Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail.
Or even simpler have no difference between an OEM and a retail copy. Only discount
Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail.
Or even simply have Microsoft sell Windows. Which is the same thing regardless of if it is going to an OEM, an end user or a third party reseller. OEM's can also buy Windows direct from Microsoft, from a reseller or from another OEM...
This would have the desired effect that OEMs will not 'bundle' anything.
But it would be possible for retailers (the likes of Dell, Compaq, etc are also retailers) to bundle an OS with a machine, in the same way they sometimes bundle a scanner or printer, etc. The point here is that the customer can typically buy just the computer (or just the printer) if they want to anyway...
The cost of Windows to small OEMs is about $50, less at high volumes. It's a mandatory component, just like a CPU or RAM or a keyboard.
Windows is not a mandatory component, even though Microsoft have tried hard to convince people it is. In many cases, especially in the corporate world, the requirement is to run something other than the OEM supplied version of Windows. Sometimes it'e even another version of MS Windows (with licences bought elsewhere), sometimes a completly different OS. For that matter keyboards, mice and monitors arn't mandatory components. Computers can be uses either "headless" or connected to a KVM switch.
The idea is that microsoft's app division has, if they so desire, direct access to all sorts of internal things that no one outside microsoft has.
This is a problem even if the rest of the planet will be given acess to this information at some time in the future. Since the apps division has a time advantage here. They can have a product ready to ship whilst any competitor is still at the development stage.
If MS were split into two companies, then *all communication* between the apps and OS microsofts would have to be above-ground and visible to outside-microsoft entities.
Assuming that you can ensure a complete split. Which may be tricky especially on things such as share ownership. You'd effectivly need something like a ban on any entity holding shares in both companies.
You could of course say that the DOJ could just force MS to publicly document all interfaces, but MS has a quite clear history of basically spitting in the face of any legal judgements passed on them.
Which in most cases would be cause for the judge to "throw the book at them". i.e. impose the most punitive judgment the law allows them too (and if needs be complain that the law needs ammending because it forced something inappropriatly lenient.)
Ensuring and enforcing compliance with something like "MS, you must publicly document all interfaces to the OS" would be near impossible, especially since MS has made it clear they are very good at avoiding obeying legal judgements.
Probably because the judgments had no effective "teeth" or enforcement. Proper "teeth" would be something like "by not documenting any API or file format. Microsoft shal have been demed to have placed any software which uses that file format (and any derived work) into the public domain". Proper enforcement might well look something like a BSA "raid".
Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity. You can either afford the box or you can't. Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking
If we are talking entirely about "home" machines then the luxury argument makes sense. Where they are being used for work purposes the luxury argument dosn't really make sense.
Reading this article (and others), I find that M$'s repeated and only justification of their business practices is that changing them now would "undermine its Windows operating system" (from the article).
And how do you handle the user who cannot make those modifications to Open Source code.
Nothing stops people being able to acquire the skills or employing someone to make changes. With closed source only the original supplier can maintain it, with open source it is possible for anyone to perform maintance.
By placing the onus on the end-user, you transfer responsibility to people who are not capable of maintaining their own software and who cannot afford to hire out for repair.
Maybe they shouldn't be using it, in the same way that a car driver shouldn't be taking an inadeqatly maintained vehicle on the road...
As a matter of law,in Australia, goods including software have to be "reasonably fit for the purpose" they have been purchased for, of "merchantable quality", and must fit the "description" they are sold under.
Does the Australian law (either in the statute or appropriate court ruling) define "software" as "goods". The usually issue here is that abstract licences arn't either goods or services....
What I want to know is when the country will make contractual law a part of the high school curriculum? Every dumb shit in America believes every stupid document put in front of them is law.
Unless they have actual knowlage of the laws in question.
This is similar to those signs that say not responsible for blah blah blah. Bullshit. If they are responsible, then they are responsible. Period.
The more subtle one you tend to find in software licencing is "we disclaim anything the law will allow us to disclaim". Using the, usually correct assumption, that most people won't actually know what can and can't be disclaimed in this way...
Most people seem to be missing two important distinctions here. You pay for commercial software, but not for free software.
It also makes sense to consider the difference between closed source and open source. In the latter case even if you don't pay for it you effectivly get something which is "take it or leave it". With open source (even if you pay for it) you get something which you can modify yourself...
You can't sue _George_ for injuring _me_. Only the injured party can *ACTUALLY* sue George.
The injured party can however appoint someone to act as their behalf. Depending on the context this is known as either "appointing a proxy" or "granting power of attorney".
When you have 2 opposing parties with an arguement, a judge who doesn't understand the arguement is useless.
Rather the judge is incompetant if they attempt to make a ruling when they don't understand the case. All he or she has to say is something to the effect of "If you can't explain your arguments to my understanding I'm dismissing the case."
Well it seems the Judges and lawyers waste valuable time and a huge amount of money while the judge grapples with understanding the technology involved in each case.
Simply because a case involves technology does not mean that the details of the technology are relevent. Copyright infringment is not fundermentally different in the case of this kind of GPL infringement from a publisher failing to pay an author or someone hiring a band to play a venue then trying to change the rider after the performance...
A speciality court could assume a great deal of knowledge on behalf of judges resulting in quicker, cheaper and more informed decsions.
Or it could be a small clique easily bought off by monied interests...
We do not need a special court of technology, for several reasons.
Nor should we need special laws for specific technologies either. A well written law should cover doing something old with new technology perfectly well. Only if a new technology makes something new possible do you need new laws. N.B. simply making something easier does not make it "new".
First, the law is The Law. It's interpretation should not change based on the plantiff or its paritcular singular application - a violation of licensing agreement should be enforced the same whether it is MS's EULA or the GPL.
IMHO It makes more sense to group the GPL with publishing contracts or even contracts for live music performances
It's clear that allowing NuSphere to continue shipping code they have been shipping for the last seven months won't, by itself, do much more harm, if any, so the GPL issue was left alone.
Trademarks are another matter -- the more and longer they are abused, the greater the harm to the owner.
Usually the same reasoning is applied to copyright infringement too, though.
Specifically, I would propose that use of GPL software be conditioned on legal stipulation of the proposition that continued violation of the terms of the GPL after notification is "irreparable injury" because it is theft of intellectual property.
Why do you need to ammend the CPL to cover this. Copyright infringement is already against the law. If someone distributes the software in violation of the GPL that is exactly what they are doing.
Similarly, you should have to stipulate that the "balance of harms" of a violation is completely in favor of the author, and that this applies regardless of any business interest that exists as a result of the exploitation of the licence.
Again this would appear to be redundant since there is plenty of statute and case law related to copyright infringment.
The author offered a zero-cost good faith licence to use and extend their IP subject only to the condition that IP extentions be returned to the commons on demand.
It's not "zero-cost", simply that any cost is not in terms of money. To be valid contracts require transfer of "consideration", this includes money, but also includes barter of goods or services, etc.
n particular, a "take down" process should be invoked (somewhat like the DMCA provision)
Why not simply use the provisions of the DMCA?
All such weasle room should be removed by stating that this doesn't apply if you're licence was revoked for noncompliance.
THe only thing which might be a useful ammendment.
As you may notice, the action involves a contractual dispute, trademarks, and copyrights, not just a GPL violation.
It's rather hard to violate the GPL without involving copyright infringment and a contractual dispute anyway. Since the GPL is all about contract and copyright law in the first place. The tradmark bit is is a separate issue. Maybe related to something like NuSphere passing off their product as MySQL or similar.
The GPL is not a gift. It is a barter offer: I allow certain carefully constrained uses of my IP and in return you offer any intellectual property you create some as a result of my good will back to "the pot".
Also the GPL has a lot more in common with regular contracts than any EULA. Indeed it isn't an EULA in the first place it's a copyright licence...
To assure that bad faith cannot usurp the original author's valuable IP contributions, the GPL revokes all rights for the smallest infraction in order to assure that any "negotiation" will occur with the position of strength emphatically given to the original author.
Or if you prefer it ensures that the original author maintains the position of strength which copyright law gave them in the first place. Breaking the GPL is conceptually little different from an author licencing a book to a publisher and the publisher failing to pay in accordance with the agreement.
This apears to be a classic case of confusion over concepts of IP. THe tradmark issue would apply only to NuSphere attempting to pass their product off as being MySQL. With the GPL issue the relvent matter is copyright violation. The first linked article completly muddles the two up. The second article does at least mention that there are at least two separate issues to the lawsuit.
Blaming it on the users (i.e. "human nature") is about as meaningless as blaming plane crashes on gravity. Or blaming crime on criminals, rather than saying "gee, maybe we need some police".
Or evaluate if it makes sense for something to be a "crime" in the first place. Otherwise your "police" end up simply as an organisational "Money pit"...
However, the main reason why they are trying to control communication is that they haven't got a business model that work. What they should do, is figure out new business models that work instead of trying to pull us all back to the dark ages.
More that they can't be sure that if they were to adopt new business models they would still have the revenue, let alone the political power, they have now.
Many of those powerful tranquilizers that have been made schedule I also have medicinal value to them.
But once they become labeled as "criminal" that in itself inhibits doctors and pharmacists from researching the medical value of the drug.
GHB (Gamma-hydroxy-butanol), which was a victim of the US governments drug deamonizing, and drug user deamonizing campaign of the late 90's has show to be valuable for treating sleep disorders
Hardly the only potentially useful drug to have been effectivly lost to medical science for political reasons
Most/all of the deaths attributed to this substance included combinations of other depressants including alcohol.
Also drugs from black market suppliers can easily be contaminated or of unknown dosage level. There are far more dangerous drugs, in terms of actual toxicity available over the counter, e.g. paracetamol.
So, yes, I question the outlawing of "date-rape" drugs, which were primarily invented to serve some politicians political career. I see people on this site often question legislation related to technology, but few people look into legislation (and public propaganda) not related to technology that also affects people.
Even though the "argument" is much the same "It can be used for bad things, so it should be banned..."
Ranged weapons are a different matter. (Generally, guns and bows.)
They are very old technology, there's plenty of people who could build them from scratch, including such things as machine guns.
Yes, they are the great equalizer. God made men, Sam Colt made them all equal, and all that stuff. But there's a disconnect there. If only one party involved in a vigorous disagreement has a ranged weapon, you pretty much know the winner. This is part of why police (as a group, there are a lot of individual exceptions) want to be the only people allowed to have guns... it makes the police a lot safer. Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too.
If criminals obeyed the law they wouldn't be criminals or a need for police in the first place:)
Banning tools, or even single purpose weapons, is pointless as a means of reigning in violence.
If someone is intent on violence they are unlikely to be worried about if they are using a legal or illegal weapon to perform it anyway. Indeed its not unknown for banning certain types of weapons to make them easier for criminals to obtain...
Slashdot Mirror
Windows is a poster child for the sacrifice of style in the name of usability
In many ways it isn't an especially good example of "usability" anyway.
Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail.
Or even simpler have no difference between an OEM and a retail copy. Only discount Even simpler would be to mandate that every copy of every microsoft product shipped from Redmond carries the same price tag - wether its going to OEM, or retail.
Or even simply have Microsoft sell Windows. Which is the same thing regardless of if it is going to an OEM, an end user or a third party reseller. OEM's can also buy Windows direct from Microsoft, from a reseller or from another OEM...
This would have the desired effect that OEMs will not 'bundle' anything.
But it would be possible for retailers (the likes of Dell, Compaq, etc are also retailers) to bundle an OS with a machine, in the same way they sometimes bundle a scanner or printer, etc. The point here is that the customer can typically buy just the computer (or just the printer) if they want to anyway...
The cost of Windows to small OEMs is about $50, less at high volumes.
It's a mandatory component, just like a CPU or RAM or a keyboard.
Windows is not a mandatory component, even though Microsoft have tried hard to convince people it is. In many cases, especially in the corporate world, the requirement is to run something other than the OEM supplied version of Windows. Sometimes it'e even another version of MS Windows (with licences bought elsewhere), sometimes a completly different OS.
For that matter keyboards, mice and monitors arn't mandatory components. Computers can be uses either "headless" or connected to a KVM switch.
The idea is that microsoft's app division has, if they so desire, direct access to all sorts of internal things that no one outside microsoft has.
This is a problem even if the rest of the planet will be given acess to this information at some time in the future. Since the apps division has a time advantage here. They can have a product ready to ship whilst any competitor is still at the development stage.
If MS were split into two companies, then *all communication* between the apps and OS microsofts would have to be above-ground and visible to outside-microsoft entities.
Assuming that you can ensure a complete split. Which may be tricky especially on things such as share ownership. You'd effectivly need something like a ban on any entity holding shares in both companies.
You could of course say that the DOJ could just force MS to publicly document all interfaces, but MS has a quite clear history of basically spitting in the face of any legal judgements passed on them.
Which in most cases would be cause for the judge to "throw the book at them". i.e. impose the most punitive judgment the law allows them too (and if needs be complain that the law needs ammending because it forced something inappropriatly lenient.)
Ensuring and enforcing compliance with something like "MS, you must publicly document all interfaces to the OS" would be near impossible, especially since MS has made it clear they are very good at avoiding obeying legal judgements.
Probably because the judgments had no effective "teeth" or enforcement. Proper "teeth" would be something like "by not documenting any API or file format. Microsoft shal have been demed to have placed any software which uses that file format (and any derived work) into the public domain". Proper enforcement might well look something like a BSA "raid".
Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity. You can either afford the box or you can't. Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking
If we are talking entirely about "home" machines then the luxury argument makes sense. Where they are being used for work purposes the luxury argument dosn't really make sense.
Reading this article (and others), I find that M$'s repeated and only justification of their business practices is that changing them now would "undermine its Windows operating system" (from the article).
Which would be a bad thing because?
And how do you handle the user who cannot make those modifications to Open Source code.
Nothing stops people being able to acquire the skills or employing someone to make changes. With closed source only the original supplier can maintain it, with open source it is possible for anyone to perform maintance.
By placing the onus on the end-user, you transfer responsibility to people who are not capable of maintaining their own software and who cannot afford to hire out for repair.
Maybe they shouldn't be using it, in the same way that a car driver shouldn't be taking an inadeqatly maintained vehicle on the road...
As a matter of law,in Australia, goods including software have to be "reasonably fit for the purpose" they have been purchased for, of "merchantable quality", and must fit the "description" they are sold under.
Does the Australian law (either in the statute or appropriate court ruling) define "software" as "goods". The usually issue here is that abstract licences arn't either goods or services....
What I want to know is when the country will make contractual law a part of the high school curriculum? Every dumb shit in America believes every stupid document put in front of them is law.
Unless they have actual knowlage of the laws in question.
This is similar to those signs that say not responsible for blah blah blah. Bullshit. If they are responsible, then they are responsible. Period.
The more subtle one you tend to find in software licencing is "we disclaim anything the law will allow us to disclaim". Using the, usually correct assumption, that most people won't actually know what can and can't be disclaimed in this way...
Most people seem to be missing two important distinctions here. You pay for commercial software, but not for free software.
It also makes sense to consider the difference between closed source and open source. In the latter case even if you don't pay for it you effectivly get something which is "take it or leave it". With open source (even if you pay for it) you get something which you can modify yourself...
You can't sue _George_ for injuring _me_. Only the injured party can *ACTUALLY* sue George.
The injured party can however appoint someone to act as their behalf. Depending on the context this is known as either "appointing a proxy" or "granting power of attorney".
When you have 2 opposing parties with an arguement, a judge who doesn't understand the arguement is useless.
Rather the judge is incompetant if they attempt to make a ruling when they don't understand the case. All he or she has to say is something to the effect of "If you can't explain your arguments to my understanding I'm dismissing the case."
Well it seems the Judges and lawyers waste valuable time and a huge amount of money while the judge grapples with understanding the technology involved in each case.
Simply because a case involves technology does not mean that the details of the technology are relevent. Copyright infringment is not fundermentally different in the case of this kind of GPL infringement from a publisher failing to pay an author or someone hiring a band to play a venue then trying to change the rider after the performance...
A speciality court could assume a great deal of knowledge on behalf of judges resulting in quicker, cheaper and more informed decsions.
Or it could be a small clique easily bought off by monied interests...
We do not need a special court of technology, for several reasons.
Nor should we need special laws for specific technologies either. A well written law should cover doing something old with new technology perfectly well. Only if a new technology makes something new possible do you need new laws. N.B. simply making something easier does not make it "new".
First, the law is The Law. It's interpretation should not change based on the plantiff or its paritcular singular application - a violation of licensing agreement should be enforced the same whether it is MS's EULA or the GPL.
IMHO It makes more sense to group the GPL with publishing contracts or even contracts for live music performances
It's clear that allowing NuSphere to continue shipping code they have been shipping for the last seven months won't, by itself, do much more harm, if any, so the GPL issue was left alone.
Trademarks are another matter -- the more and longer they are abused, the greater the harm to the owner.
Usually the same reasoning is applied to copyright infringement too, though.
Specifically, I would propose that use of GPL software be conditioned on legal stipulation of the proposition that continued violation of the terms of the GPL after notification is "irreparable injury" because it is theft of intellectual property.
Why do you need to ammend the CPL to cover this. Copyright infringement is already against the law. If someone distributes the software in violation of the GPL that is exactly what they are doing.
Similarly, you should have to stipulate that the "balance of harms" of a violation is completely in favor of the author, and that this applies regardless of any business interest that exists as a result of the exploitation of the licence.
Again this would appear to be redundant since there is plenty of statute and case law related to copyright infringment.
The author offered a zero-cost good faith licence to use and extend their IP subject only to the condition that IP extentions be returned to the commons on demand.
It's not "zero-cost", simply that any cost is not in terms of money. To be valid contracts require transfer of "consideration", this includes money, but also includes barter of goods or services, etc.
n particular, a "take down" process should be invoked (somewhat like the DMCA provision)
Why not simply use the provisions of the DMCA?
All such weasle room should be removed by stating that this doesn't apply if you're licence was revoked for noncompliance.
THe only thing which might be a useful ammendment.
As you may notice, the action involves a contractual dispute, trademarks, and copyrights, not just a GPL violation.
It's rather hard to violate the GPL without involving copyright infringment and a contractual dispute anyway. Since the GPL is all about contract and copyright law in the first place.
The tradmark bit is is a separate issue. Maybe related to something like NuSphere passing off their product as MySQL or similar.
While you may see this, the judge does not. The problem with the GPL is that it is new for the legal system.
But copyright isn't new, contracts licencing a third party to make copies of a copyright work (in return for consideration) arn't new either...
The GPL is not a gift. It is a barter offer: I allow certain carefully constrained uses of my IP and in return you offer any intellectual property you create some as a result of my good will back to "the pot".
Also the GPL has a lot more in common with regular contracts than any EULA. Indeed it isn't an EULA in the first place it's a copyright licence...
To assure that bad faith cannot usurp the original author's valuable IP contributions, the GPL revokes all rights for the smallest infraction in order to assure that any "negotiation" will occur with the position of strength emphatically given to the original author.
Or if you prefer it ensures that the original author maintains the position of strength which copyright law gave them in the first place.
Breaking the GPL is conceptually little different from an author licencing a book to a publisher and the publisher failing to pay in accordance with the agreement.
This apears to be a classic case of confusion over concepts of IP.
THe tradmark issue would apply only to NuSphere attempting to pass their product off as being MySQL. With the GPL issue the relvent matter is copyright violation.
The first linked article completly muddles the two up. The second article does at least mention that there are at least two separate issues to the lawsuit.
Blaming it on the users (i.e. "human nature") is about as meaningless as blaming plane crashes on gravity. Or blaming crime on criminals, rather than saying "gee, maybe we need some police".
Or evaluate if it makes sense for something to be a "crime" in the first place. Otherwise your "police" end up simply as an organisational "Money pit"...
However, the main reason why they are trying to control communication is that they haven't got a business model that work. What they should do, is figure out new business models that work instead of trying to pull us all back to the dark ages.
More that they can't be sure that if they were to adopt new business models they would still have the revenue, let alone the political power, they have now.
Many of those powerful tranquilizers that have been made schedule I also have medicinal value to them.
But once they become labeled as "criminal" that in itself inhibits doctors and pharmacists from researching the medical value of the drug.
GHB (Gamma-hydroxy-butanol), which was a victim of the US governments drug deamonizing, and drug user deamonizing campaign of the late 90's has show to be valuable for treating sleep disorders
Hardly the only potentially useful drug to have been effectivly lost to medical science for political reasons
Most/all of the deaths attributed to this substance included combinations of other depressants including alcohol.
Also drugs from black market suppliers can easily be contaminated or of unknown dosage level. There are far more dangerous drugs, in terms of actual toxicity available over the counter, e.g. paracetamol.
So, yes, I question the outlawing of "date-rape" drugs, which were primarily invented to serve some politicians political career. I see people on this site often question legislation related to technology, but few people look into legislation (and public propaganda) not related to technology that also affects people.
Even though the "argument" is much the same "It can be used for bad things, so it should be banned..."
Ranged weapons are a different matter. (Generally, guns and bows.)
:)
They are very old technology, there's plenty of people who could build them from scratch, including such things as machine guns.
Yes, they are the great equalizer. God made men, Sam Colt made them all equal, and all that stuff. But there's a disconnect there. If only one party involved in a vigorous disagreement has a ranged weapon, you pretty much know the winner. This is part of why police (as a group, there are a lot of individual exceptions) want to be the only people allowed to have guns... it makes the police a lot safer. Unfortunately, in our imperfect society where criminals ignore the law and have guns too.
If criminals obeyed the law they wouldn't be criminals or a need for police in the first place
Banning tools, or even single purpose weapons, is pointless as a means of reigning in violence.
If someone is intent on violence they are unlikely to be worried about if they are using a legal or illegal weapon to perform it anyway.
Indeed its not unknown for banning certain types of weapons to make them easier for criminals to obtain...