Oh, and you can undo anything that word helpfully (bless it) tries to do for you. Ctrl-Z undoes first word's attempts at helpfulness, and then whatever you last did.
Yes. Because the undo command is there to correct the software's mistakes... not the user's. Its not like correcting your software is a hinderance to the task at hand or anything.
By pushing for smarter networks, the telecoms open themselves up to the type of pressure the RIAA is applying.
Indeed.
Before the CDA was struck down, one of the few defenses for an ISP was claiming a "common carrier" status. One of the key points to this defense was a lack of control or intelligence of the specific data being transferred over a network. If data passed harmlessly through a network, the legality of that data was ultimately the end user's (sender and/or receiver) responsiblity.
Now that the CDA is a nice, cozy, warm memory of a threat past... we have the DMCA. And it seems that telcos and ISPs in general area a bit slow to begin a "common carrier" defense. Of course, it might be that they know something.
I've noticed how the larger ISPs have began to take steps away from being a "common carrier". Controlling user use (ie: "no servers"), increaseing priority for local multimedia feeds, etc. all imply much more control over that network's data. One has to wonder if the "common carrier" defense is no longer available.
Has the big corporate providers abandoned a protective strategy for short-term attempts at increased profit?
OK. Maybe I misunderstood your point. Lets track the flow of conversation a bit. The origional post stated, in part:
Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible. Now maybe they will be the leading commercial linux in the corporate world, but dam it they have earned it.
To which you replied:
it IS possible and it IS happening.
And then we got in to the whole bit about Microsoft bullying and how people didn't notice at first.
This raises two questions in this thread. A Linux monopoly: IS it possible, and IS it happening?
The issue of "is it happening" should be pretty easy to figure out. Simply put: wheres the proof. And that has probably been the main thrust of this thread.
The second issue, is it possible, is probably really what you meant to point out judging from your statments of non-complaint against the current RedHat. The fear is that RedHat could be very different in the future.
Sure. Companies change - the leaders' names change and, if not the names, the people themselves change. RedHat might begin adopting entirely different strategies. But a major difference between themselves and Microsoft is the nature of their product. Simply put: they can't take the ball and go home. In fact, someone else can run with that ball (and already have - witness examples like Mandrake).
Like I said before, RedHat (like any business - especially a corporation) deserves close scrutiny. And if they adopt a policy that deserves criticism, then by all means... criticise. But I would be real clear about current criticisms vs. suggesting future possiblities.
10 or 15 years ago I didn't see MS bullying people, most didn't. I don't believe RedHat is now either but how much do we really know?
First off, I don't believe RedHat should get a carte blanc pass to avoid criticisms. If they do something worth being criticized, then by all means. But the key point here is if they DO something.
You have yet to point to a single action.
Microsoft is financially successful. Microsoft is in the IT industry. Microsoft is a monopolist and a bully.
RedHat is in the IT industry. RedHat is showing success. Thereforce RedHat must be a bully.
Oh please. How about some proof and substance?
If RedHat starts to use licensing terms as a method to lock out other operating system vendors, call me. When RedHat uses FUD and Vaporware to create confusion in the marketplace and defend their sales figures, spread the word. When RedHat begins to use hidden, proprietary technology as a method to lock in their customer base, raise a shout. The list goes on.
In short, when RedHat begins to act like Microsoft... then this name-calling might be valid. Until then, like all corporations in the IT market, they deserve observation and careful review. But not labels.
I go to bestbuy.com frequently to see what they've got of a particular type of item.. but then I go down to the store to purchase it.. I rarely ever buy online anymore, with the exception of ebay.
Sure. If I intend to buy from Best Buy or such, I'll hold off my purchase until I go down to the store and get a first-hand view of the product. If I'm going to cover the expense of a retail location, I might as well get full tactile benefit.
But whether you purchase online and use the pick-up service or search online and then go down to the store it doesn't matter. Best Buy's web site was still an important part of getting your attention and getting you in to their store to buy what they're selling.
There's also a second point that might be easy to miss here. Just because you prefer to go buy from a retail outlet doesn't mean e-commerce/mail-order has failed.
On their own, retail stores and mail-order don't compete. Sure, you have customers who might slide between one and the other depending on price, convenience, availability, service, etc. But at the same time, there has always been a core customer base for both aspects of sales that strongly prefer one or the other.
Once again, this does not mean that e-commerce is an unsuccessful way of doing business. It simply re-enforces the difference between two traditional forms of business.
One final note - businesses of one form (storefront and mail-order/e-commerce) occasionally make moves in to the competing sector. Mailorder powerhouses like Gateway and Dell have both made an attempt to stake out territory on shelves near you. And Best Buy will also ship products to you directly - a complete e-commerce option (as opposed to their store pickup service). That is a sign of companies makeing a leap in to a market full of customers they normally don't reach (whether its growth or desperation is company-dependant).
The thing you gotta realize is that regular consumer businesses aren't too useful on the web. If I want to buy a new TV, I go down to Best Buy or something and buy one. I can trust it'll make it to my house and be in one peice. I also know that if I pay, I don't leave there without my item.
Best Buy's site provides an excellent compliment to their existing brick-and-morter stores. One can hit the site and see what they carry. You're then able to poke around other review sites and find out a bit more about the various possible models of whatever you're considering. If its something you decide to buy, purchase it online and go pick it up at the store.
CompUSA's site is simluar. One feature that's kind of nice is the ability to check that a particular store has an item in stock. You can find out in advance if driving down to a local store would be a waste of time (or maybe if driving out to another location might be worth the effort).
Of course, this entirely ignores the fact that many consumer industries already have a flourishing mail-order industry behind them. CompUSA and Best Buy compete in an industry that had a strong mail-order industry well before the popularization of the web and e-commerce - namely computers and electronics. Computer Shopper used to be chock full of mail-order ads (it looks like the web hasn't been Computer Shopper's friend... at least, not in its print form). Now sites like PriceWatch have become the (dare I say it) online portal to a flourishing business that was made for e-commerce.
Sure. It doesn't mean conventional trips to a brick-and-mortor store is going away anytime soon. But to say e-commerce is a fantasy that can't compete with physically purchasing and walking out of a store with an item ignores decades of mail-order success.
Eventually, the famliarity of web-based purchases may open opportunities for industries that do not have an existing mail-order track record. But that will take time. It will take a much longer for the general public to buy in to the idea of ordering a pizza from their home computer.
But they are not comparable situations. On the one hand you have the GPL community that surrounds itself in a aura of moral superiority (one need only read the laboured, several thousand words justifying-the-cause GPL), while Microsoft is very straightforward: We make software, you pay for it. It's very honest and forthright, whereas people like Stallman are busy talking about whether things are free as in beer, etc.
So if I understand your argument... its OK to voilate the GPL license because you disagree with it? But because you admire, or otherwise agree with Microsoft's license, then everbody should be legally required to follow that one.
The GPL is a very selfish license.
Whether it is "selfish" or not is not the point. It is a license to be followed. If you wish to use GPL code, comply with the license. If you don't, move on.
They do appear to have made the source code available anyways. Much ado about nothing.
I disagree. The only reason source code is now available is because they got caught. Releasing code now does not negate the fact that they attempted to steal code. I do, however, agree that it is a proper step towards remediation.
That'll teach them to allow their employees to have any interactions with GPL code in the future, as now their own code has been infected.:-) Okay, that was just a troll, but there is a kernel of truth in it.
Sure. But the "kernel of truth" is not limited to the GPL. Any code that is covered by any license could lead to a violation. It doesn't matter if its GPL, BSD, or proprietary.
Lets not forget that this wasn't a case of a coder unconcously using a routine that he had seen in some GPL project he was working on elsewhere. This was a blatent attempt to steal code and hide the fact.
In the end, it doesn't matter if the coder in question had stolen this code from a commercial library, code smuggled out of a competitor's project, or from a codebase covered by one of the numerous Open Source licenses (assuming the license doesn't allow for use of the code in this manner - and even the most liberal licenses still have SOME restriction, or it would simply be public domain).
While it's reprehensible that a programmer there (at SD) apparently copy/pasted some GPL code in...
There will probably always be some debate over whether this is the simple truth or simply a coverup. But the point is moot. In any case, they are responsible for the actions of their employees. It doesn't matter who said what when... in the end, they violated a license - the GPL.
I just don't get how they're the evil villains in this case: All they're trying to do is proliferate the MPEG-4 standard.
If I was selling a piece of hardware or an application and, to facilitate the use of my product, offered a free copy of Windows XX what would happen? After all... giving away Windows isn't diminishing the availablity of Windows, or its quality. And considering Windows is already given away with the purchase of other products, I'm not really affecting the value of Windows either. And I'm helping proliferate Windows as a standard!
We all know, as do a lot of small whitebox shops, Microsoft would nail me when they found out.
Why? Because I am violating Microsoft's license. I am infringing on their copyright. Sigma Designs attempted to infringe on both the GPL license and the various project developer's copyright. And they got caught.
The added twist to this is a GPL project is a community resource. Sigma Designs could have joined that community and in all likelyhood been welcomed. Instead they chose to steal. Not only from the xvid project... but the entire GPL community who's work repays all other community member's efforts on their own projects.
Sigma Designs completely deserves any ire they receive from this situation.
Companies using GPL code only benefits everyone IF the company adheres to the GPL. If a company simply takes code and uses it as a platform to jumpstart their development, they are the only ones that bennefit. And more importantly, the community that collaberated to bring value to the code in question looses.
And there is definately value to be found in a lot of these GPL projects. GPL code is being used more and more often by business not only to support their infrastructure, but to provide a boost to their development. Unfortanely there also seems to be an increase in businesses that attempt to simply take code in violation of its license.
In most cases we've been reading about, when a GPL violation is discovered, it usually ends up with a sheepish excuse and promise to release code in accordance with the GPL license. The problem is this is beginning to look like a standard tactic. Steal code, hope nobody figures it out... and if you do get caught, then cough up some code. In the end, you still have access to the code you needed to boost your project at the "expense" of having to give up modifications you had hoped to keep to yourself.
It seems to be strategy with little overall risk. And if so, it suggests the community is setting itself up to be constantly ripped off.
A punitive strategy for the community... and one that the origional poster suggests exists within the workings of the GPL license... is to make the entire code base a part of the risk. If you attempt to steal GPL code and are caught, you forfeit access to that code. This would increase the risk from not only releaseing code you would prefer to keep secret (but would have to anyway if you complied with the GPL), but also puts the entire code base you wish to use at risk. Being caught would mean returning to square one - a major hit to any development project or product. And it may be a risk that fewer will be willing to accept. Hopefully it will keep honest people honest.
Could the community benefit from more companies using its code? Sure. But those companies must understand the requirements of using that code and, ultimately, being a part of the community.
One final note. The GPL may seem strange to the hardcore competative business developer. But one familiar aspect of the GPL is that it is a license. I find it hard to believe anybody working within the IT industry is not familiar with having to deal with licenses. When you use applications and code that include a license, it should be second nature to review that license and decide if one wishes to comply with it - as strange as those requirements might be.
Just so you know, what you are describing is not normal behavior.
I'm curious what you base "normal behavior" on. Collections themselves are common enough over a wide range of subject matter - from pogs, to pins, to stuffed toys, to automobiles, to military vehicles. It seems to be a fairly common aspect of human nature. The only variation is the subject matter of the collection.
And collections of illicit data are certainly common enough. I got all these bomb instruction files due to a widespread enough interest in them to support arhives on a number of BBS' - as odd as my hobby was, it was also shared by numerous others. Likewise, for as long as I've been involved with computers (to this day), I constantly meet new people who have repositories of other forms of illicit data.
This behavior may not meet your definition of "normal", but it is fairly common.
The bitch to bureaucracies and incompetence is that that a successful bureaucrat covers it up. And often anybody who would make the appropriate whistle-blower is ass-deep in alligators already with all the other crap that's on their plate because their IT budget can't handle proper staffing.
So... sure. Maybe someone does need to make something happen. They need to point a finger. They need to embarrass the bureaucrats in to fixing what is broke. Maybe this kind of act is the Right Thing.
So how does one pull this off? Make the run, collect evidence, find a reputable journalist (No... really) you can trust, and then anonymously dump the evidence in to their laps. Maybe drop it in to a couple journalists' laps just to make sure the story doesn't turtle at that point. When the story hits the papers, nod quietly at your civic duty done and hope that nobody can ever trace it back to you.
You do NOT use this as a vehicle for self-promotion.
Sure... its an admirable goal. And it might be acheivable if it remains a more-or-less private undertaking. But once you include the public, you have to deal with the same problem the Internet at large deals with today... people.
The Internet has always been about people, not technology. Sure, the tech is cool. But what makes it the killer app is the ability to communicate with others. Look at every Internet application that excels and you'll find it facilitates communication (whether it be 'I'm better at this game than you are', 'I know how to do this', 'I like it when people watch', or 'check out this song I like') - or at least is geared to fool people in to believing so (yea, right... "horny coed exibitionists waiting for YOU" indeed). Internet applications that crashed failed to grasp this (push technology - do we need another big business broadcast service? Apparently not.).
The boon and bane to this is it requires people. In theory, the more people the better - akin to the idea that the value of a network increases exponentially with its size. But then... the more people you add, the more wide their beliefs. The more likely you'll find people who do not have the same values... and do not value the network itself. The more likely you will find people who will sacrifice the network for some short-term personal goal.
In other words, the Internet changed when there were more people online who thought the movie Hackers was a "cool movie" and not a "comedy." Until these people change, or you manage to filter them out or exclude them from your network, the Internet of yesteryear will not emerge.
This is a totally BS argument - people don't rip and P2P share a million copies of shit. It's pure theft, with an everybody is doing it excuse.
If you think the fact that someone trades data is proof that the data has some aspect of quality, then you simply do not understand the draw of illicit data. It doesn't mater if the data is warez, credit card listings, music, or bomb recipes. The draw is that the data in question is illicit... forbidden knowledge... prohibited... or otherwise illegal to own.
Think Eminem is an untalented idiot and his music is audio tripe? That's not the point. The point is that YOU got a copy of his recent album before it was even RELEASED. There's a brand new game that you'll constantly rant bout sucking... but you've got a copy of it in your collection. And whether you know how to use AutoCAD, much less have a desire to ever install it, isn't as important that you HAVE a copy of it.... cracked and dongle-less.
When I was a kid, I used to collect bomb instructions. I was convinced a large portion of it was created by people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous - to the unfortunate who followed the instructions. I never had any interest in actually creating any of the devices and substances described. But it was forbidden data - and I had a lot of it. And that idea alone appealed to me.
Sure. Some people who collect bomb instructions want to make bombs. Some people who download music see value in that music. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of file trading is simply a combination of packrat behavior and the thrill of handling illicit data.
Personaly, I think she makes some good points, and it's a little sad to see geeks ripping her up based on her religion of all things.
Hey - she's the one who made her religious occupation / life a major component of the article. It seems only natural people would continue mixing the religious part in with the technical.
I can't help but thinking that that is exactly what all the candidates are actually saying beneath the sugar-coated fluff that are their campaign speeches.
Yea. But they don't just come out and publically state it.
The odd thing is that as I was thinking of political-suicide statements to make... it dawned on me that they would appeal to SOME people. So I tried to make a few statements that would cover enough territory that the candidate wouldn't stumble on some quiet constituency that makes up the majority population who doesn't vote and just haven't had the right candidate that reflects their views... until now. Or some such lunacy.;)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is going to make me want to put more money into buying the actual album.
I don't think you caught on to what I'm saying.
The point that was made is what happens if SACD becomes the only format available. What if you still care about your fair use rights?
My point is that people will turn to illegal copies. And once they begin to do that on a regular basis - once the illegal copy is providing them something they want that the legitimate product can not... those same people will no longer bother buying a legitimate copy.
The difference between that possible future and today is that todays media, the CD, is still a (more or less) fully capable product. It still tends to be of greater quality with the added bonus of a nice printed CD, cover, lyrics, artwork, etc. And again - if I buy a legitimate CD, I can still use it to make a copy for the car or burn MP3s for my home jukebox or portible player.
I love how he repeatedly says how the candidate saved money.
Its interesting that the article doesn't address the cost picked up by the reciever and the ISP. Its also interesting that they note:
That day, he might have chosen any of the more traditional -- and more expensive -- methods of contacting voters, such as direct mail, radio spots or TV ads. But he spent only about 2 cents per message, instead of 35 cents or more per message for direct mail or in another medium.
Just think. He spent 2 cents a message to get a torrent of negative press. This is supposed to be a good example? Heck. Hire me. I can top that campaign easily.
Hold a press conference... it'll be free (minus the cost of coffee or whatever one traditionally spends on keeping the press happy to be there). Once assembled, make the following statements:
You regularly use marijuana and crack cocain during the weekly sex orgies you and your wife host in your residence.
Your district's natural resources are there for slash-and-burn style exploitation by your district's largest political contributer to your political fund.
List every racial lightningrod category and state how you wish they would all just start the genocide amoung themselves now and get it over.
State that the World Trade Center attacks were entirely justified and New Yorkers should stop whining and get going on replacing the relic instead of agonizing on some worthless so-called memorial.
There. Done. Your words will be repeated amoung an untold number of general and specific interest news sources, far outpacing the number of people reached by any SPAM campaign. And you'll have done far more damage to your campaign for much less money than any SPAM campaign and "email marketing" company could ever do.
Now, if your intent is not to damage your campaign, you probably don't want to follow this strategy. But then... you probably shouldn't use SPAM either.
See, the problem is what happens when the day arrives that the only format available in drives and media is SACD? Can't make archival exact copies of your own media. Can't get a replacement for the disc if gets scratched. So much for Fair Use.
What you're going to do is turn to illicit data channels. The digital black market. You're going to buy counterfeit CDs from street corners. You're going to download copies from usenet, P2P apps, or off-shore music repositories / services.
And since this is illegal, its going to take a bit of an investment in time and possibly money to do it (although it won't be too difficult to do - and a lot of your friends will be doing it and sharing tips on the best sources). And once you've made that investment... you're going to begin to feel rather reluctant to put MORE time and money in to legitimate copies.
The correct price for an entertainment product is whatever the customer is willing to pay.
And it could be argued that this is what is driving the thorn in the media industry's side - the Black Market. Inflated prices, questionable quality, hobbled products, and antiquated marketing and distribution methods are just some of the issues that have created a rich environment for copyright violation and even actual commercial trade in counterfeit / pirated products.
The RIAA and MPAA may not like the market conditions before them... but additional legal action will not make it go away. Over the last decade (or two), the environment has changed. If they are truely suffering - and let's not forget that is highly suspect - it is their own failure to the market.
Of course... this completely ignores other issues. Perhapse the real issue is not the market but control. But that's an entirely different topic.
Slashdot Mirror
...spam, perhapse?
Wow. Spamming Slashdot - this is the 2nd exact same reply and link to a commercial service / product. I'm not sure whether you're ballsy or an idiot.
Incidently - its a technical solution. It does nothing to address the legal issue being presented.
Yes. Because the undo command is there to correct the software's mistakes... not the user's. Its not like correcting your software is a hinderance to the task at hand or anything.
Indeed.
Before the CDA was struck down, one of the few defenses for an ISP was claiming a "common carrier" status. One of the key points to this defense was a lack of control or intelligence of the specific data being transferred over a network. If data passed harmlessly through a network, the legality of that data was ultimately the end user's (sender and/or receiver) responsiblity.
Now that the CDA is a nice, cozy, warm memory of a threat past... we have the DMCA. And it seems that telcos and ISPs in general area a bit slow to begin a "common carrier" defense. Of course, it might be that they know something.
I've noticed how the larger ISPs have began to take steps away from being a "common carrier". Controlling user use (ie: "no servers"), increaseing priority for local multimedia feeds, etc. all imply much more control over that network's data. One has to wonder if the "common carrier" defense is no longer available.
Has the big corporate providers abandoned a protective strategy for short-term attempts at increased profit?
To which you replied:
And then we got in to the whole bit about Microsoft bullying and how people didn't notice at first.
This raises two questions in this thread. A Linux monopoly: IS it possible, and IS it happening?
The issue of "is it happening" should be pretty easy to figure out. Simply put: wheres the proof. And that has probably been the main thrust of this thread.
The second issue, is it possible, is probably really what you meant to point out judging from your statments of non-complaint against the current RedHat. The fear is that RedHat could be very different in the future.
Sure. Companies change - the leaders' names change and, if not the names, the people themselves change. RedHat might begin adopting entirely different strategies. But a major difference between themselves and Microsoft is the nature of their product. Simply put: they can't take the ball and go home. In fact, someone else can run with that ball (and already have - witness examples like Mandrake).
Like I said before, RedHat (like any business - especially a corporation) deserves close scrutiny. And if they adopt a policy that deserves criticism, then by all means... criticise. But I would be real clear about current criticisms vs. suggesting future possiblities.
First off, I don't believe RedHat should get a carte blanc pass to avoid criticisms. If they do something worth being criticized, then by all means. But the key point here is if they DO something.
You have yet to point to a single action.
Microsoft is financially successful. Microsoft is in the IT industry. Microsoft is a monopolist and a bully.
RedHat is in the IT industry. RedHat is showing success. Thereforce RedHat must be a bully.
Oh please. How about some proof and substance?
If RedHat starts to use licensing terms as a method to lock out other operating system vendors, call me. When RedHat uses FUD and Vaporware to create confusion in the marketplace and defend their sales figures, spread the word. When RedHat begins to use hidden, proprietary technology as a method to lock in their customer base, raise a shout. The list goes on.
In short, when RedHat begins to act like Microsoft... then this name-calling might be valid. Until then, like all corporations in the IT market, they deserve observation and careful review. But not labels.
Wow. Yew speel werse then I dew.
Sure. If I intend to buy from Best Buy or such, I'll hold off my purchase until I go down to the store and get a first-hand view of the product. If I'm going to cover the expense of a retail location, I might as well get full tactile benefit
But whether you purchase online and use the pick-up service or search online and then go down to the store it doesn't matter. Best Buy's web site was still an important part of getting your attention and getting you in to their store to buy what they're selling.
There's also a second point that might be easy to miss here. Just because you prefer to go buy from a retail outlet doesn't mean e-commerce/mail-order has failed.
On their own, retail stores and mail-order don't compete. Sure, you have customers who might slide between one and the other depending on price, convenience, availability, service, etc. But at the same time, there has always been a core customer base for both aspects of sales that strongly prefer one or the other.
Once again, this does not mean that e-commerce is an unsuccessful way of doing business. It simply re-enforces the difference between two traditional forms of business.
One final note - businesses of one form (storefront and mail-order/e-commerce) occasionally make moves in to the competing sector. Mailorder powerhouses like Gateway and Dell have both made an attempt to stake out territory on shelves near you. And Best Buy will also ship products to you directly - a complete e-commerce option (as opposed to their store pickup service). That is a sign of companies makeing a leap in to a market full of customers they normally don't reach (whether its growth or desperation is company-dependant).
Best Buy's site provides an excellent compliment to their existing brick-and-morter stores. One can hit the site and see what they carry. You're then able to poke around other review sites and find out a bit more about the various possible models of whatever you're considering. If its something you decide to buy, purchase it online and go pick it up at the store.
CompUSA's site is simluar. One feature that's kind of nice is the ability to check that a particular store has an item in stock. You can find out in advance if driving down to a local store would be a waste of time (or maybe if driving out to another location might be worth the effort).
Of course, this entirely ignores the fact that many consumer industries already have a flourishing mail-order industry behind them. CompUSA and Best Buy compete in an industry that had a strong mail-order industry well before the popularization of the web and e-commerce - namely computers and electronics. Computer Shopper used to be chock full of mail-order ads (it looks like the web hasn't been Computer Shopper's friend... at least, not in its print form). Now sites like PriceWatch have become the (dare I say it) online portal to a flourishing business that was made for e-commerce.
Sure. It doesn't mean conventional trips to a brick-and-mortor store is going away anytime soon. But to say e-commerce is a fantasy that can't compete with physically purchasing and walking out of a store with an item ignores decades of mail-order success.
Eventually, the famliarity of web-based purchases may open opportunities for industries that do not have an existing mail-order track record. But that will take time. It will take a much longer for the general public to buy in to the idea of ordering a pizza from their home computer.
So if I understand your argument... its OK to voilate the GPL license because you disagree with it? But because you admire, or otherwise agree with Microsoft's license, then everbody should be legally required to follow that one.
Whether it is "selfish" or not is not the point. It is a license to be followed. If you wish to use GPL code, comply with the license. If you don't, move on.
I disagree. The only reason source code is now available is because they got caught. Releasing code now does not negate the fact that they attempted to steal code. I do, however, agree that it is a proper step towards remediation.
Sure. But the "kernel of truth" is not limited to the GPL. Any code that is covered by any license could lead to a violation. It doesn't matter if its GPL, BSD, or proprietary.
Lets not forget that this wasn't a case of a coder unconcously using a routine that he had seen in some GPL project he was working on elsewhere. This was a blatent attempt to steal code and hide the fact.
In the end, it doesn't matter if the coder in question had stolen this code from a commercial library, code smuggled out of a competitor's project, or from a codebase covered by one of the numerous Open Source licenses (assuming the license doesn't allow for use of the code in this manner - and even the most liberal licenses still have SOME restriction, or it would simply be public domain).
In short... don't be silly.
There will probably always be some debate over whether this is the simple truth or simply a coverup. But the point is moot. In any case, they are responsible for the actions of their employees. It doesn't matter who said what when... in the end, they violated a license - the GPL.
If I was selling a piece of hardware or an application and, to facilitate the use of my product, offered a free copy of Windows XX what would happen? After all... giving away Windows isn't diminishing the availablity of Windows, or its quality. And considering Windows is already given away with the purchase of other products, I'm not really affecting the value of Windows either. And I'm helping proliferate Windows as a standard!
We all know, as do a lot of small whitebox shops, Microsoft would nail me when they found out.
Why? Because I am violating Microsoft's license. I am infringing on their copyright. Sigma Designs attempted to infringe on both the GPL license and the various project developer's copyright. And they got caught.
The added twist to this is a GPL project is a community resource. Sigma Designs could have joined that community and in all likelyhood been welcomed. Instead they chose to steal. Not only from the xvid project... but the entire GPL community who's work repays all other community member's efforts on their own projects.
Sigma Designs completely deserves any ire they receive from this situation.
OK. Let's consider a counter-argument to this.
Companies using GPL code only benefits everyone IF the company adheres to the GPL. If a company simply takes code and uses it as a platform to jumpstart their development, they are the only ones that bennefit. And more importantly, the community that collaberated to bring value to the code in question looses.
And there is definately value to be found in a lot of these GPL projects. GPL code is being used more and more often by business not only to support their infrastructure, but to provide a boost to their development. Unfortanely there also seems to be an increase in businesses that attempt to simply take code in violation of its license.
In most cases we've been reading about, when a GPL violation is discovered, it usually ends up with a sheepish excuse and promise to release code in accordance with the GPL license. The problem is this is beginning to look like a standard tactic. Steal code, hope nobody figures it out... and if you do get caught, then cough up some code. In the end, you still have access to the code you needed to boost your project at the "expense" of having to give up modifications you had hoped to keep to yourself.
It seems to be strategy with little overall risk. And if so, it suggests the community is setting itself up to be constantly ripped off.
A punitive strategy for the community... and one that the origional poster suggests exists within the workings of the GPL license... is to make the entire code base a part of the risk. If you attempt to steal GPL code and are caught, you forfeit access to that code. This would increase the risk from not only releaseing code you would prefer to keep secret (but would have to anyway if you complied with the GPL), but also puts the entire code base you wish to use at risk. Being caught would mean returning to square one - a major hit to any development project or product. And it may be a risk that fewer will be willing to accept. Hopefully it will keep honest people honest.
Could the community benefit from more companies using its code? Sure. But those companies must understand the requirements of using that code and, ultimately, being a part of the community.
One final note. The GPL may seem strange to the hardcore competative business developer. But one familiar aspect of the GPL is that it is a license. I find it hard to believe anybody working within the IT industry is not familiar with having to deal with licenses. When you use applications and code that include a license, it should be second nature to review that license and decide if one wishes to comply with it - as strange as those requirements might be.
I'm curious what you base "normal behavior" on. Collections themselves are common enough over a wide range of subject matter - from pogs, to pins, to stuffed toys, to automobiles, to military vehicles. It seems to be a fairly common aspect of human nature. The only variation is the subject matter of the collection.
And collections of illicit data are certainly common enough. I got all these bomb instruction files due to a widespread enough interest in them to support arhives on a number of BBS' - as odd as my hobby was, it was also shared by numerous others. Likewise, for as long as I've been involved with computers (to this day), I constantly meet new people who have repositories of other forms of illicit data.
This behavior may not meet your definition of "normal", but it is fairly common.
The bitch to bureaucracies and incompetence is that that a successful bureaucrat covers it up. And often anybody who would make the appropriate whistle-blower is ass-deep in alligators already with all the other crap that's on their plate because their IT budget can't handle proper staffing.
So... sure. Maybe someone does need to make something happen. They need to point a finger. They need to embarrass the bureaucrats in to fixing what is broke. Maybe this kind of act is the Right Thing.
So how does one pull this off? Make the run, collect evidence, find a reputable journalist (No... really) you can trust, and then anonymously dump the evidence in to their laps. Maybe drop it in to a couple journalists' laps just to make sure the story doesn't turtle at that point. When the story hits the papers, nod quietly at your civic duty done and hope that nobody can ever trace it back to you.
You do NOT use this as a vehicle for self-promotion.
Get out of my head! :)
Sure... its an admirable goal. And it might be acheivable if it remains a more-or-less private undertaking. But once you include the public, you have to deal with the same problem the Internet at large deals with today... people.
The Internet has always been about people, not technology. Sure, the tech is cool. But what makes it the killer app is the ability to communicate with others. Look at every Internet application that excels and you'll find it facilitates communication (whether it be 'I'm better at this game than you are', 'I know how to do this', 'I like it when people watch', or 'check out this song I like') - or at least is geared to fool people in to believing so (yea, right... "horny coed exibitionists waiting for YOU" indeed). Internet applications that crashed failed to grasp this (push technology - do we need another big business broadcast service? Apparently not.).
The boon and bane to this is it requires people. In theory, the more people the better - akin to the idea that the value of a network increases exponentially with its size. But then... the more people you add, the more wide their beliefs. The more likely you'll find people who do not have the same values... and do not value the network itself. The more likely you will find people who will sacrifice the network for some short-term personal goal.
In other words, the Internet changed when there were more people online who thought the movie Hackers was a "cool movie" and not a "comedy." Until these people change, or you manage to filter them out or exclude them from your network, the Internet of yesteryear will not emerge.
Shell access or not.
If you think the fact that someone trades data is proof that the data has some aspect of quality, then you simply do not understand the draw of illicit data. It doesn't mater if the data is warez, credit card listings, music, or bomb recipes. The draw is that the data in question is illicit... forbidden knowledge... prohibited... or otherwise illegal to own.
Think Eminem is an untalented idiot and his music is audio tripe? That's not the point. The point is that YOU got a copy of his recent album before it was even RELEASED. There's a brand new game that you'll constantly rant bout sucking... but you've got a copy of it in your collection. And whether you know how to use AutoCAD, much less have a desire to ever install it, isn't as important that you HAVE a copy of it.... cracked and dongle-less.
When I was a kid, I used to collect bomb instructions. I was convinced a large portion of it was created by people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous - to the unfortunate who followed the instructions. I never had any interest in actually creating any of the devices and substances described. But it was forbidden data - and I had a lot of it. And that idea alone appealed to me.
Sure. Some people who collect bomb instructions want to make bombs. Some people who download music see value in that music. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of file trading is simply a combination of packrat behavior and the thrill of handling illicit data.
As opposed to the in-work GNOME2 version of Galeon?
Hey - she's the one who made her religious occupation / life a major component of the article. It seems only natural people would continue mixing the religious part in with the technical.
Yea. But they don't just come out and publically state it.
The odd thing is that as I was thinking of political-suicide statements to make... it dawned on me that they would appeal to SOME people. So I tried to make a few statements that would cover enough territory that the candidate wouldn't stumble on some quiet constituency that makes up the majority population who doesn't vote and just haven't had the right candidate that reflects their views... until now. Or some such lunacy.
I don't think you caught on to what I'm saying.
The point that was made is what happens if SACD becomes the only format available. What if you still care about your fair use rights?
My point is that people will turn to illegal copies. And once they begin to do that on a regular basis - once the illegal copy is providing them something they want that the legitimate product can not... those same people will no longer bother buying a legitimate copy.
The difference between that possible future and today is that todays media, the CD, is still a (more or less) fully capable product. It still tends to be of greater quality with the added bonus of a nice printed CD, cover, lyrics, artwork, etc. And again - if I buy a legitimate CD, I can still use it to make a copy for the car or burn MP3s for my home jukebox or portible player.
Its interesting that the article doesn't address the cost picked up by the reciever and the ISP. Its also interesting that they note:
Just think. He spent 2 cents a message to get a torrent of negative press. This is supposed to be a good example? Heck. Hire me. I can top that campaign easily.
Hold a press conference... it'll be free (minus the cost of coffee or whatever one traditionally spends on keeping the press happy to be there). Once assembled, make the following statements:
There. Done. Your words will be repeated amoung an untold number of general and specific interest news sources, far outpacing the number of people reached by any SPAM campaign. And you'll have done far more damage to your campaign for much less money than any SPAM campaign and "email marketing" company could ever do.
Now, if your intent is not to damage your campaign, you probably don't want to follow this strategy. But then... you probably shouldn't use SPAM either.
What you're going to do is turn to illicit data channels. The digital black market. You're going to buy counterfeit CDs from street corners. You're going to download copies from usenet, P2P apps, or off-shore music repositories / services.
And since this is illegal, its going to take a bit of an investment in time and possibly money to do it (although it won't be too difficult to do - and a lot of your friends will be doing it and sharing tips on the best sources). And once you've made that investment... you're going to begin to feel rather reluctant to put MORE time and money in to legitimate copies.
And it could be argued that this is what is driving the thorn in the media industry's side - the Black Market. Inflated prices, questionable quality, hobbled products, and antiquated marketing and distribution methods are just some of the issues that have created a rich environment for copyright violation and even actual commercial trade in counterfeit / pirated products.
The RIAA and MPAA may not like the market conditions before them... but additional legal action will not make it go away. Over the last decade (or two), the environment has changed. If they are truely suffering - and let's not forget that is highly suspect - it is their own failure to the market.
Of course... this completely ignores other issues. Perhapse the real issue is not the market but control. But that's an entirely different topic.