The article makes a legitimate point about the isolating effects of internet filtering. But it goes too far in identifying the building of a new, high-speed internal network and the use of IPv6 as part of a Chinese effort to create some kind of separate internet island.
For example, the article correctly states that IPv6 is "scarcely used," but never mentions that it is an internationally recognized standard created to replace (eventually) the current IPv4 and supported by all modern operating systems.
DirecTV had already been told by the courts dozens of times that it needed evidence of actual interception, not just evidence of possession. So it isn't giving up anything by making the agreement with the EFF. We'll just have to see whether it changes its intimidating, aggressive, accusatory collection practices.
The author says that those who dismiss SCO's claims haven't really analyzed their merits, but have relied on the opinions of others. But he doesn't do any merits analysis either. He just looks at who has indemnified their users and who hasn't -- that is, the opinions of others -- and suggests there is something significant in IBM's and Red Hat's failure to offer indemnification.
There isn't. Whether you distribute proprietary software or GPL'd software, there is always a nonzero risk that some of your code, one day, might be held to infringe someone else's intellectual property rights. Indemnifying against that risk therefore has nonzero cost. Proprietary software vendors can cover that cost in the license fee they charge for the software. But GPL software vendors do not and cannot charge a "license fee" for the software.
Obviously, GPL software vendors can and do charge for other things, such as maintenance and support, access to FTP and web sites, or even copies of the program. But they cannot charge a "license fee" for the right to obtain or use the program. If you can't and don't charge a license fee for the code, you shouldn't be expected to provide either a warranty or an indemnity.
Whatever Eben Moglen thinks, most courts regard licenses such as the GPL as enforceable through contract law as well as copyright law. You legally "accept" or "agree" to the license when you copy, distribute, make derivative works, or otherwise do something to copyrighted software that would otherwise infringe the copyright holder's exclusive rights.
I understand that Moglen wants to distinguish in kind what he does with the GPL from what proprietary software companies do with their license agreements. But there is no such distinction. Both grant consent to conduct that would otherwise infringe the copyright; the FSF just conditions its consent on different terms.
Actually, it's both. The GPL gives you a license to copy and distribute GPL'd software as long as you comply with the license. If you don't comply, then you have violated the GPL (your license) and you have committed copyright infringement.
While IBM may have the Cravath firm, SCO has David Boies. Boies first made his name AS A PARTNER IN CRAVATH representing IBM in the private antitrust lawsuits in the 1970s. As I'm sure you know, he also won the federal government's case against Microsoft. He argued Gore's case to the Supreme Court; though he lost, I think most people thought he was by far the best advocate.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a pet theory of mine. The things that geeks liked about the show are NOT the things that made it number one among regular people.
The article makes a legitimate point about the isolating effects of internet filtering. But it goes too far in identifying the building of a new, high-speed internal network and the use of IPv6 as part of a Chinese effort to create some kind of separate internet island.
For example, the article correctly states that IPv6 is "scarcely used," but never mentions that it is an internationally recognized standard created to replace (eventually) the current IPv4 and supported by all modern operating systems.
This is subtle trickery designed to mislead.
Even though 90% of the people knew ultimately where the [Matrix trilogy] was headed, everyone still wanted the little details.
Even after seeing all the Matrix movies I don't know where they were headed, where they actually got to, or whether they ran off the path on the way.
DirecTV had already been told by the courts dozens of times that it needed evidence of actual interception, not just evidence of possession. So it isn't giving up anything by making the agreement with the EFF. We'll just have to see whether it changes its intimidating, aggressive, accusatory collection practices.
The author says that those who dismiss SCO's claims haven't really analyzed their merits, but have relied on the opinions of others. But he doesn't do any merits analysis either. He just looks at who has indemnified their users and who hasn't -- that is, the opinions of others -- and suggests there is something significant in IBM's and Red Hat's failure to offer indemnification.
There isn't. Whether you distribute proprietary software or GPL'd software, there is always a nonzero risk that some of your code, one day, might be held to infringe someone else's intellectual property rights. Indemnifying against that risk therefore has nonzero cost. Proprietary software vendors can cover that cost in the license fee they charge for the software. But GPL software vendors do not and cannot charge a "license fee" for the software.
Obviously, GPL software vendors can and do charge for other things, such as maintenance and support, access to FTP and web sites, or even copies of the program. But they cannot charge a "license fee" for the right to obtain or use the program. If you can't and don't charge a license fee for the code, you shouldn't be expected to provide either a warranty or an indemnity.
Whatever Eben Moglen thinks, most courts regard licenses such as the GPL as enforceable through contract law as well as copyright law. You legally "accept" or "agree" to the license when you copy, distribute, make derivative works, or otherwise do something to copyrighted software that would otherwise infringe the copyright holder's exclusive rights.
I understand that Moglen wants to distinguish in kind what he does with the GPL from what proprietary software companies do with their license agreements. But there is no such distinction. Both grant consent to conduct that would otherwise infringe the copyright; the FSF just conditions its consent on different terms.
Actually, it's both. The GPL gives you a license to copy and distribute GPL'd software as long as you comply with the license. If you don't comply, then you have violated the GPL (your license) and you have committed copyright infringement.
While IBM may have the Cravath firm, SCO has David Boies. Boies first made his name AS A PARTNER IN CRAVATH representing IBM in the private antitrust lawsuits in the 1970s. As I'm sure you know, he also won the federal government's case against Microsoft. He argued Gore's case to the Supreme Court; though he lost, I think most people thought he was by far the best advocate.
This just in: he's good.