I have to wonder how you think the American legal system works, exactly. Do you think IBM just sends their giant squads of lawyers over with steel batons to beat the crap out of SCO's CEO when he looks at them the wrong way or something?
There are still laws about various types of consumer fraud. I can't go about selling crackers in a box labelled as if they were lightbulbs, for example.
The same could presumably be done with SCO's source tree, but since no one outside SCO has had access to it...
It's not like they can easily fake it... You grab the released binary from a third party from directly after they say they added the lines, and compare it with a compiled version of the code they submit as evidence. If they're the same, then you know the source they gave you is what it was compiled from.
Because, dear God, an addon map as a bonus for people that bought a service from them is relying overly much on their Live service! Especially considering the fact that the game was complete and whole without the add-on level!
But you're lumping the people who won't spend the money on Xbox Live with the people who can't spend money on Xbox Live. Why should the people who happen to live too far away from their ISP be marginalized?
But you're lumping the people who won't spend money on a boat with the people who can't spend money on a boat. Why should the people who happen to live too far from the ocean be marginalized!
In other words, who cares? You aren't automatically entitiled to things. If you can't get something because of your situation, that's your problem.
Not exactly. Close, but not exactly. What the GPL does is it makes it mandatory for persons other than the copyright holder to redistribute the work indiscriminately. [...] The GPL says that everyone who uses the work is required to distribute it to everyone.
Bullshit, I'll quote:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
If you pick (a) then you distribute the source with the binaries. You don't have to give out source in any other situations. If you decide to go with option (b), you need to distribute to anyone at all that asks. That's your problem. You have options.
Either way, neither of these stipulations violates copyright as they both grant the ability to copy given that you follow various procedures. You still don't need to even distribute at all, in which case none of this is even a problem.
This is exactly the opposite of what copyright law does. Copyright law says that no one other than the copyright holder is allowed to distribute the work to anyone.
No it doesn't. It gives the right to determine who can make copies and under what circumstance to the holder of the copyright. If what you were saying were true, I wouldn't be able to do things like contract distribution rights for a computer program out to different distribution companies. They aren't the copyright holder, so they can't distribute the work!
Copyright gives the creator the ability to control the copying of his work, it doesn't limit him to being the only distributor.
Go read it again. The GPL says that you have to give a machine-readable copy of the source code to anybody who asks for it at no cost.
No, it says that you need to give a machine-readable copy of the source to anyone that asks with the maximum charge being the cost of distribution (not at no cost) if you decide to not distribute the source code with the binaries you've distributed.
Which is the reason the GPL is unenforceable, and therefore null and void. It attempts to apply its own restrictions to third parties, in contravention of the doctrine of first sale. Once the author has sold a copy of his work, he has no say whatsoever in what terms apply when that copy is sold again. So the GPL is not a lawful license.
Distributing isn't resale. If I resell a GPLed piece of software, it will still be under the GPL. You could resell a GPLed piece of software if you wanted, but that doesn't gain you anything more than redistributing a different copy would. Both the copy and the original that you had would be under the GPL. No restrictions at all, over normal copyright, even exist. If you aren't distributing, which isn't allowed under copyright without permission, you don't need to do anything special.
Wow, what the hell are you talking about? The GPL governs redistribution rights. If you just want to use and modify the damned program yourself you don't need to do anything at all for anyone else. It does, however, give you the express right to redistribute the software or a modified version of the software, a right you wouldn't otherwise have, if you distribute the source code to it as well. It doesn't require you to redistribute anything. I can recieve the program, modify it as much as I want and not give it to anyone at all.
The GPL also doesn't say you have to distribute software to anyone who wants it. You can give it to anyone you wish, and not give it to anyone you wish. You can limit your own distribution as much as you want. The only stipulation is that if you distribute the software to someone, the source code needs to be made available through some means to them as well. These people also receive the same distribution rights you had.
Sure you're legally bound to it... If I say, in a postcard, that I'll give you $500 when you give me your monkey, and then you communicate back that you agree, it'll quite probably hold up as a contract, as it's a meeting of minds. It'll probably hold up as the equivalent of a verbal contract, I've never looked into it, but it's definitely a form of contract.
Or, they might argue that the code that there are no damages, and that therefore they aren't liable for more than zero dollars (i.e., nothing) even if they have technically violated copyright law.
Even though I'd doubt anyone would be able to get away with that, since there could still be punative damages or damages based on the improvements that could have been made from the modified code that should have been redistributed, there's still the fact that the court would force compliance with the licensing terms if they took this 'defence'. It isn't worth it to go to court and try to fight it this way, since you'll end up getting, at best, the same result you'd gotten if you'd just settled with releasing the source to begin with.
This is 180Â counter to copyright law, which expressly prohibits you from redistributing any works without express permission. So when you release something under the GPL, you are telling the protections provided by copyright law to take a flying leap.
So your point is that giving express permission to redistribute under a given set of conditions is flying in the face of copyright law because copyright law allows the copyright holder to control distribution by requiring third parties to have express permission to redistribute! Wonderful point!
Shoplift a sweater, and even if you get it out of the store, if you wear it to the store a year later, you could get pinged.
That's assuming the tag's actually in the product instead of on the packaging or a detachable tag or security device, which it wouldn't be, since there's really no reason to have a non-detachable identification device other than to keep the tag on for tracking after purchase.
Can you copyright a song without making a recording [...] No? Thought so.
Sure you can... compositions are covered under copyright whether they've been recorded or not as, I believe, are performances, whether they've been recorded or not.
I don't know about you, but I would prefer to be taught by a prof that isn't being disturbed so he can concentrate on the material... so I would think that it's rather shorsighted to say it's immaterial.
Eh, the actual original Wing Commander game didn't really have much in the way of a plot, it was pretty generic with a couple of interesting characters that you talked to a few times. There was the ongoing war storyline, but there really wasn't anything involving the characters. The neat plots didn't really start to show up until the Secret Missions addons.
Beyond this, though, word 'on the street' is that EA doesn't feel particularly comfortable licensing out the original games, since they aren't always clear on what rights are owned by who, and what people they might need to pay off. Before the sale to EA, Origin's records weren't exactly well kept. However, Raylight's definitely capable of a Wing Commander 1 or 2 style game, as Star Giants, the game they were developing before they came upon the WCP license and then scrapped and took some of the basics from for Prophecy, was a blatant Wing Commander clone. I mean, there's a frickin' Dralthi in one of the early screenshots they released.
Maybe if Prophecy sells well, they'll go back and port something else. The probable ones are Secret Ops, as they already have the basics down with Prophecy, or possibly the original game, if they can somehow get EA to let them, since there's already an SNES port that would be easier to convert.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no way in hell Microsoft would be allowed to pick up the rights to Unix.
I have to wonder how you think the American legal system works, exactly. Do you think IBM just sends their giant squads of lawyers over with steel batons to beat the crap out of SCO's CEO when he looks at them the wrong way or something?
No. That was IBM's old style
probalby :(
but that was about selling games for Linux, which might in fact be tough thing to do for non-Windows OSs.
It's probalby even harder to sell games for linux on the Windows OS!
[RIMSHOT!]
There are still laws about various types of consumer fraud. I can't go about selling crackers in a box labelled as if they were lightbulbs, for example.
MWAHAHAHA! I have stolen the power of UNIX! All shall cower before my might!
The same could presumably be done with SCO's source tree, but since no one outside SCO has had access to it...
It's not like they can easily fake it... You grab the released binary from a third party from directly after they say they added the lines, and compare it with a compiled version of the code they submit as evidence. If they're the same, then you know the source they gave you is what it was compiled from.
Because, dear God, an addon map as a bonus for people that bought a service from them is relying overly much on their Live service! Especially considering the fact that the game was complete and whole without the add-on level!
Yeah, but the original GBA wasn't rechargable... The DC in is rather important...
But you're lumping the people who won't spend the money on Xbox Live with the people who can't spend money on Xbox Live. Why should the people who happen to live too far away from their ISP be marginalized?
But you're lumping the people who won't spend money on a boat with the people who can't spend money on a boat. Why should the people who happen to live too far from the ocean be marginalized!
In other words, who cares? You aren't automatically entitiled to things. If you can't get something because of your situation, that's your problem.
Because he's drunk :~(
You're all monsters.
Yeah, but where the hell's the fun in that?
Bullshit, I'll quote:
If you pick (a) then you distribute the source with the binaries. You don't have to give out source in any other situations. If you decide to go with option (b), you need to distribute to anyone at all that asks. That's your problem. You have options.
Either way, neither of these stipulations violates copyright as they both grant the ability to copy given that you follow various procedures. You still don't need to even distribute at all, in which case none of this is even a problem.
This is exactly the opposite of what copyright law does. Copyright law says that no one other than the copyright holder is allowed to distribute the work to anyone.
No it doesn't. It gives the right to determine who can make copies and under what circumstance to the holder of the copyright. If what you were saying were true, I wouldn't be able to do things like contract distribution rights for a computer program out to different distribution companies. They aren't the copyright holder, so they can't distribute the work!
Copyright gives the creator the ability to control the copying of his work, it doesn't limit him to being the only distributor.
Go read it again. The GPL says that you have to give a machine-readable copy of the source code to anybody who asks for it at no cost.
No, it says that you need to give a machine-readable copy of the source to anyone that asks with the maximum charge being the cost of distribution (not at no cost) if you decide to not distribute the source code with the binaries you've distributed.
Which is the reason the GPL is unenforceable, and therefore null and void. It attempts to apply its own restrictions to third parties, in contravention of the doctrine of first sale. Once the author has sold a copy of his work, he has no say whatsoever in what terms apply when that copy is sold again. So the GPL is not a lawful license.
Distributing isn't resale. If I resell a GPLed piece of software, it will still be under the GPL. You could resell a GPLed piece of software if you wanted, but that doesn't gain you anything more than redistributing a different copy would. Both the copy and the original that you had would be under the GPL. No restrictions at all, over normal copyright, even exist. If you aren't distributing, which isn't allowed under copyright without permission, you don't need to do anything special.
Wow, what the hell are you talking about? The GPL governs redistribution rights. If you just want to use and modify the damned program yourself you don't need to do anything at all for anyone else. It does, however, give you the express right to redistribute the software or a modified version of the software, a right you wouldn't otherwise have, if you distribute the source code to it as well. It doesn't require you to redistribute anything. I can recieve the program, modify it as much as I want and not give it to anyone at all.
The GPL also doesn't say you have to distribute software to anyone who wants it. You can give it to anyone you wish, and not give it to anyone you wish. You can limit your own distribution as much as you want. The only stipulation is that if you distribute the software to someone, the source code needs to be made available through some means to them as well. These people also receive the same distribution rights you had.
Sure you're legally bound to it... If I say, in a postcard, that I'll give you $500 when you give me your monkey, and then you communicate back that you agree, it'll quite probably hold up as a contract, as it's a meeting of minds. It'll probably hold up as the equivalent of a verbal contract, I've never looked into it, but it's definitely a form of contract.
If it is legit, why not answer?
:)
Because they've got a crappy PR department?
Or, they might argue that the code that there are no damages, and that therefore they aren't liable for more than zero dollars (i.e., nothing) even if they have technically violated copyright law.
Even though I'd doubt anyone would be able to get away with that, since there could still be punative damages or damages based on the improvements that could have been made from the modified code that should have been redistributed, there's still the fact that the court would force compliance with the licensing terms if they took this 'defence'. It isn't worth it to go to court and try to fight it this way, since you'll end up getting, at best, the same result you'd gotten if you'd just settled with releasing the source to begin with.
This is 180Â counter to copyright law, which expressly prohibits you from redistributing any works without express permission. So when you release something under the GPL, you are telling the protections provided by copyright law to take a flying leap.
So your point is that giving express permission to redistribute under a given set of conditions is flying in the face of copyright law because copyright law allows the copyright holder to control distribution by requiring third parties to have express permission to redistribute! Wonderful point!
Wait...
Shoplift a sweater, and even if you get it out of the store, if you wear it
to the store a year later, you could get pinged.
That's assuming the tag's actually in the product instead of on the packaging or a detachable tag or security device, which it wouldn't be, since there's really no reason to have a non-detachable identification device other than to keep the tag on for tracking after purchase.
The 'benifit' would be getting to see the source code. That's perfectly legitimate, it's just that nobody thinks it's worth signing the NDA to see.
Can you copyright a song without making a recording [...] No? Thought so.
Sure you can... compositions are covered under copyright whether they've been recorded or not as, I believe, are performances, whether they've been recorded or not.
At the rate things have been going lately, I could see a lawsuit against the MPAA alledging agism. That'd be fun
I don't know about you, but I would prefer to be taught by a prof that isn't being disturbed so he can concentrate on the material... so I would think that it's rather shorsighted to say it's immaterial.
SCO licensed Unix to Lindows.com, which distributes it under GPL
We have no idea what was licensed, nor what rights Lindows was given.
Eh, the actual original Wing Commander game didn't really have much in the way of a plot, it was pretty generic with a couple of interesting characters that you talked to a few times. There was the ongoing war storyline, but there really wasn't anything involving the characters. The neat plots didn't really start to show up until the Secret Missions addons.
Beyond this, though, word 'on the street' is that EA doesn't feel particularly comfortable licensing out the original games, since they aren't always clear on what rights are owned by who, and what people they might need to pay off. Before the sale to EA, Origin's records weren't exactly well kept. However, Raylight's definitely capable of a Wing Commander 1 or 2 style game, as Star Giants, the game they were developing before they came upon the WCP license and then scrapped and took some of the basics from for Prophecy, was a blatant Wing Commander clone. I mean, there's a frickin' Dralthi in one of the early screenshots they released.
Maybe if Prophecy sells well, they'll go back and port something else. The probable ones are Secret Ops, as they already have the basics down with Prophecy, or possibly the original game, if they can somehow get EA to let them, since there's already an SNES port that would be easier to convert.