You consider completely forbidding the creation of derivative works less restrictive than requiring that they carry the same license as the original as the GPL does?
No. We don't want SCO "laughed out of court". We don't want them out of court at all. We want them _in_ court, unsuccessfully defending themselves against IBM's counterclaims after the judge grants summary judgement in favor of IBM on all of SCO's claims.
Not everyone has a cellphone at all, let alone one that can use a SIM card. I don't have a cellphone, but I can imagine a situation in which I would find it convenient to buy one of these, use it for a short time, and then turn it in for my five bucks.
I'd also consider buying one for the car for emergencies, but I expect that they expire after at most a few months.
Your judgement of "how the country has been going" is distorted by exaggerated reports. The US is headed in the wrong direction, but it has a long way to go to get to where most of the rest of the world already is.
The GPL differs fundamentally from all of your examples in that it does not require you to give up any of the rights you would have in it's absence. In fact, you need not accept it at all unless you intend to distribute the subject work or derivatives of it. What it does do is offer to grant you certain rights beyond those inherent in the legal possession of a copy of the subject work in return for your agreement to certain conditions on the distribution of copies and derivatives.
> I think I have the grounds at that point to sue > them for violation of the GPL's terms of > distribution since they cannot deny me the sources > on a product they distributed just because I > didn't buy it.
No. You have no standing to sue. Only a copyright owner does. Contact one or more of the copyright owners and suggest that they do so.
> No, I think it suggests that you do so, but it > does not require it.
The GPL suggests no such thing. Read it:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.) ^L These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written
> Most states you cannot take a corporation to > "small court."
You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.
> If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign > corporation... you have to serve papers on > their registered agent in your state....
Which is exactly the same procedure as for a local corporation. That is why such agents are required (if they don't have such an agent they lose all lawsuits by default).
It might be possible to form such a class action, but doing so would be to SCO's advantage. They would only need to defend against one lawsuit instead of thousands.
>...the entire election in the Kashmir state was > done by EVMs with no room for tampering.
How do you know? Just because the Indian government says so? They, of course, couldn't possibly have any reason to want to nobble an election in Kashmir, of all places.
> My personal cynic is asking me if we can we just > forgo the electronic voting and vote with a pencil > and paper
The Feds claim that paper ballots discriminate agasinst the disabled.
> We can't trust the voters, can't trust Chad, and > now it seems as though we can't trust the election > system at all.
Of course you can't trust the electoral system, nor should you. That's what poll-watchers et al are for, and that's why voting systems must be completely transparent and comprehensible to ordinary non-technical people. The paper ballot is the only system that qualifies.
But the victim of the crime of barratry is the _client_. You could get Boies on barratry if you could show that he induced SCO to bring a frivolous suit in order to enrich himself at their expense, but SCO would be the victim.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Its purpose is to determine liability, not guilt. The decision will be made on the basis of preponderence of evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
You consider completely forbidding the creation of derivative works less restrictive than requiring that they carry the same license as the original as the GPL does?
It doesn't. I don't think IBM is going to back off no matter what.
> Is www.forbes.com permeated with broker kiddies
> who rant and rave about their pet software
> project?
No. They rave about their latest pump-n'-dump scheme.
> Who runs the moderation system?
NYSE, NASDAQ, and the SEC.
> Do First Posts and grits posts fill their
> comments section?
"First Posts"? Only specialists are allowed to get away with front-running.
> Do they have a comments section for the guys in
> the peanut gallery??
Small investors are only permitted to buy and sell. As frequently as possible.
I've never seen /. say any such thing. Assorted /. posters, yes. But /.? No.
No. We don't want SCO "laughed out of court". We don't want them out of court at all. We want them _in_ court, unsuccessfully defending themselves against IBM's counterclaims after the judge grants summary judgement in favor of IBM on all of SCO's claims.
Let's start referring to www.forbes.com as a "stock-market enthusiast Web site".
Not everyone has a cellphone at all, let alone one that can use a SIM card. I don't have a cellphone, but I can imagine a situation in which I would find it convenient to buy one of these, use it for a short time, and then turn it in for my five bucks.
I'd also consider buying one for the car for emergencies, but I expect that they expire after at most a few months.
> ...patents mean nothing until they are tested in
...it would be easy to prove in court and get
> court.
Patents mean quite a lot until tested in court. They are presumed valid until proven otherwise.
>
> the patent struck down.
Right. I'm sure it wouldn't cost more than a few hundred thousand dollars and take more than a few years.
Your judgement of "how the country has been going" is distorted by exaggerated reports. The US is headed in the wrong direction, but it has a long way to go to get to where most of the rest of the world already is.
The GPL differs fundamentally from all of your examples in that it does not require you to give up any of the rights you would have in it's absence. In fact, you need not accept it at all unless you intend to distribute the subject work or derivatives of it. What it does do is offer to grant you certain rights beyond those inherent in the legal possession of a copy of the subject work in return for your agreement to certain conditions on the distribution of copies and derivatives.
> Secondly, even if the developers do try each case
> individually: sure, each coder has to pay for his
> own lawyer;
Not necessarily. A legal fund could be set up and pro bono lawyers recruited.
> I think I have the grounds at that point to sue
> them for violation of the GPL's terms of
> distribution since they cannot deny me the sources
> on a product they distributed just because I
> didn't buy it.
No. You have no standing to sue. Only a copyright owner does. Contact one or more of the copyright owners and suggest that they do so.
> No, I think it suggests that you do so, but it
> does not require it.
The GPL suggests no such thing. Read it:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
^L
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute
the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written
> I think he'll have to revoke their license to
...and revoke their GPL...
...if they continue to distribute in violation
> use the trademark...
What license?
>
The GPL has nothing to do with the trademark and need not be "revoked".
>
> of the trademark license and the GPL, he'll have
> grounds to sue.
He has excellent grounds to sue for copyright infringement and I hope he does so. However, the Linux trademark is _very_ weak. Read up on its history.
> Most states you cannot take a corporation to
... you have to serve papers on
> "small court."
You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.
> If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign
> corporation
> their registered agent in your state....
Which is exactly the same procedure as for a local corporation. That is why such agents are required (if they don't have such an agent they lose all lawsuits by default).
It might be possible to form such a class action, but doing so would be to SCO's advantage. They would only need to defend against one lawsuit instead of thousands.
It is past time for the authors of the Linux kernel to register their copyrights so that they can sue for statutory damages.
> Let me guess. You've never spent time in Europe.
Or Africa or Central Asia.
> ...the entire election in the Kashmir state was
> done by EVMs with no room for tampering.
How do you know? Just because the Indian government says so? They, of course, couldn't possibly have any reason to want to nobble an election in Kashmir, of all places.
> My personal cynic is asking me if we can we just
> forgo the electronic voting and vote with a pencil
> and paper
The Feds claim that paper ballots discriminate agasinst the disabled.
> We can't trust the voters, can't trust Chad, and
> now it seems as though we can't trust the election
> system at all.
Of course you can't trust the electoral system, nor should you. That's what poll-watchers et al are for, and that's why voting systems must be completely transparent and comprehensible to ordinary non-technical people. The paper ballot is the only system that qualifies.
The FSF is not involved in the case in any way whatsoever.
But the victim of the crime of barratry is the _client_. You could get Boies on barratry if you could show that he induced SCO to bring a frivolous suit in order to enrich himself at their expense, but SCO would be the victim.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Its purpose is to determine liability, not guilt. The decision will be made on the basis of preponderence of evidence.
Privoxy should be able to block it.
I don't qualify. I don't use desktops at all.