You have to go deep into the Kazaa settings to change the shared folder destination, and oh look, on the same page as the shared folder destination is a tickbox to disable sharing. Oh my, look at that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, these people are commiting copyright infringement.
Interesting concept. What private attorney is going to risk the forclosure of his house so that he can take on a bank? You do understand my point, don't you?
I do understand your point, but my point was that since the law makers arent going to enforce the rules they themselves lay down, then your beef is with them, not the people getting away with it. Fraud is an offence, as is price fixing and cartels.
You say that for all practical purposes a person has bought the DVD and now owns it, without giving regard to the legal text on the box. Im not certain about the US, but everywhere Ive been to, ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. What type of clauses were you thinking of, because we are talking here about very basic infringement of copyright law. The truth of the sale has not been misrepresented at all, tho the intelligence and knowledge of the purchaser may not extend to knowing that it is a crime to infringe on that copyright, but that is still not a valid defence.
You dont put 'it is a crime to steal this item' on the DVD case, so why should you have to put 'it is a crime to copy this item' on the case either?
If the bank was breaking price fixing rules (I dont see the problem in the other two, a bank is perfectly free to show favouritism in the loans it offers or the people or businesses it offers finance to) then the bank should be dealt with by the proper authority, its customers shouldnt storm the bank and help themselves to whats in its vault.
I think your problem is with the authorities, not the bank. When a murderer gets a short sentance, you dont blame the criminal for the short sentance, you blame the judge who gave them that sentance. If a murderer isnt brought to justice, you dont blame the murderer, you blame the police for not doing their job. Wheres the difference? They may have committed a crime, but that gives you absolutely no right to carry out your own punitive measures against them.
Why should the MPAA refrain from suing Movie uploaders? I really dont see the problem with them protecting their investment and property.
Oh, Ok I forget, this is slashdot. Its OK to infringe on the RIAAs or the MPAAs copyright, but theres hell to pay for people infringing the copyright of software under the GPL.
Yeah yeah, Chernobyl only happened once, and we have the nuclear industry's solemn promise that nothing like it will ever happen again. But then, we had their solemn promise that it would never happen the first time, too... so you'll have to forgive people if they are a bit skeptical.
Whoa there cowboy!! How is the Nuclear industries in the UK, France, US and everyone else responsable for the Chernobyl accident? To say that they broke a promise is highly stupid, when they had no means to prevent Chernobyl. After WW2 Germany promised not to invade another country, so should they be held responsable for the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Falkland islands, or anyone else that has been invaded since they made that promise?
As someone earlier stated, Chernobyl happened due to a deliberate act taken on part of the workers. It didnt happen in normal operation, and guess what, in normal operation nuclear reactors are fine, and it takes a hell of a lot of stupidity to get a reactor into the state that the Chenobyl reactor was in.
As for 'renewable energy sources', well guess what. Greenies dont like them either:
Wind farms: they 'destroy the beauty of the country side' if erected onshore, or they 'damage migratory patterns of birds' or 'damage breeding grounds for fish' if erected offshore.
Solar: 'destroy the beauty of the country side'
Hydroelectric: 'destroy countryside or damage tidal actions'
Face it, Greenies just want us to go back to pre industrial revolution type living. h
Basically what the Harmony system does is convert the Real media files to AAC (unprotected) and insert them into the Ipods database. That isnt the issue here. What IS at issue is the insertion into the Ipods database. If Real were to make their downloads AAC, then you would have no reason to use their software on the PC, and their install base goes down. THATS the real battle going on here, Real want Realplayer installed everywhere, and they see Ipod compatability as a way to do it.
They reckon on 1.7Trillion to 2.5Trillion barrels of oil total in Canada, of which 300Billion are as easily accesable as Saudi Arabian oil. Thats a lot of oil:) (source)
How did these cases get linked?! Todays analogous meaning of the Betamax case would be that Tivo devices and MP3 creation tools are not illegal for the purposes of recording broadcast material, whereas the Grokster case says that p2p networks, if suitably distributed, are not illegal because they cannot limit the usage of the network to legal kind. From my (admitably non legal) viewpoint, these cases are almost a universe apart in what they cover, and they certainly do not cover copyright infringement on p2p networks under the guise of fair use.
Linus expects us to honor his copyright when dealing with the linux kernel, lets do the same for all other copyright holders eh?
If the goods are unfit for the purpose for which they were bought, you can return them for a full refund within fourteen days ('cooling off'), which also applies to most contracts signed for goods. There is a statutory warranty period of twelve months (from date of purchase) that covers faulty or low quality merchandise and is not gotten around by disclaimers.
NB Im assuming UK here, since thats what the GP was talking about. Ok, a few things in your post. Firstly goods dont have to be unfit for the purpose for which they were bought, they have to be unfit for the purpose for which they were sold. Subtle but massive difference.
Theres no such thing as the 14 day cooling off period if the goods were purchased in the shop. if the goods are unfit for the purpose they were sold, then you have 28 days to return the item. The 14 day period applies to goods bought in the home which involves a sum of money greater than a certain amount, or continual payments of money over a period of time. There is a 7 day cooling off period for goods bought at a distance from the time you physically receive the goods, eg over the internet, within which you can return the item for a full refund, under the Distance Selling Act.
There is no such thing as a statutory warranty period, the 12 months you get is purely down to manufacturer good will, they can give you any length warranty. What there is is the Sales of Goods act, which covers goods which were faulty due to manufacturer process or such similiar faults from before the purchase of the item for a period of 7 years from purchase date. During this time if the goods breaks due to a manufacturing defect, you can return the goods for a full refund or a replacement, although the onus is on you to prove that the defect is not a symptom of normal wear and tear.
No, Big Brother airs on 'Channel 4' and its sister satelite channel E4, both part of the Independant Television Network which is advert funded. BBC has BBC1, BBC2, BBC News 24, BBC3 and some others and doesnt advertise anything other than its own products.
No, MS isnt going to offer support to end users, but it HAS and WILL offer support to the people putting this computer package together. It isnt a simple thing, customising an OS for a given task and system. If he went with OSS then hes going to have to do that himself or get someone else to do it, which by all means isnt a small and insignificant task and in both cases WILL COST MONEY.
This IS going to be a good product, by and large, because its designed to be essentially the next generation setop box. People will use it much in the same way a games console is used, and applications will be loaded in much the same way I imagine. This sort of thing DOES NOT EXIST in the linux world, you have to create it, whereas MS has the experience within themselves from WinCE devices and the Xbox.
This isnt as simple as saying 'by using free software they could wrap it up and sell it with all the major apps pre-installed without having to pay a per computer fee to anyone' because he would STILL be paying someone, free software doesnt just pop up in the configuration and manner you want!! I really do think people forget the real cost of OpenSource software, that of time spent setting it up, configuring and customising it.
Possibly because he got *SUPPORT* from a *MAJOR CORPORATION*. MS are supplying an inexpensive version of windows (probably a customised WinCE build, at a few dollars cost per install), I doubt that this guy could get such support from Redhat and I seriously doubt that he wanted to build and support that software himself.
And why the fuck are you assuming that MS wants to use this in the constant 'war on OSS'? Cant MS be seen to do a good thing once in a while? (oh yes, the many millions that the Gates foundation gives away is a BAD THING according to slashdot rhetoric, because its a tax dodge. Your enemy can never do any good.) There is nothing to suggest that it has any sort of ulterior motive here, its getting educational items into poor peoples homes - can we leave the advocacy at the door please?
They're trying to convince you that a fifty cent CD is worth fifty bucks, which it ain't. See?
Funnily enough, that note in your wallet with $50 written on it isnt actually worth $50 at all either. You dont just pay for a CD when you buy a game, you are also paying for the hours of work that went into producing whats on the CD. What you are saying basically equates to thinking the $10,000 you pay for a car just goes toward the raw materials.
The fact is, it doesn't affect piracy one bit, but now users gotta deal with additional BS. For example, piece together a new PC and put your copy of XP on it. Now, after activation fails, try to convince Microsoft that you destroyed or got rid of the old computer!
I have actually done this, and there is no problem at all. Ive changed my PC 5 times since I bought the XP license that requires activation, and only on the latest switch did the online activation fail. I rang a 0845 number (UK) and got hold of a very nice girl in a call center. All she asked me was if this installation was a unique install IE I hadnt installed it on other PCs. When I said yes, she reset my activations and gave me the option of activating through her or redoing the online activation, which I chose and was carried out without a problem.
Yes, anti piracy schemes get cracked, but cars also get broken into, you wouldnt see Ford selling cars without a doorlock. They are there to slow down the casual pirates, not the hardcore people.
Nothing like taking characters that we cared about in Aliens and flushing them down the toilet without any thought or creativity whatsoever beyond "well, let's just kill them off in the first 3 minutes so they don't interfere with our script idea".
Newt was killed off because they didnt want the 'issue' of introducing another actress in place of the origional girl, who had literally grown up since Aliens. Hicks was killed off because Michael Biehn didnt want to sign onto the film. Remember, the film was not a book adaption. All in all, i dont actually rate Alien3 that low.
As pointed out in my post, I was referring to ALREADY DISTRIBUTED BINARIES when the restrictions are placed on you. The GPL quite clearly states 'they (restrictions) do not excuse you from the conditions of this license' which specifically includes the dissemination of source code. So, which is it? Does the next line contradict the one ive just quoted? I dont think so, since the peice you go on to complete my quote with specifically pertains to the distribution of the PROGRAM, which I and pretty much all people ive asked in the past few moments take to be the INITIAL distribution of the binary, NOT the distribution of the source code on request. The last paragraph you emphasise again refers to the Program. Since you have already distributed the binary, YOU HAVE ALREADY ENTERED INTO THE GPL and thus the parts you emphasise has already been passed.
If you are aware of the patent issue, then section 7 of the GPL forbids you from distributing the offending code at all, so you wouldnt be able to distribute it, even tho you received it under the GPL. To use it, I think that would be a different matter which a court would have to advise on, since usage is not covered under teh GPL. They cant be bound by the court order unless the court order specifically states such a restriction.
Read my other posts on this subject, the clause can bite you in the ass for stuff YOU HAVE ALREADY DISTRIBUTED. For example, I give you the binary for a GPL application, then the patent claims arise before you get the source code. It is conceivable that a court can order myself TO NOT DISTRIBUTE EITHER THE SOURCE OR THE BINARY, despite you asking myself for the source. The GPL specifically states in the first line of that section that this court order does not releive me of my obligations, so what do I do? The rest of section 7 only pertains to stuff I HAVE NOT YET DISTRIBUTED, but in this case I have already entered into the GPL by giving you the binary before the rest of that section even comes into play.
Firstly, the issue that is being discussed in this article is that the Linux kernel is ALREADY infringing, not by way of code being donated by the patent holders. In this case, my scenario stands - IBMs patent license only applies to those it has distributed to. (Im using IBM as a example, because a link to its downloadable s390 kernel was used before). In this case, Redhat stiull contains no IBM patented code, only code that infringes on IBMs patent (subtle difference:) ).
Secondly, if you read ALL of that paragraph you get this to begin with:
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License
That covers distribution of code for binaries which you have ALREADY distributed, as you later comment on, but in my understanding the GPL tries to superceed the court ruling:).
This is an interesting one. Reading section 7 of the GPL on gnu.org seems to indicate that having a patent issue on the code DOES NOT excuse you from the obligations under the GPL (namely distribution of source code). Indeed, what it does indicate is that you STILL have to fulfil the source obligations under the GPL to those who you distribute it to (and the permission propagates down the chain).
But reading it carefully, it seems to indicate that you are not giving a carte blanche license TO THAT CODE. The 'implied patent license' only applies to those YOU HAVE DISTRIBUTED TO (and on down the chain). This means that the linux kernel IBM has for download may be free from patent issues, but the copy on kernel.org and in redhats distribution may not be. I dont think that was an intention of this paragraph but after running it past a friendly lawyer (hey, dont hear that often do you?:) ) who agrees with me, it might be something that needs looking at.
Also, another problem with the GPL is that it attempts to 'trump' any rulings by the legal courts. Paragraph 7 extends itself outside of patent issues and INCLUDES COURT JUDGEMENTS when it says that they do not excuse you from complying with the license. Personally, I think a court ruling that I cannot distribute the code (for example, my offices and actions are frozen by the court during a federal investigation) would superceed the lowly GPL in that case (indeed, as carrying out the obligation would land me in contempt of court and potentially with a criminal record for such).
Slashdot Mirror
You have to go deep into the Kazaa settings to change the shared folder destination, and oh look, on the same page as the shared folder destination is a tickbox to disable sharing. Oh my, look at that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, these people are commiting copyright infringement.
Interesting concept. What private attorney is going to risk the forclosure of his house so that he can take on a bank? You do understand my point, don't you?
I do understand your point, but my point was that since the law makers arent going to enforce the rules they themselves lay down, then your beef is with them, not the people getting away with it. Fraud is an offence, as is price fixing and cartels.
You say that for all practical purposes a person has bought the DVD and now owns it, without giving regard to the legal text on the box. Im not certain about the US, but everywhere Ive been to, ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. What type of clauses were you thinking of, because we are talking here about very basic infringement of copyright law. The truth of the sale has not been misrepresented at all, tho the intelligence and knowledge of the purchaser may not extend to knowing that it is a crime to infringe on that copyright, but that is still not a valid defence.
You dont put 'it is a crime to steal this item' on the DVD case, so why should you have to put 'it is a crime to copy this item' on the case either?
If the bank was breaking price fixing rules (I dont see the problem in the other two, a bank is perfectly free to show favouritism in the loans it offers or the people or businesses it offers finance to) then the bank should be dealt with by the proper authority, its customers shouldnt storm the bank and help themselves to whats in its vault.
I think your problem is with the authorities, not the bank. When a murderer gets a short sentance, you dont blame the criminal for the short sentance, you blame the judge who gave them that sentance. If a murderer isnt brought to justice, you dont blame the murderer, you blame the police for not doing their job. Wheres the difference? They may have committed a crime, but that gives you absolutely no right to carry out your own punitive measures against them.
Why should the MPAA refrain from suing Movie uploaders? I really dont see the problem with them protecting their investment and property.
Oh, Ok I forget, this is slashdot. Its OK to infringe on the RIAAs or the MPAAs copyright, but theres hell to pay for people infringing the copyright of software under the GPL.
A bank can post record profits, but fraud against that bank is still wrong.
Yeah yeah, Chernobyl only happened once, and we have the nuclear industry's solemn promise that nothing like it will ever happen again. But then, we had their solemn promise that it would never happen the first time, too... so you'll have to forgive people if they are a bit skeptical.
Whoa there cowboy!! How is the Nuclear industries in the UK, France, US and everyone else responsable for the Chernobyl accident? To say that they broke a promise is highly stupid, when they had no means to prevent Chernobyl. After WW2 Germany promised not to invade another country, so should they be held responsable for the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Falkland islands, or anyone else that has been invaded since they made that promise?
As someone earlier stated, Chernobyl happened due to a deliberate act taken on part of the workers. It didnt happen in normal operation, and guess what, in normal operation nuclear reactors are fine, and it takes a hell of a lot of stupidity to get a reactor into the state that the Chenobyl reactor was in.
As for 'renewable energy sources', well guess what. Greenies dont like them either:
- Wind farms: they 'destroy the beauty of the country side' if erected onshore, or they 'damage migratory patterns of birds' or 'damage breeding grounds for fish' if erected offshore.
- Solar: 'destroy the beauty of the country side'
- Hydroelectric: 'destroy countryside or damage tidal actions'
Face it, Greenies just want us to go back to pre industrial revolution type living. hBasically what the Harmony system does is convert the Real media files to AAC (unprotected) and insert them into the Ipods database. That isnt the issue here. What IS at issue is the insertion into the Ipods database. If Real were to make their downloads AAC, then you would have no reason to use their software on the PC, and their install base goes down. THATS the real battle going on here, Real want Realplayer installed everywhere, and they see Ipod compatability as a way to do it.
They reckon on 1.7Trillion to 2.5Trillion barrels of oil total in Canada, of which 300Billion are as easily accesable as Saudi Arabian oil. Thats a lot of oil :) (source)
Canada`s oil reserves are the second largest in the world, only beaten by Saudi Arabia. (source).
How did these cases get linked?! Todays analogous meaning of the Betamax case would be that Tivo devices and MP3 creation tools are not illegal for the purposes of recording broadcast material, whereas the Grokster case says that p2p networks, if suitably distributed, are not illegal because they cannot limit the usage of the network to legal kind. From my (admitably non legal) viewpoint, these cases are almost a universe apart in what they cover, and they certainly do not cover copyright infringement on p2p networks under the guise of fair use.
Linus expects us to honor his copyright when dealing with the linux kernel, lets do the same for all other copyright holders eh?
My god, common sense on slashdot, where the hell did that come from?
If the goods are unfit for the purpose for which they were bought, you can return them for a full refund within fourteen days ('cooling off'), which also applies to most contracts signed for goods. There is a statutory warranty period of twelve months (from date of purchase) that covers faulty or low quality merchandise and is not gotten around by disclaimers.
NB Im assuming UK here, since thats what the GP was talking about. Ok, a few things in your post. Firstly goods dont have to be unfit for the purpose for which they were bought, they have to be unfit for the purpose for which they were sold. Subtle but massive difference.
Theres no such thing as the 14 day cooling off period if the goods were purchased in the shop. if the goods are unfit for the purpose they were sold, then you have 28 days to return the item. The 14 day period applies to goods bought in the home which involves a sum of money greater than a certain amount, or continual payments of money over a period of time. There is a 7 day cooling off period for goods bought at a distance from the time you physically receive the goods, eg over the internet, within which you can return the item for a full refund, under the Distance Selling Act.
There is no such thing as a statutory warranty period, the 12 months you get is purely down to manufacturer good will, they can give you any length warranty. What there is is the Sales of Goods act, which covers goods which were faulty due to manufacturer process or such similiar faults from before the purchase of the item for a period of 7 years from purchase date. During this time if the goods breaks due to a manufacturing defect, you can return the goods for a full refund or a replacement, although the onus is on you to prove that the defect is not a symptom of normal wear and tear.
No, Big Brother airs on 'Channel 4' and its sister satelite channel E4, both part of the Independant Television Network which is advert funded. BBC has BBC1, BBC2, BBC News 24, BBC3 and some others and doesnt advertise anything other than its own products.
Uhm, it doesnt here.
No, MS isnt going to offer support to end users, but it HAS and WILL offer support to the people putting this computer package together. It isnt a simple thing, customising an OS for a given task and system. If he went with OSS then hes going to have to do that himself or get someone else to do it, which by all means isnt a small and insignificant task and in both cases WILL COST MONEY.
This IS going to be a good product, by and large, because its designed to be essentially the next generation setop box. People will use it much in the same way a games console is used, and applications will be loaded in much the same way I imagine. This sort of thing DOES NOT EXIST in the linux world, you have to create it, whereas MS has the experience within themselves from WinCE devices and the Xbox.
This isnt as simple as saying 'by using free software they could wrap it up and sell it with all the major apps pre-installed without having to pay a per computer fee to anyone' because he would STILL be paying someone, free software doesnt just pop up in the configuration and manner you want!! I really do think people forget the real cost of OpenSource software, that of time spent setting it up, configuring and customising it.
Possibly because he got *SUPPORT* from a *MAJOR CORPORATION*. MS are supplying an inexpensive version of windows (probably a customised WinCE build, at a few dollars cost per install), I doubt that this guy could get such support from Redhat and I seriously doubt that he wanted to build and support that software himself.
And why the fuck are you assuming that MS wants to use this in the constant 'war on OSS'? Cant MS be seen to do a good thing once in a while? (oh yes, the many millions that the Gates foundation gives away is a BAD THING according to slashdot rhetoric, because its a tax dodge. Your enemy can never do any good.) There is nothing to suggest that it has any sort of ulterior motive here, its getting educational items into poor peoples homes - can we leave the advocacy at the door please?
They're trying to convince you that a fifty cent CD is worth fifty bucks, which it ain't. See?
Funnily enough, that note in your wallet with $50 written on it isnt actually worth $50 at all either. You dont just pay for a CD when you buy a game, you are also paying for the hours of work that went into producing whats on the CD. What you are saying basically equates to thinking the $10,000 you pay for a car just goes toward the raw materials.
The fact is, it doesn't affect piracy one bit, but now users gotta deal with additional BS. For example, piece together a new PC and put your copy of XP on it. Now, after activation fails, try to convince Microsoft that you destroyed or got rid of the old computer!
I have actually done this, and there is no problem at all. Ive changed my PC 5 times since I bought the XP license that requires activation, and only on the latest switch did the online activation fail. I rang a 0845 number (UK) and got hold of a very nice girl in a call center. All she asked me was if this installation was a unique install IE I hadnt installed it on other PCs. When I said yes, she reset my activations and gave me the option of activating through her or redoing the online activation, which I chose and was carried out without a problem.
Yes, anti piracy schemes get cracked, but cars also get broken into, you wouldnt see Ford selling cars without a doorlock. They are there to slow down the casual pirates, not the hardcore people.
Nothing like taking characters that we cared about in Aliens and flushing them down the toilet without any thought or creativity whatsoever beyond "well, let's just kill them off in the first 3 minutes so they don't interfere with our script idea".
Newt was killed off because they didnt want the 'issue' of introducing another actress in place of the origional girl, who had literally grown up since Aliens. Hicks was killed off because Michael Biehn didnt want to sign onto the film. Remember, the film was not a book adaption. All in all, i dont actually rate Alien3 that low.
Explained like that, it makes sense. Cheers :) (Ignore my other post on this).
As pointed out in my post, I was referring to ALREADY DISTRIBUTED BINARIES when the restrictions are placed on you. The GPL quite clearly states 'they (restrictions) do not excuse you from the conditions of this license' which specifically includes the dissemination of source code. So, which is it? Does the next line contradict the one ive just quoted? I dont think so, since the peice you go on to complete my quote with specifically pertains to the distribution of the PROGRAM, which I and pretty much all people ive asked in the past few moments take to be the INITIAL distribution of the binary, NOT the distribution of the source code on request. The last paragraph you emphasise again refers to the Program. Since you have already distributed the binary, YOU HAVE ALREADY ENTERED INTO THE GPL and thus the parts you emphasise has already been passed.
Of course thats the obvious solution, but hey :)
If you are aware of the patent issue, then section 7 of the GPL forbids you from distributing the offending code at all, so you wouldnt be able to distribute it, even tho you received it under the GPL. To use it, I think that would be a different matter which a court would have to advise on, since usage is not covered under teh GPL. They cant be bound by the court order unless the court order specifically states such a restriction.
Read my other posts on this subject, the clause can bite you in the ass for stuff YOU HAVE ALREADY DISTRIBUTED. For example, I give you the binary for a GPL application, then the patent claims arise before you get the source code. It is conceivable that a court can order myself TO NOT DISTRIBUTE EITHER THE SOURCE OR THE BINARY, despite you asking myself for the source. The GPL specifically states in the first line of that section that this court order does not releive me of my obligations, so what do I do? The rest of section 7 only pertains to stuff I HAVE NOT YET DISTRIBUTED, but in this case I have already entered into the GPL by giving you the binary before the rest of that section even comes into play.
Firstly, the issue that is being discussed in this article is that the Linux kernel is ALREADY infringing, not by way of code being donated by the patent holders. In this case, my scenario stands - IBMs patent license only applies to those it has distributed to. (Im using IBM as a example, because a link to its downloadable s390 kernel was used before). In this case, Redhat stiull contains no IBM patented code, only code that infringes on IBMs patent (subtle difference :) ).
:).
Secondly, if you read ALL of that paragraph you get this to begin with:
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License
That covers distribution of code for binaries which you have ALREADY distributed, as you later comment on, but in my understanding the GPL tries to superceed the court ruling
This is an interesting one. Reading section 7 of the GPL on gnu.org seems to indicate that having a patent issue on the code DOES NOT excuse you from the obligations under the GPL (namely distribution of source code). Indeed, what it does indicate is that you STILL have to fulfil the source obligations under the GPL to those who you distribute it to (and the permission propagates down the chain).
:) ) who agrees with me, it might be something that needs looking at.
But reading it carefully, it seems to indicate that you are not giving a carte blanche license TO THAT CODE. The 'implied patent license' only applies to those YOU HAVE DISTRIBUTED TO (and on down the chain). This means that the linux kernel IBM has for download may be free from patent issues, but the copy on kernel.org and in redhats distribution may not be. I dont think that was an intention of this paragraph but after running it past a friendly lawyer (hey, dont hear that often do you?
Also, another problem with the GPL is that it attempts to 'trump' any rulings by the legal courts. Paragraph 7 extends itself outside of patent issues and INCLUDES COURT JUDGEMENTS when it says that they do not excuse you from complying with the license. Personally, I think a court ruling that I cannot distribute the code (for example, my offices and actions are frozen by the court during a federal investigation) would superceed the lowly GPL in that case (indeed, as carrying out the obligation would land me in contempt of court and potentially with a criminal record for such).
Just some food for thought.