They mean a lot if they plus other evidence are enough to convince a judge to issue an order requiring the defendant to permit the plaintiff to examine the source.
> They could always claim to have included them as > "a standardized API, for compatibility reasons".
Compatibility with what? From what I can tell these functions are being used inside Castle's proprietary OS.
The GPL places no restrictions whatever on use. In fact, as long as you don't redistribute you need not accept the GPL. The GPL allows all rights that come with legal possession of a copyrighted work and then grants _additional_ rights. This is the exact opposite of what Microsoft's EULA does.
>...the copyright holders are numerous and it's > doubtful they'd all have enough money to fight > that kind of legal battle with any kind of big > software company.
The copyright holders would be the plaintiffs, of course, but that doesn't mean that others can't help pay the bills. You've heard of legal defense funds, I trust? How long did it take to raise $100,000 to buy out blender? How long do you think it would take to raise $1,000,000 to protect the Linux kernel? How much do you think IBM might donate? Think maybe Lawrence Lessig and Eben Mogland might help out for free?
> Too bad they changed the function signatures, such > a definite victory may not be obtainable in court > this time. But I sure hope a good precedent comes > out of this.
You figure they somehow retroactively changed the signatures on copies already distributed? Found and destroyed all incriminating documents and files? Induced all current and former employees to perjure themselves?
You are thoroughly confused. The RIAA is an association of music publishers: Sony, Vivendi, etc. No actual musicians are involved. The article you cite is about ASCAP and BMI.
We had those at Michigan Technological University in the late 1960s. You knock the bung out of a beer keg, screw in a piece of conduit stolen from a construction site, ram a potato down the conduit, fill the keg with hair spray through the pump hole, and ignite it with some steel wool and a zip cord. Are the Germans really that slow?
Stay away from Kazaa, then. Isn't it full of spywarwe and worms anyway? I don't believe that Gnutella and Freenet impose any such restrictions (though I could be wrong: I don't use any p2p stuff).
> Share and upload files. Sounds a lot like the > wording of the law to me.
That would be my defense: that the absence of any coupling between uploading and downloading means that the legal definition of "expectation of gain" is not met. I'm not at all sure it would work, though.
Of course, I'd first have to take up file sharing and then be stupid enough to attempt to defend myself against a criminal charge...
Wrong. Before the NET act copyright infringement (which is _not_ theft) was only a crime if you made money from it (and not usually even then). As long as you made no money the copyright owner could only sue you in civil court for damages and perhaps get an injunction.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mogland" should read "Moglen".
> Function signatures by themselves mean little.
They mean a lot if they plus other evidence are enough to convince a judge to issue an order requiring the defendant to permit the plaintiff to examine the source.
> They could always claim to have included them as
> "a standardized API, for compatibility reasons".
Compatibility with what? From what I can tell these functions are being used inside Castle's proprietary OS.
The GPL places no restrictions whatever on use. In fact, as long as you don't redistribute you need not accept the GPL. The GPL allows all rights that come with legal possession of a copyrighted work and then grants _additional_ rights. This is the exact opposite of what Microsoft's EULA does.
> For example, the FSF can update the GPL and the
> changes take effect immediately on any works
> they own the rights to.
More precisely, it takes effect for any copies they distribute under the new license.
> That could hurt the plaintiffs, because the
> statutory damages can be calculated for each act
> of infringement.
I would think that would hurt the defendant.
Is the kernel copyright registered? In the US that is required for statutory damages.
> ...the copyright holders are numerous and it's
> doubtful they'd all have enough money to fight
> that kind of legal battle with any kind of big
> software company.
The copyright holders would be the plaintiffs, of course, but that doesn't mean that others can't help pay the bills. You've heard of legal defense funds, I trust? How long did it take to raise $100,000 to buy out blender? How long do you think it would take to raise $1,000,000 to protect the Linux kernel? How much do you think IBM might donate? Think maybe Lawrence Lessig and Eben Mogland might help out for free?
> Too bad they changed the function signatures, such
> a definite victory may not be obtainable in court
> this time. But I sure hope a good precedent comes
> out of this.
You figure they somehow retroactively changed the signatures on copies already distributed? Found and destroyed all incriminating documents and files? Induced all current and former employees to perjure themselves?
> Actually, I'd prefer that they be forced to open
> source their code instead.
They could choose to do so as part of a settlement but they could not be forced to do so.
> I can only imagine how it would run on my
> AthlonXP. A tad faster than Mandrake no doubt.
If you think it would make your desktop applications faster you would be disappointed.
> Does that mean that we can take their binaries and
> distribute them for free?
No.
> After all, if they used GPL code, then their code
> is also under the GPL.
No. That's not how it works.
This agreement is no more enforceable than it would be if it were attached to a billboard.
> ...a lament about the decline of altruism in the
> open source community.
Don't worry. Some of us still aren't making any money from it.
You are thoroughly confused. The RIAA is an association of music publishers: Sony, Vivendi, etc. No actual musicians are involved. The article you cite is about ASCAP and BMI.
> However, I don't think her example is valid on a
> multi-platinum level.
So? What need is there for "multi-platinum level" bands to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue?
> I know the law in the US allows them to disable
> file sharing computers without worrying about
> damages
No it doesn't.
It's a local government, not a company. And a town of 14,000 is not rural.
How can I find legal files on the P2P networks?
> Enough with the amateur hour stuff, how about
> the real thing?
Ok. Take a look at http://www.ansci.umn.edu/dairy/dinews/composting.
> Yes, he eats the food out of that garden too.
Why not? You can't get a disease from yourself.
> The squeamish might want to begin with the
> section on fecophobia.
Not a problem. I'm a farmer.
Did you know that it was once a common practice to hang the outhouse out over the pigpen? (We don't do that anymore.)
> Hairspray is for wussies though...
...try ether (starting fluid).
So are apples. Use an potato for wadding and drop a rock down the barrel on top of it.
>
But first calculate the optimum amount to react fully with the air in the beer keg.
We had those at Michigan Technological University in the late 1960s. You knock the bung out of a beer keg, screw in a piece of conduit stolen from a construction site, ram a potato down the conduit, fill the keg with hair spray through the pump hole, and ignite it with some steel wool and a zip cord. Are the Germans really that slow?
I got that. It consists of pointing /etc/apt/sources.list at security.debian.org and putting 'apt-get update; apt-get upgrade' in a cron job.
Stay away from Kazaa, then. Isn't it full of spywarwe and worms anyway? I don't believe that Gnutella and Freenet impose any such restrictions (though I could be wrong: I don't use any p2p stuff).
> Share and upload files. Sounds a lot like the
> wording of the law to me.
Maybe. The legislative history matters.
That would be my defense: that the absence of any coupling between uploading and downloading means that the legal definition of "expectation of gain" is not met. I'm not at all sure it would work, though.
Of course, I'd first have to take up file sharing and then be stupid enough to attempt to defend myself against a criminal charge...
He's probably wrong about that. However, it wouldn't take long to run up $1000 at the "value" that the RIAA is likely to put on the files.
Wrong. Before the NET act copyright infringement (which is _not_ theft) was only a crime if you made money from it (and not usually even then). As long as you made no money the copyright owner could only sue you in civil court for damages and perhaps get an injunction.
It's not his fault that his system is vulnerable? Right.
And today we are seeing the one thing at which Microsoft products really kick ass...