and there's no possibility to connect. Backpacking, horseback, cross country skiing, remote fishing, whatever.
There's actually two reasons for doing this: 1) To force myself to unplug; 2) to see a part of our country or world that is quickly shrinking. I think the second reason resonates with me more than the first.
The judge and jury's hands are tied if the defendant didn't show up.
It sounds like the defendant did at least know something about the suit, just not when it was happening. That's her fault for not finding out.
If at the very least she could have bummed a bus ticket down to florida to show up in court, I'm guessing you're right, the whole thing would have been tossed. The judge would at that point have much more leverage as to what happens.
Hopefully there will be an appeal available to her.
No chance to prove it was or was not true, since she didn't even bother to show up to court.
At the very least, she should have scraped some money together for a bus ride down to florida to show up in court, without a lawyer even. The judge, after hearing where she's been (Katrina) and knowing she couldn't even afford a lawyer would have likely made it much more tough for the plantiff to get such a judgement.
Point is, you've still got to be there in court no matter what. She didn't show up, therefore the judge and jury's hands are tied.
Well, remember, this is a STOCK ONLY deal. There is no cash exchanged. So, if you're angry, you should be angry at the dilution of the stock. But, you can't be angry at what "they could have bought with that money." To Google at this point in their history, the deal was practically free.
You've seen that Simpson's where Bart works for a dotcom, right? You know, how the stock is worth toilet paper? That's somewhat close to the view from the inside when making deals using stock. It's like free money to them.
By elevating DRM to be mutually exclusive of copyright, what you've done is elevate the status of DRM to a level higher than it should be. You've introduced new beauracracies to manage an artists DRM (by introducing a "DRM board at the Copyright Office"). By elevating it and providing government to manage it, you're doing the work of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. That's exactly what they want, to have special treatment of the distribution of their works, to have places where their money can more greatly influence future legislation, etc.
I don't know you, but I would assume (half because you're reading/. to begin with) that you might sway to the libertarian POV. From this POV, DRM is a perfectly acceptable free market technology SO LONG AS the government doesn't get involved with it. If DRM is left to being solely free market, then the opportunity will exist for other solutions to come about and then we will all benefit.
As was my point, I believe that DRM (based solely on free market principles) will be a good thing as it will be the final nail in the RIAA's coffin. They cannot, without the help of the government, stop artists from distributing their works in various other formats which the market is willing to support. They see their days as middle-man disappearing and are grasping at straws to try and prevent it.
Now, the evil thing with DRM is when the government gets involved. Then you have something which you are correct in saying does not benefit the public as a whole. If legislation passes (maybe even an extension of the DMCA) which doesn't allow free market distribution of works, but instead insists that works be distributed under a DRM scheme, then yes this is truly evil.
But again, you see, by suggesting that DRM be elevated to a status similar to copyright, you're helping advocate getting us there. Maybe the plan works the way you suggest originally, but you know that's not how the congress critters will let it be forever, especially under heavy lobbying. Better to just let the market take care of DRM which will ultimately punish those artists who choose to use it.
People (consumers) generally do not like their freedoms removed from them. We as a general body though do accept a lot of non-sense, so this is again another point to justify the fight against DRM. That is, that once a DRM scheme (backed by the government) gets hold, the common tendancy will be for consumers to just roll over and shrug it off. That's too bad. That's why we need people to understand DRM, understand why it's bad for the consumer, etc. But, this does not justify creating a "special place" for DRM to exist in our laws.
You're very wrong about it being a good thing, you just seem to have a natural 'glass is half full' mentality.
Well, and that could be.:)
Just remember though. DRM is simply yet another way to distribute an artist's works. An artist can choose or not choose to distribute their works via DRM. DRM will never die, so this is the only way in which it will be kept in check.
You started answering a question I had in my head, but I couldn't quite get to the answer...
How can DRM and copyright be mutally exclusive? The artist has every right to decide which medium his work is distributed on. For some artists, they choose paper. For others, they choose sound waves. Some choose electronic. Most choose multiple forms.
The form of distribution is different, however, to the underlying work. The artist, when publishing a book, doesn't own the physical paper upon which his words are printed; the consumer owns this.
How can we say that DRM, a type of work distribution, can be mutally exclusive from copyright? The author still maintains his copyright regardless of how its distributed. So Metallica decides to only ever distribute their future works in a DRM format. That's their right to do so. The market is still free to decide whether or not to purchase this form or not.
I think DRM from this perspective is a Good Thing. I think it will give rise to a new market for un-DRMed works, such that artists that you and I don't ever hear about will start rising to the top. In fact, I believe this has already started to happen.
I personally will not support an artist who decides to distribute their works on a DRM format. I will personally support (and frequently do) artist who "give away" their works in an unencumbered format. I think the market, in general, will follow the same reasoning.
Their rights are what we choose to give them, and we should only choose to give them rights when, and to the degree that, it serves our purposes to do so. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or an inherent right. It's artificial and granted for the purpose of the public good, like a municipal cable TV monopoly.
More people need to hear this! Seriously, this message is totally lost in 99.9% of discussions on copyright.
Copyright isn't about the artists, so much as it is about creating a market place for an artist's works. If there were no protection, an artist wouldn't create, because afterall one has still got to put bread on the table. With copyright, we the public benefit from the artists ability to create. The primary motive is to benefit the public, not the artist. The fact that an artist can provide food for his table is a happy consequence of the arrangement.
Parent was modded "Funny", but it's actually the absolute sad truth. It should be modded "Insightful" or even "Goes Without Saying."
I have the unfortuneate task of checking up on my company's proxy logs once in awhile. I look for and report the real obvious problems. However, with what little time I spend looking for abuse, it's obvious to me that the internet creates a net loss of productivity.
I believe there should be open access to the internet, and that all workers can and should be trusted to perform their job duties. But wherever a freedom exists, someone will be there to abuse it.
I'd love to read a paper describing the effects of productivity in work places with open internet access (compared with those without). Though, as far as productivity is concerned, America has been declining for longer than the web has been around. So, maybe it doesn't really matter anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Tea? I believed you until this statement.
That's a feature of unix/mac, not a "technical flaw" of windows. Just because other systems have that feature... Well, you know.
The parent is right, in this case M$FT isn't liable.
Right, that's the correct way to handle it.
The BSD guy, once copying the Linux code into the repository, essentially made it impossible for BSD to have any similar functionality in that driver compared to the Linux implementation. That's probably the biggest "mistake" that was made. The copyright infringement can be dealt with. Now however, the BSD driver will be plagued with being tainted and will never be able to implement a similar driver (without the approval of the original copyright holder of course).
Linux and BSD communities are generally friendly to each other. So, it should really be a non-issue in the end.
I think it's your decision to make how you reply to the situation. I respect your decision to "go public" with the information, and I do not defend the "backlash" that you're getting from doing so.
However, I think you didn't play your cards in the right order. Because you've decided to play your ace out front, you're getting clobbered in the PR department.
It's like the people who find vulnerabilities in proprietary software. The respectable thing for them to do is disclose the problem to the software company, privately first. If the company decides not to address the problem, then you go public. It's the "politically correct" (for lack of a better term) way to handle the situation.
Same thing here. You could have written the maintainer of the code directly and sought a resolution off the public record. If the maintainer didn't come to an appropriate agreement (as decided by you and the other copyright holders), then you would be forced to go public with the information (or alternatively seek legal action).
You're right, of course. The BSD folks made a mistake including your code. They should deal with the consequences of that mistake and make amends for it. However, you could have played it a bit cooler too and the whole issue wouldn't have gotten so out of hand.
The way you've handled it makes it look like you've got an ax to grind or some political statement to make.
I would also suspect that the BSD developer was just using the Linux code as a drop-in replacement for the time being until he rewrote it with a BSD license
Once the BSD developer did this, he can't very easily claim to have a "clean" implementation of the copyrighted code. You can't "drop-in" a copyrighted work and expect to duplicate it somehow cleanly under a new license.
It would, of course, take a court to hash out the issue in this case. And of course, the two parties would likely find an agreement before that time. But none-the-less, it's just not possible to temporarily have copyrighted source code in your product and not be "tainted" by it.
It didn't mention clippy anywhere??
Bah!
Just because you didn't sign anything doesn't mean there are no terms under which you are employed - it is just that they have not been reduced to a written form.
Uh, you're a lawyer? And, this is your statement?
IANAL, but at least I know that in the lack of written contract, the courts have nothing more to rely on than laws and previous case history; in this case, the AT WILL laws. If the terms weren't given in written form and signed by the employee, there is absolutely no other terms than what has been established by the government.
That's not to say the guy shouldn't seek council, however his stance should be, "My previous employer never submitted any terms or conditions for my employment and therefore my employment contract was AT WILL."
The employer doesn't have anything on the guy. He's free to go, without any previously signed contract stating otherwise. He has to be careful about not sharing proprietary information, but other than that, he's set.
You were that guy who memorized the tables in D&D, weren't you?
Thanks, that made me smile.
Well, you got to save that sick day for something else. I mean, at work you're just sick and miserable anyway, there's no difference if you've got a cold or not.
Around here (in the Rockies), when you take a sick day, they call it "powder flu" which quite coincidently comes around just after a big snow storm has hit.
You're obviously not employed as an IT Support person for a non-technology (traditional industrial) company like I am. Yes, people just randomly click on just about any little linky they see. It's still 1996 here, the whole "novelty" of the interweb hasn't passed. Crazy waste of time. Who am I to say though, I spend more than enough time reading /. :)
Oh and yes, the tag itself, stupid idea.
When I choose a vacation, I choose a location or activity that is completely removed from the modern world. For example, I like to go on multiday whitewater rafting trips, especially those in the west where you can get 5 or more days and there's no possibility to connect. Backpacking, horseback, cross country skiing, remote fishing, whatever.
There's actually two reasons for doing this: 1) To force myself to unplug; 2) to see a part of our country or world that is quickly shrinking. I think the second reason resonates with me more than the first.
Your homepage is dead.
I want to know how they lit up the border like that so nice and crisp. I'm guessing it's the border fences and watch towers.
Because, the omelette had already been made for that day. And, they don't keep ingredients around for the next day, lest they spoil.
The judge and jury's hands are tied if the defendant didn't show up.
It sounds like the defendant did at least know something about the suit, just not when it was happening. That's her fault for not finding out.
If at the very least she could have bummed a bus ticket down to florida to show up in court, I'm guessing you're right, the whole thing would have been tossed. The judge would at that point have much more leverage as to what happens.
Hopefully there will be an appeal available to her.
No chance to prove it was or was not true, since she didn't even bother to show up to court.
At the very least, she should have scraped some money together for a bus ride down to florida to show up in court, without a lawyer even. The judge, after hearing where she's been (Katrina) and knowing she couldn't even afford a lawyer would have likely made it much more tough for the plantiff to get such a judgement.
Point is, you've still got to be there in court no matter what. She didn't show up, therefore the judge and jury's hands are tied.
Well, remember, this is a STOCK ONLY deal. There is no cash exchanged. So, if you're angry, you should be angry at the dilution of the stock. But, you can't be angry at what "they could have bought with that money." To Google at this point in their history, the deal was practically free.
You've seen that Simpson's where Bart works for a dotcom, right? You know, how the stock is worth toilet paper? That's somewhat close to the view from the inside when making deals using stock. It's like free money to them.
By elevating DRM to be mutually exclusive of copyright, what you've done is elevate the status of DRM to a level higher than it should be. You've introduced new beauracracies to manage an artists DRM (by introducing a "DRM board at the Copyright Office"). By elevating it and providing government to manage it, you're doing the work of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. That's exactly what they want, to have special treatment of the distribution of their works, to have places where their money can more greatly influence future legislation, etc.
/. to begin with) that you might sway to the libertarian POV. From this POV, DRM is a perfectly acceptable free market technology SO LONG AS the government doesn't get involved with it. If DRM is left to being solely free market, then the opportunity will exist for other solutions to come about and then we will all benefit.
:)
I don't know you, but I would assume (half because you're reading
As was my point, I believe that DRM (based solely on free market principles) will be a good thing as it will be the final nail in the RIAA's coffin. They cannot, without the help of the government, stop artists from distributing their works in various other formats which the market is willing to support. They see their days as middle-man disappearing and are grasping at straws to try and prevent it.
Now, the evil thing with DRM is when the government gets involved. Then you have something which you are correct in saying does not benefit the public as a whole. If legislation passes (maybe even an extension of the DMCA) which doesn't allow free market distribution of works, but instead insists that works be distributed under a DRM scheme, then yes this is truly evil.
But again, you see, by suggesting that DRM be elevated to a status similar to copyright, you're helping advocate getting us there. Maybe the plan works the way you suggest originally, but you know that's not how the congress critters will let it be forever, especially under heavy lobbying. Better to just let the market take care of DRM which will ultimately punish those artists who choose to use it.
People (consumers) generally do not like their freedoms removed from them. We as a general body though do accept a lot of non-sense, so this is again another point to justify the fight against DRM. That is, that once a DRM scheme (backed by the government) gets hold, the common tendancy will be for consumers to just roll over and shrug it off. That's too bad. That's why we need people to understand DRM, understand why it's bad for the consumer, etc. But, this does not justify creating a "special place" for DRM to exist in our laws.
You're very wrong about it being a good thing, you just seem to have a natural 'glass is half full' mentality.
Well, and that could be.
Just remember though. DRM is simply yet another way to distribute an artist's works. An artist can choose or not choose to distribute their works via DRM. DRM will never die, so this is the only way in which it will be kept in check.
You started answering a question I had in my head, but I couldn't quite get to the answer...
How can DRM and copyright be mutally exclusive? The artist has every right to decide which medium his work is distributed on. For some artists, they choose paper. For others, they choose sound waves. Some choose electronic. Most choose multiple forms.
The form of distribution is different, however, to the underlying work. The artist, when publishing a book, doesn't own the physical paper upon which his words are printed; the consumer owns this.
How can we say that DRM, a type of work distribution, can be mutally exclusive from copyright? The author still maintains his copyright regardless of how its distributed. So Metallica decides to only ever distribute their future works in a DRM format. That's their right to do so. The market is still free to decide whether or not to purchase this form or not.
I think DRM from this perspective is a Good Thing. I think it will give rise to a new market for un-DRMed works, such that artists that you and I don't ever hear about will start rising to the top. In fact, I believe this has already started to happen.
I personally will not support an artist who decides to distribute their works on a DRM format. I will personally support (and frequently do) artist who "give away" their works in an unencumbered format. I think the market, in general, will follow the same reasoning.
Your post should be bronzed.
Their rights are what we choose to give them, and we should only choose to give them rights when, and to the degree that, it serves our purposes to do so. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or an inherent right. It's artificial and granted for the purpose of the public good, like a municipal cable TV monopoly.
More people need to hear this! Seriously, this message is totally lost in 99.9% of discussions on copyright.
Copyright isn't about the artists, so much as it is about creating a market place for an artist's works. If there were no protection, an artist wouldn't create, because afterall one has still got to put bread on the table. With copyright, we the public benefit from the artists ability to create. The primary motive is to benefit the public, not the artist. The fact that an artist can provide food for his table is a happy consequence of the arrangement.
I thought the number was 42.
Oh wait, wrong author.
This should go under the "Interviews" section...
"We'll send the top 10 highest moderated questions directly to their blog."
But there's some subtle stuff here like how to handle previews.
Previews? What's that?
Which doesn't really help any.
Parent was modded "Funny", but it's actually the absolute sad truth. It should be modded "Insightful" or even "Goes Without Saying."
I have the unfortuneate task of checking up on my company's proxy logs once in awhile. I look for and report the real obvious problems. However, with what little time I spend looking for abuse, it's obvious to me that the internet creates a net loss of productivity.
I believe there should be open access to the internet, and that all workers can and should be trusted to perform their job duties. But wherever a freedom exists, someone will be there to abuse it.
I'd love to read a paper describing the effects of productivity in work places with open internet access (compared with those without). Though, as far as productivity is concerned, America has been declining for longer than the web has been around. So, maybe it doesn't really matter anyway.