Create an original work, and you own the copyright to it. Part of the rights granted by the copyright include the right to license the use of the work. Also included is the right to license derivative works and to specify terms and conditions for that licensure.
As a copyright holder, you can chose to NOT license your work. You can chose to license it under any terms you can negotiate, or you can chose to license it under the Gnu Public License.
Note that the GPL gets its authority to license the work from the rights granted by copyright and is based on copyright law. It does NOT superceed, or trump, or invalidate ANYTHING under copyright law, it specifies how specific copyright rights are applied, and is selected by the copyright holder.
If SCO were to prevail, do you think it would poke holes in the GPL? The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it. SCO is not the one that put in these derivative works, which, as SCO has maintained, these companies were not allowed to do pursuant to their license. SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement. So the difference is that SCO didn't say, "Here is my copyrighted material, and I'm knowingly and willingly giving it to you under the GPL. Here's my copyrighted work."
I agree. They seem to be saying "we knew it was there, and we released it anyway, but because WE didn't put it there, whether we distributed teh software does not matter!"
I think a Judge would find that, if they knew it was there and released it anyway, it falls under the GPL perview.
What really matters is whether others copied code that was property of SCO into Linux.
I think what REALLY matters is if SCO knowingly released proprietary code - no matter who put it there - under the GPL. I find their statements about WHO put it there irrelevent to the fact that they knew it was there and released it themselves.
I also think their attacks on the GPL is motivated by this same fact. If the GPL is invalid, then the licenses granted under it 'go away' and they can re-license under whatever terms they want.
How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright! We are going to court to prove this. In any case, whether the work is our copyright or not is not in question. What is important is whether the work was in the public domain, and whether IBM failed to honour an agreement on confidentiality of code.
Yes, it is in question. By demanding licensing fees, you have stated it is your property, while the rest of the world is still waiting for evidence - creditable evidence - which SCO has not yet provided. So SCO HAS brought the issue of copyright ownership into question.
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases? This is irrelevant. What is in question is whether the code that IBM distributed was done so legally. The distribution of legitimately GPL'd code is not in question. SCO can do that like any other organisation or person, as long as it keeps the conditions of the GPL.
How can that possibly be irrelevant? By releasing under the GPL SCO granted License to anyone to use, modify, and distribute the IP (could you possibly be a little less vague? I assume you are referring to copyright when you say IP, but you could be a LITTLE more specific...), but you are now saying that you either didn't mean to, or it didn't mean what it said, or that you really wish you hadn't, or SOMETHING - seems to depend on the day of the week.
If you know your IP is in a collection that YOU ARE RELEASING under the GPL, then you HAVE granted the use of your IP. Saying later that you knew it was there, BUT YOU DIDN'T PUT IT THERE, so your license doesn't count is disingenuous at best, and criminal at worst.
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product? See the above answer
Except the above answer does not answer the posted question. You say the GPL (which is the only license giving you the right to use the tools) is invalid, so the question remains, if you have no license to use the tools you are using, why are you using them? Either the GPL is valid and gives you the right to use the tools, in which case it also gives me the right to use anything you released under the GPL, or it is invalid, removing my right to use anything you have released, but also removing your right to use the tools.
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case? Anyone who uses infringing code is commiting a copyright violation. As a management, we have responsibility to our shareholders to maximise the value of the company. This requires us to ensure that we are paid for our products, even if to do so we have to sue illegitimate users. This is the case for any organisation.
What infringing code? No court has said that any code is infringing.
By the way, I would guess most of the users are, in fact, legitimate (both of my parents were married!), even if you think they are using the software illegally. You should REALLY try to get the terms right...
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released? By continuing to license and produce excellent intellectual property
The same "excellent Intellectual Property" you have been losing money every quarter on for the last - how long has it been? 2 years?
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds? The law is quite clear on this point. Look it up;)
Out of order! Unresponsive, immaterial, and irrelevant. What is YOUR definition of "derivative works"? The law is also quite clear on several points that you have chosen to ignore or overlook - rights granted under copyright, licensing laws, extortion laws, stock manipulat
He clearly said that licensed software was installed on the machines. When the machine was 'handed down' the hard drives were not wiped. Therefore there were copies of software that nobody was using on some machines.
if you don't agree with the licensing, don't use illegal copies.
They were not using illegal copies, they did not have a 1:1 with numbers of licenses and numbers of programs.
it's very nice etc that they switched the whole thing to RH, but come on, if you use commercial software you should pay for it.
Excellent point. They were not using the software but they had to pay for it anyway.
The BSA doesn't care if anyone is using the software or not. They only care that you have X copies of the software so you had better come up with X licenses - or payup.
We tried that at work - installing locked down versions of XP and/or W2K.
UNFORTUNATELY the software vendors wrote their software so that the end-users require administrator level access to do their basic job - there goes the lock down!
Not that big of a deal, as we had to upgrade anyway - Microsoft had EOLed the OSes we were running, and so we had no choice but to stop using the old system software.
Thanks, Microsoft! If we had moved to the new platforms just so we could lock down the desktops, we would sure have felt foolish when it didn't work, but you gave us another reason to do the move - no more support for the (then current) operating system! We really appreciate you looking out for us that way... (/sarcasm)
Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holder.
Some posts are informative, some are insightful. This one is wrong and misleading. I don't know if the poster is trolling or just clueless.
Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holderif there is a specific, legally binding document stating that derivative works belong to the copyright holder.
Note how the rest of your post makes no sense with the addition of the rest of SCOs stated position.
SCO did not have to pay Ian Fleming anything, as the clips were provided by the hotel, so the hotel would have to have licenses their use - NOT SCO.
The sumerian mummy, the Lumiere brothers, Boccaccio, and whomever wrote the first spy novel no longer have a copyright on their work - it has passed into public domain where ANYONE (even SCO) can use it without permission or penalty.
Ian Fleming should still have his copyright, but unless he licenses ANYONE to use his creation but with the requirement that any derivative works belonged to him, it is not pertinent to your supposed point.
Based on your moderation score, if you were trolling, you fooled the moderators. If you were not trolling, then there are more clueless moderators than I had expected - a failing on my part, given the massive amount of evidence found by just reading/.
I'd hate to be the one designing a slot machine which could, conceivably, be asked to pay out more money than it has inside.
Quit smokin' that stuff, it is making you say dumb things!
I have not seen many slot machines, but EVERY ONE I HAVE SEEN had a notice that "This machine pays out up to XXX credits, anything more is paid by the attendant."
I drove past a casino the other day advertising a $35,000 jackpot available inside on a guarter slot machine. At 5.67 grams each, that would be ($35000)*(4 quarters per dollar)*(5.67 grams per quarter)/(32grams per ounce)/(16 ounces pe pound)=1,550 pounds. I would think it would be a little hard to carry up to the cashier in those little tubs...or even a wheelbarrow!
That is probably why the payouts are done through an attendant - not to mention that taxes have to be withheld on winnings over a certain level.
I assume you meant "pay out more than it has taken in" - but even that is wrong, as the odds kick in from the moment it is turned on - it could jackpot immediately. The casinos make their money on the total difference between paid in and paid out for their games, not from any one machine.
It costs nothing to make an account, and you can create as many as you need
So posting AC flags your (generic AC, not you personally...) post as either in the posters estimation worth less than the cost of creating an account (nothing) or a comment that a registered user DOES NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED with.
In addition, with the ability to use 'handles' (like "SillySlashdotName"), the decision to post AC can indicate laziness on the part of the poster.
In essence, not taking the time to sign in (or enable cookies) shows that you (again talking generic AC) don't value your post much, so I don't see why I should afford it more value than you seem to be.
Shouldn't the posting be judged on the words, not on the poster and/or usage of AC?
Yes, it should, but again, if the post is flagged as "not important enought to sign in, or so unpopular that the poster does not want to even give a handle" by posting AC, then it starts with a built in prejudice against it. As you know, some AC posts do get modded up, but only by overcoming that initial 'AC' prejudice.
Not saying it is right, but just the way it seems to be.
I don't know, PISS POOR seems to describe it pretty well - and that would be #1 - unless you were going for shitty, which it is and is, therefore, indeed #2.:->
Yes, the 'copyleft' - or GPL (NOTE: the L is for License!) is a statement of rights GRANTED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER through a license to others. It can not grant rights not held by the copyright holder, and it can not limit rights the enduser already has.
As far as copyright goes, either SOMEONE has the rights to a work, or NO ONE has the rights to a work - there is no third option.
I thought about it, and I realized the originator of the creation could, under GPL as well as under copyright, license his/her/their creation under several different licenses. Nothing in GPL or copyright (that I am currently aware of) limits the copyright holder to ONLY use the GPL or not.
I love "The company also said it expected fourth-quarter revenue to grow to between $22 million and $25 million due to expected growth of the SCOsource licensing plan.
That is only an increase of $0.9 to $4.9 Million, but, at $699 per license, they must be expecting a bunch of people to cave in!
I know, I know, they are probably talking about additional licensing fees from Microsoft and SUN - except that is not really "growth of the SCOsource licensing plan." It is more like "revenue we already know we are going to get, we just can't legally count it yet."
Interesting that, even with an additional $5M in licensing revenue from Microsoft and SUN, they expect revenue to increase LESS THEN $5M and they are spending $1M PER QUARTER on legal fees.
+1 Insightful +1 'gets it' +1 smarter than the average bear TOTAL +3 (even if they are an AC, and I don't have mod points...:-> )
Copyright grants the right to license your work. You can CHOOSE to license it to anyone who will pay $XX, or you can CHOOSE to license it to anyone who agrees to "include this license text, and allow all distributed derivative works to be licensed under this same license."
In the first license scheme, anyone who does not want to pay $XX can not have a license to use the copyrighted work. In the second, anyone who does not release derivative works under the same license can not have a license to use the copyrighted works.
The basic idea is easy, and it is licensure BASED on copyright; the license does not invalidate copyright in any way.
Copyright gives certain legal rights. ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS IS TO LICENSE THE USE OF YOUR CREATION.
GPL builds on that right (GRANTED by copyright) and sets CONDITIONS OF LICENSUREWITHOUT giving up any rights granted by copyright.
You can, from this time forward, change the terms of future licenses, but you can not retroactively change past licenses. In addition, the only person who can then change a piece of software from GPL to non-GPL is the person who wrote the original GPL'ed software. Everyone who made and distributed modifications UNDER THE ORIGINAL GPL LICENSE can continue to distribute those modifications - but I believe they would not be able to make additional modifications.
you can either copyright something, or you can release it into the public domain.
I can't tell from context if this is your thought, or if you are paraphrasing someone else. Either way, WRONG
Copyright gives the holder certain rights in relation to their creation.
If the copyright holder then choses to exercise those rights and LICENSE the use of their creation under the GPL (hint, the 'L' comes from the word License, not copyright...) then they have not given up ANY of the rights they held under copyright. In fact, the GPL BUILDS on rights granted under copyright - if something is not copyright (i.e., public domain) then GPL CAN'T apply.
Public Domain says "This belongs to everyone, I have no legal rights to it."
Copyright says "This is mine, and I have legal rights."
GPL says "This is mine, and I have legal rights, BUT one of those rights allows me to allow you to use it under license from me, with restrictions. One restriction is you must keep this license text with the software. Another is that if you make modifications to MY creation AND DISTRIBUTE THEM (derivative works?), they must also be licensed under this same license - you can not infringe on my copyright rights. If you do not want to distribute your modifications under this license, then you may not distribute them based on MY copyright rights."
My point is that GPL does not invalidate any part of copyright law, it actually is based on what rights are given under copyright.
How does this get on the wrong side of Microsoft too when it would mean Microsoft would then HAVE TO CHARGE FOR MORE LICENSES - i.e., they could not offer enterprise editions or site licenses, each copy would have to be licensed separately?
IBM had a contract/license variation with AT&T. Sequent did not. Anything IBM developed, IBM owned. Anything Sequent developed (before being bought and becoming part of IBM), based on the original AT&T license, belongs to the owner of SYS V, so the (rights to the) developements did not belong to Sequent and could not be sold to IBM in '92, so IBM does not own them, never did own them, and can not give them away - they belonged to Novell, and now to SCO.
Could this possibly be a (perhaps THE) legal leg for SCO's lawsuit?
This reply completely does not address your admittedly very good point about the patents, as I don't know how the license issue would afftect the patent issue. I.e., can I patent an idea that legally belongs to someone else, even thought it was my idea and I submitted it myself? I would guess 'yes', but it would depend greatly on the exact wording of any contracts/licenses - and we are right back to the license issue. Also, would you be able to charge me license fees on the idea you own, but I patent? Could I charge you for using my patent if you legally own the idea?
BBCCalifornia-based IT consultancy Computer Economics estimated worldwide damage to be $2.6bn by the end of Thursday. It said that figure could soar to $10bn by next week.
Slashdot Mirror
... lent you his new Toyota ...
.
.
.
[ ] d) You sue him AND General Motors.
Yup, definitely SCO CEO material!
(It's funny! Laugh!)
Yep, Right, and exactly.
Create an original work, and you own the copyright to it. Part of the rights granted by the copyright include the right to license the use of the work. Also included is the right to license derivative works and to specify terms and conditions for that licensure.
As a copyright holder, you can chose to NOT license your work. You can chose to license it under any terms you can negotiate, or you can chose to license it under the Gnu Public License.
Note that the GPL gets its authority to license the work from the rights granted by copyright and is based on copyright law. It does NOT superceed, or trump, or invalidate ANYTHING under copyright law, it specifies how specific copyright rights are applied, and is selected by the copyright holder.
If SCO were to prevail, do you think it would poke holes in the GPL?
The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it. SCO is not the one that put in these derivative works, which, as SCO has maintained, these companies were not allowed to do pursuant to their license. SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement. So the difference is that SCO didn't say, "Here is my copyrighted material, and I'm knowingly and willingly giving it to you under the GPL. Here's my copyrighted work."
I agree. They seem to be saying "we knew it was there, and we released it anyway, but because WE didn't put it there, whether we distributed teh software does not matter!"
I think a Judge would find that, if they knew it was there and released it anyway, it falls under the GPL perview.
What really matters is whether others copied code that was property of SCO into Linux.
I think what REALLY matters is if SCO knowingly released proprietary code - no matter who put it there - under the GPL. I find their statements about WHO put it there irrelevent to the fact that they knew it was there and released it themselves.
I also think their attacks on the GPL is motivated by this same fact. If the GPL is invalid, then the licenses granted under it 'go away' and they can re-license under whatever terms they want.
How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright! We are going to court to prove this. In any case, whether the work is our copyright or not is not in question. What is important is whether the work was in the public domain, and whether IBM failed to honour an agreement on confidentiality of code.
Yes, it is in question. By demanding licensing fees, you have stated it is your property, while the rest of the world is still waiting for evidence - creditable evidence - which SCO has not yet provided. So SCO HAS brought the issue of copyright ownership into question.
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?
This is irrelevant. What is in question is whether the code that IBM distributed was done so legally. The distribution of legitimately GPL'd code is not in question. SCO can do that like any other organisation or person, as long as it keeps the conditions of the GPL.
How can that possibly be irrelevant? By releasing under the GPL SCO granted License to anyone to use, modify, and distribute the IP (could you possibly be a little less vague? I assume you are referring to copyright when you say IP, but you could be a LITTLE more specific...), but you are now saying that you either didn't mean to, or it didn't mean what it said, or that you really wish you hadn't, or SOMETHING - seems to depend on the day of the week.
If you know your IP is in a collection that YOU ARE RELEASING under the GPL, then you HAVE granted the use of your IP. Saying later that you knew it was there, BUT YOU DIDN'T PUT IT THERE, so your license doesn't count is disingenuous at best, and criminal at worst.
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?
See the above answer
Except the above answer does not answer the posted question. You say the GPL (which is the only license giving you the right to use the tools) is invalid, so the question remains, if you have no license to use the tools you are using, why are you using them? Either the GPL is valid and gives you the right to use the tools, in which case it also gives me the right to use anything you released under the GPL, or it is invalid, removing my right to use anything you have released, but also removing your right to use the tools.
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?
Anyone who uses infringing code is commiting a copyright violation. As a management, we have responsibility to our shareholders to maximise the value of the company. This requires us to ensure that we are paid for our products, even if to do so we have to sue illegitimate users. This is the case for any organisation.
What infringing code? No court has said that any code is infringing.
By the way, I would guess most of the users are, in fact, legitimate (both of my parents were married!), even if you think they are using the software illegally. You should REALLY try to get the terms right...
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released? By continuing to license and produce excellent intellectual property
The same "excellent Intellectual Property" you have been losing money every quarter on for the last - how long has it been? 2 years?
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds? The law is quite clear on this point. Look it up;)
Out of order! Unresponsive, immaterial, and irrelevant. What is YOUR definition of "derivative works"? The law is also quite clear on several points that you have chosen to ignore or overlook - rights granted under copyright, licensing laws, extortion laws, stock manipulat
I think that "I don't give a shit!" pretty much covers the intent of both.
:->
Yup.
"I couldn't care less." means I care so little now that it is not humanly possible for me to care any less.
"I could care less" is part of a quotation, the rest being "but I would have to work at it!"
So you are right on the mark.
(Damned log-winded way of saying "me to", ain't it)
READ.
THE.
ARTICLE.
He clearly said that licensed software was installed on the machines. When the machine was 'handed down' the hard drives were not wiped. Therefore there were copies of software that nobody was using on some machines.
if you don't agree with the licensing, don't use illegal copies.
They were not using illegal copies, they did not have a 1:1 with numbers of licenses and numbers of programs.
it's very nice etc that they switched the whole thing to RH, but come on, if you use commercial software you should pay for it.
Excellent point. They were not using the software but they had to pay for it anyway.
The BSA doesn't care if anyone is using the software or not. They only care that you have X copies of the software so you had better come up with X licenses - or payup.
We tried that at work - installing locked down versions of XP and/or W2K.
UNFORTUNATELY the software vendors wrote their software so that the end-users require administrator level access to do their basic job - there goes the lock down!
Not that big of a deal, as we had to upgrade anyway - Microsoft had EOLed the OSes we were running, and so we had no choice but to stop using the old system software.
Thanks, Microsoft! If we had moved to the new platforms just so we could lock down the desktops, we would sure have felt foolish when it didn't work, but you gave us another reason to do the move - no more support for the (then current) operating system! We really appreciate you looking out for us that way...
(/sarcasm)
It usually involves Crisco, silk scarves, and a large tarp...
:->
Some people include chicken feathers, but personally I think the Crisco is enough
You'd need the mother of all extension cords to get the power back here. Anything that long and thick would be a tremendous trip-hazard anyway.
Not really, just use duct tape to tape it to the floor so nobody trips over it!
Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holder.
/.
Some posts are informative, some are insightful. This one is wrong and misleading. I don't know if the poster is trolling or just clueless.
Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holder if there is a specific, legally binding document stating that derivative works belong to the copyright holder.
Note how the rest of your post makes no sense with the addition of the rest of SCOs stated position.
SCO did not have to pay Ian Fleming anything, as the clips were provided by the hotel, so the hotel would have to have licenses their use - NOT SCO.
The sumerian mummy, the Lumiere brothers, Boccaccio, and whomever wrote the first spy novel no longer have a copyright on their work - it has passed into public domain where ANYONE (even SCO) can use it without permission or penalty.
Ian Fleming should still have his copyright, but unless he licenses ANYONE to use his creation but with the requirement that any derivative works belonged to him, it is not pertinent to your supposed point.
Based on your moderation score, if you were trolling, you fooled the moderators. If you were not trolling, then there are more clueless moderators than I had expected - a failing on my part, given the massive amount of evidence found by just reading
I'd hate to be the one designing a slot machine which could, conceivably, be asked to pay out more money than it has inside.
Quit smokin' that stuff, it is making you say dumb things!
I have not seen many slot machines, but EVERY ONE I HAVE SEEN had a notice that "This machine pays out up to XXX credits, anything more is paid by the attendant."
I drove past a casino the other day advertising a $35,000 jackpot available inside on a guarter slot machine. At 5.67 grams each, that would be ($35000)*(4 quarters per dollar)*(5.67 grams per quarter)/(32grams per ounce)/(16 ounces pe pound)=1,550 pounds. I would think it would be a little hard to carry up to the cashier in those little tubs...or even a wheelbarrow!
That is probably why the payouts are done through an attendant - not to mention that taxes have to be withheld on winnings over a certain level.
I assume you meant "pay out more than it has taken in" - but even that is wrong, as the odds kick in from the moment it is turned on - it could jackpot immediately. The casinos make their money on the total difference between paid in and paid out for their games, not from any one machine.
It costs nothing to make an account, and you can create as many as you need
So posting AC flags your (generic AC, not you personally...) post as either in the posters estimation worth less than the cost of creating an account (nothing) or a comment that a registered user DOES NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED with.
In addition, with the ability to use 'handles' (like "SillySlashdotName"), the decision to post AC can indicate laziness on the part of the poster.
In essence, not taking the time to sign in (or enable cookies) shows that you (again talking generic AC) don't value your post much, so I don't see why I should afford it more value than you seem to be.
Shouldn't the posting be judged on the words, not on the poster and/or usage of AC?
Yes, it should, but again, if the post is flagged as "not important enought to sign in, or so unpopular that the poster does not want to even give a handle" by posting AC, then it starts with a built in prejudice against it. As you know, some AC posts do get modded up, but only by overcoming that initial 'AC' prejudice.
Not saying it is right, but just the way it seems to be.
"Microsoft.com went down last night" - See? Microsoft really DOES suck!
I don't know, PISS POOR seems to describe it pretty well - and that would be #1 - unless you were going for shitty, which it is and is, therefore, indeed #2. :->
Yes, the 'copyleft' - or GPL (NOTE: the L is for License!) is a statement of rights GRANTED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER through a license to others. It can not grant rights not held by the copyright holder, and it can not limit rights the enduser already has.
As far as copyright goes, either SOMEONE has the rights to a work, or NO ONE has the rights to a work - there is no third option.
I thought about it, and I realized the originator of the creation could, under GPL as well as under copyright, license his/her/their creation under several different licenses. Nothing in GPL or copyright (that I am currently aware of) limits the copyright holder to ONLY use the GPL or not.
So you were correct, of course.
I love "The company also said it expected fourth-quarter revenue to grow to between $22 million and $25 million due to expected growth of the SCOsource licensing plan.
That is only an increase of $0.9 to $4.9 Million, but, at $699 per license, they must be expecting a bunch of people to cave in!
I know, I know, they are probably talking about additional licensing fees from Microsoft and SUN - except that is not really "growth of the SCOsource licensing plan." It is more like "revenue we already know we are going to get, we just can't legally count it yet."
Interesting that, even with an additional $5M in licensing revenue from Microsoft and SUN, they expect revenue to increase LESS THEN $5M and they are spending $1M PER QUARTER on legal fees.
I think someone needs a clue-by-four...
+1 Insightful :-> )
+1 'gets it'
+1 smarter than the average bear
TOTAL +3 (even if they are an AC, and I don't have mod points...
Copyright grants the right to license your work. You can CHOOSE to license it to anyone who will pay $XX, or you can CHOOSE to license it to anyone who agrees to "include this license text, and allow all distributed derivative works to be licensed under this same license."
In the first license scheme, anyone who does not want to pay $XX can not have a license to use the copyrighted work. In the second, anyone who does not release derivative works under the same license can not have a license to use the copyrighted works.
The basic idea is easy, and it is licensure BASED on copyright; the license does not invalidate copyright in any way.
YES!
Copyright gives certain legal rights. ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS IS TO LICENSE THE USE OF YOUR CREATION.
GPL builds on that right (GRANTED by copyright) and sets CONDITIONS OF LICENSURE WITHOUT giving up any rights granted by copyright.
You can, from this time forward, change the terms of future licenses, but you can not retroactively change past licenses. In addition, the only person who can then change a piece of software from GPL to non-GPL is the person who wrote the original GPL'ed software. Everyone who made and distributed modifications UNDER THE ORIGINAL GPL LICENSE can continue to distribute those modifications - but I believe they would not be able to make additional modifications.
you can either copyright something, or you can release it into the public domain.
I can't tell from context if this is your thought, or if you are paraphrasing someone else. Either way, WRONG
Copyright gives the holder certain rights in relation to their creation.
If the copyright holder then choses to exercise those rights and LICENSE the use of their creation under the GPL (hint, the 'L' comes from the word License, not copyright...) then they have not given up ANY of the rights they held under copyright. In fact, the GPL BUILDS on rights granted under copyright - if something is not copyright (i.e., public domain) then GPL CAN'T apply.
Public Domain says "This belongs to everyone, I have no legal rights to it."
Copyright says "This is mine, and I have legal rights."
GPL says "This is mine, and I have legal rights, BUT one of those rights allows me to allow you to use it under license from me, with restrictions. One restriction is you must keep this license text with the software. Another is that if you make modifications to MY creation AND DISTRIBUTE THEM (derivative works?), they must also be licensed under this same license - you can not infringe on my copyright rights. If you do not want to distribute your modifications under this license, then you may not distribute them based on MY copyright rights."
My point is that GPL does not invalidate any part of copyright law, it actually is based on what rights are given under copyright.
How does this get on the wrong side of Microsoft too when it would mean Microsoft would then HAVE TO CHARGE FOR MORE LICENSES - i.e., they could not offer enterprise editions or site licenses, each copy would have to be licensed separately?
I am sure they would JUST HATE THAT!
No, I am not sure. Schrodinger reference
I thought there was only one 'Random Numbers' Heinlen reference
usethepreviewbutton. usethepreviewbutton. usethepreviewbutton...
No, I an not sure.
People still don't seem to get it...
:->
IBM != Sequent (for year values less than 1992)
IBM had a contract/license variation with AT&T. Sequent did not. Anything IBM developed, IBM owned. Anything Sequent developed (before being bought and becoming part of IBM), based on the original AT&T license, belongs to the owner of SYS V, so the (rights to the) developements did not belong to Sequent and could not be sold to IBM in '92, so IBM does not own them, never did own them, and can not give them away - they belonged to Novell, and now to SCO.
Could this possibly be a (perhaps THE) legal leg for SCO's lawsuit?
This reply completely does not address your admittedly very good point about the patents, as I don't know how the license issue would afftect the patent issue. I.e., can I patent an idea that legally belongs to someone else, even thought it was my idea and I submitted it myself? I would guess 'yes', but it would depend greatly on the exact wording of any contracts/licenses - and we are right back to the license issue. Also, would you be able to charge me license fees on the idea you own, but I patent? Could I charge you for using my patent if you legally own the idea?
My head is starting to hurt...
"ILOVEYOU" virus 2.6 - 15.0 Billion
BBC California-based IT consultancy Computer Economics estimated worldwide damage to be $2.6bn by the end of Thursday. It said that figure could soar to $10bn by next week.
USAToday
Lloyds of London put the estimate for Love Bug at $15 billion.
Melissa 1 Billion
USAToday
the economic damage from the Melissa virus in 1999 to be about $1 billion.
CodeRed 2.6 Billion
BizJournals.com
"Code Red, which started in mid-July, so far has cost the U.S. economy $2.6 billion."
Klez 9 Billion
The Register
"The Klez virus last year cost businesses $9 billion worldwide in lost productivity,"
SirCAM 1 Billion
BSTPierre.org
"SirCam", which also propagates through email, cost $1 billion.
TOTAL for these alone: at least 16.2 - 28.6 billion