Fatigue gets to be a real issue, if there were no rules, there's a very large possibility that drivers (and passengers) would end up with severe dehydration, or, even more likely, cause an accident.
Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one.
Violating a civil law = breaking the law.
And the law he was looking for is an offence called "Barrartry" which is "using the threat of (baseless) legal action to induce a party to comply with your commands without actually intending to bring the case before a judge (because you know you're wrong) Lawyers can lose their right to be lawyers for pulling that kind of shit, if the "defendant" is clued in enough to file the proper complaint.
There's nothing baseless about these threats. That's my point.
Not in general, but I would argue that 17 USC, section 1201, specifically, is unconstitutional.
And I'd argue that it's not. But at least we saved ourselves the trouble of actually making the actual arguments. We wouldn't have actually solved anything anyway.
The copyright laws, as they were written originally, did not aim to punish filesharers, since it was considered fair-use (you were only physically capable of share with friends and family at the time) and only became illegal through the lobbying of united agents in the 90s.
Where are you getting that from? Filesharing was made criminal in 1997, but you could be held liable in civil court and an injunction could be granted against you since music was first protected under copyright law.
[16:57:45] Alterslash is illegal. [16:57:52] <hemos_> And is violating copyright. [16:57:56] <CmdrTaco> Oh, this is a real site? [16:58:02] <hemos_> And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works [16:58:11] <hemos_> they will probably get a cease and desist soon. [16:58:21] <hemos_> Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right to defend ourselves. [16:58:26] <hemos_> So, I don't want to be hostile [16:58:33] <CmdrTaco> oh geezus, yeah. [16:58:35] <hemos_> but because of the law, we have to. http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-20020 306.t xt
I don't know what to make of this post. It seems like such a great parody of affirmative action/overzealous political correctness, but I can't find any hint of non-seriousness in it. Great troll, or man you're fucked up, depending on which.
Do you want a corporation to have the power to decide arbitrarily the outcome of elections?
Whatever. Do you really think your life would be any better or worse if Gore were elected instead of Bush? I mean, yeah, it would be one or the other, but personally I don't know which. As it is now, between soft money and corporate control of the debates, corporations already do have the power to decide arbitrarily the outcome of elections.
What, in this case one single corporation has the power to swing an already close election one way or another? That's already the case.
Yeah, we studied it in my Constitutional Law class. It rested upon the fact that there was a preliminary injunction made, which is a prior restraint of free speech. In this case there is no preliminary injunction, and the government has made no prior restraint of free speech.
If the DMCA can be used to prevent the publication and dissemination of these documents, doesn't that suggest that the DMCA violates the 1st Amendment, and thus must be struck as unconstitutional?
Of course not. Copyright law has always been able to be used to prevent the publication and dissemination of newsworthy documents which touch on matters of public interest. Would you claim that copyright law itself is unconstitutional?
I don't know where you see anything suggesting someone might feel justified in even breaking the law, let alone resorting to murder, in what I've written.
It seems to be the same argument to me. That's all I'm saying. Sure, killing someone is much more harsh than suing them, but in the mind of someone who believes that abortion is murder abortion is much more harsh than refusing to release source. The basic argument, that individuals have a right to force their morality upon others, is the same.
The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated.
Not quite. The FSF believes it has a legal case, a way of forcing Cisco to do what it believes it right, because the FSF can enforce the license for the original code which dictated that Cisco, as a user, make its changes free too.
While the FSF obviously believes it has a legal case, it also obviously believes it has the moral right to "force Cisco to do what it believes is right."
The FSF believes the right thing, regardless of whether Cisco took GPL'd code or not, is for Cisco to make that code free.
And by free they mean that the source code be released. And this is one disagreement I have with them. Just because someone writes code doesn't mean they should be obligated to release the source code. Sometimes by not releasing source code they can earn more money, and thereby be able to write even more code than they would otherwise be able to. It is an individual decision which should be made in light of the specific circumstances.
But the fact that it is an individual decision is my main disagreement with the FSF. Just because the FSF has a legal right to force Cisco to make a particular decision doesn't mean it has a moral right to do so. The FSF's concept of "Free Software" is fine even if it is a bit unrealistic, but forcing that concept upon others is wrong.
From the FSF standpoint, to go back to your original point, it isn't immoral to force someone to abide by the terms of the GPL because not performing the actions dictated by the GPL, whether the person is redistributing GPL'd code or his or her own, is immoral, in their view, anyway.
I guess both my disagreements are really the same. I don't think it's immoral to not release your source code. Therefore I think it is immoral to force someone else to release their source code.
The second point is more a matter of practicality, I guess. There are some points upon which reasonable people can disagree, and so for practical purposes it's better to live and let live than to get involved. I mean, the argument you're making can easily be used to justify acts such as the killing of doctors who perform abortions. But that's more a practical consideration, I guess.
The problem here seems to hinge on what is "voluntary," and what is "forced." It comes down to a question of what actions need to have permission granted in order to do. In your argument, in order for Cisco to distribute code which was written by the FSF, they must agree to a contract with the FSF. In my argument, no such contract should be necessary.
Whether or not Cisco even consented to such a contract is obviously in dispute between the FSF and Cisco. But that's even beyond my point, which is that Cisco should not have been put into the position of choosing between agreeing to the contract and letting the code go to waste in the first place.
The FSF wrote a bunch of code. Kudos to them. Linksys came around and adapted that code to be more useful. Kudos to them too. But then the FSF comes along and threatens Linksys with a lawsuit because they didn't play by the FSF's rules when they adapted that code. The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated. But I think that's bullshit. Free code should include the freedom to hide your source. Enforcing copyright law, other than defensively (like Linux users countersuing SCO), is immoral.
Which means nothing. "each copy accompanies the source" is not sufficient. The source must accompany each copy! That's reversed.
Fine. The source accompanies each copy.
And since each copy was not accompanied by source, nor offer for source, they were illegally obtained.
You don't know that. Perhaps each copy was accompanied by source.
Since you have a theory that the GPL has a loophole which makes it completely meaningless, but you haven't backed this up, I'm not the one trolling here.
That's your theory, I merely agreed with it. And it seems like you're not even disputing that theory, merely arguing about whether it requires 1 CD or 400,000.
It says you must accompany "the copy" with "the source code". That's 1:1.
No it's not. If two copies accompany one copy of source code, then each copy accompanies the source.
Your "First Sale Loophole" theory rests on the idea that each of the 400,000 chips was an independent GPL-authorized transaction, meaning each one needs a separate copy of source code.
No it doesn't. It rests merely on the fact that the copies are legally obtained.
Did they ship 1 cd per chip? No. Did they even ship 1 cd per temporally separate delivery of chips? Enormously doubtful. They might not have even given the source code at all.
Pure accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Stop trolling.
Are you claiming that Broadcom actually shipped 400,000 CD-ROMs full of source code, one for each chip they sold to Linksys?
They wouldn't have to ship 400,000 CD-ROMs, only one.
(And if there isn't a 1:1 matchup between code and source, your "First Sale" theory has no prayer of applicability).
Why? The GPL does not require a 1:1 matchup between code and source. It only requires that when you distribute the code, you accompany it with source. It doesn't say you have to accompany the code with a number of copies of the source equal to the number of copies of code.
Oh, you're just trolling now huh? Not even trying to hide it. Stopped making sense about 8 posts ago... why am I even bothering to reply?
I have no idea, since you obviously are too stupid to understand me.
And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone?
It allows you to make copies and distribute them for free.
It's not like you can redistribute a GPL program if you don't have the source code (or an offer)- you wouldn't be able to complete the requirement to include source code (or an offer).
That's circular logic there. You're saying if you didn't have to distribute the source code, then you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you wouldn't have the source code. Sounds like I'm the one being trolled, and unlike you, I don't find the need to continue this discussion any further.
The requirement to license your derivative work under the GPL.
(The fact that customers purchasing a router will be able to extract ROM images to freely use in their own projects is small consolation, and not at all what the GPL is meant to do)
It's certainly part of what the GPL is meant to do.
And recursively, back when he was making the copies, "someone else" must have agreed to the GPL, or else it was illegal.
Of course.
If he DID comply with the GPL back then, the copies you got will have the GPL license attached to them, and such things as "an offer valid for 3 years for any 3rd party to request a copy of the source code".
Or they could just "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."
If you pass that software to your customers, then the GPL is on it, and they can ask for the source code.
They can ask, but you don't have to give it to them, since you never agreed to the GPL. And the GPL only requires the original copying party to give source code to you. Sure, if you use option b), the offer is valid to all third parties, but this is not required if you're using option a).
Are you seriously suggesting that the GPL can be completely evaded just by asking a separate entity to make copies of the modified GPLed program before you sell them?
Not completely, but you can avoid the requirement to distribute source code thihs way.
And since making a copy of software without permission is illegal, you are not the owner of those copies unless you agreed to the GPL before making them.
Not true. If someone else made the copies, and then sold them to you, then you are the owner.
It's not disputed that they downloaded Linux, modified it, made thousands of copies, and sold them.
According to the article, Broadcom is the one that did that.
You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.
Well, no. You said that the First Sale doctrine "makes no mention of a limit as to how many copies you can resell". This is simply not correct: it is mentioned quite explicitly that the legal owner of a particular copy is allowed to resell that particular copy.
Yes, but there is no limit as to how many copies you can resell, as long as you are the owner of each copy.
Hence the word "If" that began my sentence. Anyway, "if" that were the case, then Linksys is still bound by the requirements of the GPL; if any of its customers ask to see source code derived from GPL'd software, they must still provide it, as a distributor of GPL'd software.
Wrong. Linksys is not bound by the GPL, because Linksys never agreed to the GPL. Again, it's like saying a reseller is bound to the Microsoft EULA and therefore is not allowed to resell on eBay.
You can try to juggle blame between Broadcom and Linksys all you want, but in the end, if someone is sold GPL'd software, then they have the right to see the source code. It is not complicated.
Of course if you legally own two copies, then First Sale applies twice. That's not what you were saying, however.
You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.
You say: "If you lawfully obtain hundreds of thousands of copies, you can lawfully resell hundreds of thousands of copies." If Broadcom distributed GPL'd software without complying with its conditions, then Cisco/Linksys did not legally obtain those copies, and they therefore have no First Sale rights.
How do you know Broadcom did not comply with the GPL? Maybe Broadcom gave Linksys the source code to its changes.
The answer, they say, is to borrow a technique from the underground music-swapping community. Instead of storing the data in one place, they plan to distribute it around the internet in a similar way to the notorious Napster software that got music file-sharing under way.
That's great... We're worried about getting sued, so we're going to borrow a technique from a company that was sued out of existence. Smart plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Fatigue gets to be a real issue, if there were no rules, there's a very large possibility that drivers (and passengers) would end up with severe dehydration, or, even more likely, cause an accident.
Then they wouldn't win, now would they?
For the most part, they aren't breaking the law.
Copyright violation is a contractual issue, not a criminal one.
Violating a civil law = breaking the law.
And the law he was looking for is an offence called "Barrartry" which is "using the threat of (baseless) legal action to induce a party to comply with your commands without actually intending to bring the case before a judge (because you know you're wrong) Lawyers can lose their right to be lawyers for pulling that kind of shit, if the "defendant" is clued in enough to file the proper complaint.
There's nothing baseless about these threats. That's my point.
Not in general, but I would argue that 17 USC, section 1201, specifically, is unconstitutional.
And I'd argue that it's not. But at least we saved ourselves the trouble of actually making the actual arguments. We wouldn't have actually solved anything anyway.
The copyright laws, as they were written originally, did not aim to punish filesharers, since it was considered fair-use (you were only physically capable of share with friends and family at the time) and only became illegal through the lobbying of united agents in the 90s.
Where are you getting that from? Filesharing was made criminal in 1997, but you could be held liable in civil court and an injunction could be granted against you since music was first protected under copyright law.
Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money?
Not if those people you are threatening expensive litigation against are breaking the law!
[16:57:45] Alterslash is illegal.0 306.t xt
[16:57:52] <hemos_> And is violating copyright.
[16:57:56] <CmdrTaco> Oh, this is a real site?
[16:58:02] <hemos_> And unfortunately, under the way US copyright law works
[16:58:11] <hemos_> they will probably get a cease and desist soon.
[16:58:21] <hemos_> Becuase if we don't - then we give up the right to defend ourselves.
[16:58:26] <hemos_> So, I don't want to be hostile
[16:58:33] <CmdrTaco> oh geezus, yeah.
[16:58:35] <hemos_> but because of the law, we have to.
http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot-2002
1 out of every 3 people who claimed to be females pretending to be males were actually males pretending to be females?
I don't know what to make of this post. It seems like such a great parody of affirmative action/overzealous political correctness, but I can't find any hint of non-seriousness in it. Great troll, or man you're fucked up, depending on which.
Do you want a corporation to have the power to decide arbitrarily the outcome of elections?
Whatever. Do you really think your life would be any better or worse if Gore were elected instead of Bush? I mean, yeah, it would be one or the other, but personally I don't know which. As it is now, between soft money and corporate control of the debates, corporations already do have the power to decide arbitrarily the outcome of elections.
What, in this case one single corporation has the power to swing an already close election one way or another? That's already the case.
Remember the Pentagon Papers case?
Yeah, we studied it in my Constitutional Law class. It rested upon the fact that there was a preliminary injunction made, which is a prior restraint of free speech. In this case there is no preliminary injunction, and the government has made no prior restraint of free speech.
If the DMCA can be used to prevent the publication and dissemination of these documents, doesn't that suggest that the DMCA violates the 1st Amendment, and thus must be struck as unconstitutional?
Of course not. Copyright law has always been able to be used to prevent the publication and dissemination of newsworthy documents which touch on matters of public interest. Would you claim that copyright law itself is unconstitutional?
Now, come on, this is getting absurd. The FSF is not arguing that murdering people is a legitimate response to the lack of release of free software.
Agreed.
And again, you're again missing the point. You're arguing hypocracy here, because the FSF fails to abide by your sense of right and wrong.
I never mentioned hypocrisy.
Your sense is that unfree software is not a crime that rises to a level you believe requires enforcement
No, my sense is that not releasing your source code is not a crime at all.
I don't know where you see anything suggesting someone might feel justified in even breaking the law, let alone resorting to murder, in what I've written.
It seems to be the same argument to me. That's all I'm saying. Sure, killing someone is much more harsh than suing them, but in the mind of someone who believes that abortion is murder abortion is much more harsh than refusing to release source. The basic argument, that individuals have a right to force their morality upon others, is the same.
The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated.
Not quite. The FSF believes it has a legal case, a way of forcing Cisco to do what it believes it right, because the FSF can enforce the license for the original code which dictated that Cisco, as a user, make its changes free too.
While the FSF obviously believes it has a legal case, it also obviously believes it has the moral right to "force Cisco to do what it believes is right."
The FSF believes the right thing, regardless of whether Cisco took GPL'd code or not, is for Cisco to make that code free.
And by free they mean that the source code be released. And this is one disagreement I have with them. Just because someone writes code doesn't mean they should be obligated to release the source code. Sometimes by not releasing source code they can earn more money, and thereby be able to write even more code than they would otherwise be able to. It is an individual decision which should be made in light of the specific circumstances.
But the fact that it is an individual decision is my main disagreement with the FSF. Just because the FSF has a legal right to force Cisco to make a particular decision doesn't mean it has a moral right to do so. The FSF's concept of "Free Software" is fine even if it is a bit unrealistic, but forcing that concept upon others is wrong.
From the FSF standpoint, to go back to your original point, it isn't immoral to force someone to abide by the terms of the GPL because not performing the actions dictated by the GPL, whether the person is redistributing GPL'd code or his or her own, is immoral, in their view, anyway.
I guess both my disagreements are really the same. I don't think it's immoral to not release your source code. Therefore I think it is immoral to force someone else to release their source code.
The second point is more a matter of practicality, I guess. There are some points upon which reasonable people can disagree, and so for practical purposes it's better to live and let live than to get involved. I mean, the argument you're making can easily be used to justify acts such as the killing of doctors who perform abortions. But that's more a practical consideration, I guess.
The problem here seems to hinge on what is "voluntary," and what is "forced." It comes down to a question of what actions need to have permission granted in order to do. In your argument, in order for Cisco to distribute code which was written by the FSF, they must agree to a contract with the FSF. In my argument, no such contract should be necessary.
Whether or not Cisco even consented to such a contract is obviously in dispute between the FSF and Cisco. But that's even beyond my point, which is that Cisco should not have been put into the position of choosing between agreeing to the contract and letting the code go to waste in the first place.
The FSF wrote a bunch of code. Kudos to them. Linksys came around and adapted that code to be more useful. Kudos to them too. But then the FSF comes along and threatens Linksys with a lawsuit because they didn't play by the FSF's rules when they adapted that code. The FSF thinks that's perfectly fine, because since they wrote the original code, they get to dictate the terms under which it may be adapated. But I think that's bullshit. Free code should include the freedom to hide your source. Enforcing copyright law, other than defensively (like Linux users countersuing SCO), is immoral.
Which means nothing. "each copy accompanies the source" is not sufficient. The source must accompany each copy! That's reversed.
Fine. The source accompanies each copy.
And since each copy was not accompanied by source, nor offer for source, they were illegally obtained.
You don't know that. Perhaps each copy was accompanied by source.
Since you have a theory that the GPL has a loophole which makes it completely meaningless, but you haven't backed this up, I'm not the one trolling here.
That's your theory, I merely agreed with it. And it seems like you're not even disputing that theory, merely arguing about whether it requires 1 CD or 400,000.
It says you must accompany "the copy" with "the source code". That's 1:1.
No it's not. If two copies accompany one copy of source code, then each copy accompanies the source.
Your "First Sale Loophole" theory rests on the idea that each of the 400,000 chips was an independent GPL-authorized transaction, meaning each one needs a separate copy of source code.
No it doesn't. It rests merely on the fact that the copies are legally obtained.
Did they ship 1 cd per chip? No. Did they even ship 1 cd per temporally separate delivery of chips? Enormously doubtful. They might not have even given the source code at all.
Pure accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Stop trolling.
Are you claiming that Broadcom actually shipped 400,000 CD-ROMs full of source code, one for each chip they sold to Linksys?
They wouldn't have to ship 400,000 CD-ROMs, only one.
(And if there isn't a 1:1 matchup between code and source, your "First Sale" theory has no prayer of applicability).
Why? The GPL does not require a 1:1 matchup between code and source. It only requires that when you distribute the code, you accompany it with source. It doesn't say you have to accompany the code with a number of copies of the source equal to the number of copies of code.
By that latter they do you mean Cisco or the FSF?
FSF
Why shouldn't the FSF enforce the terms of their license on the people selling software to which the FSF holds copyright?
Because software should be free and unrestricted.
Oh, you're just trolling now huh? Not even trying to hide it. Stopped making sense about 8 posts ago... why am I even bothering to reply?
I have no idea, since you obviously are too stupid to understand me.
And if there is no source code available, what does the license status of the derived work do for anyone?
It allows you to make copies and distribute them for free.
It's not like you can redistribute a GPL program if you don't have the source code (or an offer)- you wouldn't be able to complete the requirement to include source code (or an offer).
That's circular logic there. You're saying if you didn't have to distribute the source code, then you wouldn't be able to redistribute, because you wouldn't have the source code. Sounds like I'm the one being trolled, and unlike you, I don't find the need to continue this discussion any further.
And what else is there to avoid?
The requirement to license your derivative work under the GPL.
(The fact that customers purchasing a router will be able to extract ROM images to freely use in their own projects is small consolation, and not at all what the GPL is meant to do)
It's certainly part of what the GPL is meant to do.
And recursively, back when he was making the copies, "someone else" must have agreed to the GPL, or else it was illegal.
Of course.
If he DID comply with the GPL back then, the copies you got will have the GPL license attached to them, and such things as "an offer valid for 3 years for any 3rd party to request a copy of the source code".
Or they could just "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code."
If you pass that software to your customers, then the GPL is on it, and they can ask for the source code.
They can ask, but you don't have to give it to them, since you never agreed to the GPL. And the GPL only requires the original copying party to give source code to you. Sure, if you use option b), the offer is valid to all third parties, but this is not required if you're using option a).
Are you seriously suggesting that the GPL can be completely evaded just by asking a separate entity to make copies of the modified GPLed program before you sell them?
Not completely, but you can avoid the requirement to distribute source code thihs way.
And since making a copy of software without permission is illegal, you are not the owner of those copies unless you agreed to the GPL before making them.
Not true. If someone else made the copies, and then sold them to you, then you are the owner.
It's not disputed that they downloaded Linux, modified it, made thousands of copies, and sold them.
According to the article, Broadcom is the one that did that.
You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.
Well, no. You said that the First Sale doctrine "makes no mention of a limit as to how many copies you can resell". This is simply not correct: it is mentioned quite explicitly that the legal owner of a particular copy is allowed to resell that particular copy.
Yes, but there is no limit as to how many copies you can resell, as long as you are the owner of each copy.
Hence the word "If" that began my sentence. Anyway, "if" that were the case, then Linksys is still bound by the requirements of the GPL; if any of its customers ask to see source code derived from GPL'd software, they must still provide it, as a distributor of GPL'd software.
Wrong. Linksys is not bound by the GPL, because Linksys never agreed to the GPL. Again, it's like saying a reseller is bound to the Microsoft EULA and therefore is not allowed to resell on eBay.
You can try to juggle blame between Broadcom and Linksys all you want, but in the end, if someone is sold GPL'd software, then they have the right to see the source code. It is not complicated.
It's not complicated, but it's also not correct.
Of course if you legally own two copies, then First Sale applies twice. That's not what you were saying, however.
You misunderstood me, because that's exactly what I was saying.
You say: "If you lawfully obtain hundreds of thousands of copies, you can lawfully resell hundreds of thousands of copies." If Broadcom distributed GPL'd software without complying with its conditions, then Cisco/Linksys did not legally obtain those copies, and they therefore have no First Sale rights.
How do you know Broadcom did not comply with the GPL? Maybe Broadcom gave Linksys the source code to its changes.
The answer, they say, is to borrow a technique from the underground music-swapping community. Instead of storing the data in one place, they plan to distribute it around the internet in a similar way to the notorious Napster software that got music file-sharing under way.
That's great... We're worried about getting sued, so we're going to borrow a technique from a company that was sued out of existence. Smart plan.