In the case you refer to, FormGen claims that Micro Star is creating derivative works, not that Micro Star is enabling the players to create derivative works.
Yes, on further examination, I guess you're right. I guess Galoob v. Nintendo is the best I can come up with, and Galoob won that case, so it's surely not the best. In both cases the ninth circuit appeals court implies that it is willing to consider preparation of derivitive works to be infringement without distribution of that derivitive work, so long as that derivitive work is in "concrete or permanent form".
You're mistaken. Copyright law says you cannot prepare a derivitive work, regardless of whether or not you distribute that derivitive work. See for example Micro Star v. Formgen. In this case, Micro Star distributed MAP files for Duke Nukem. The MAP files were not derivitive works, but they allowed the end-user to create derivititive works.
Including header files only contains code if there are #defines with code in the header file. Even in that case, if they're only short functions defined, it could be argued that the header files are not copyrightable. Remember that "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work".
To be safe, you should reverse engineer your own header files, but the outcome of that particular case is by no means obvious.
as long as your product has zero bits of their data they have nothing to say in the issue
Napster has zero bits of the RIAA's data in it, but they're still liable for contributory copyright infringement. See Galoob v. Nintendo for some of the intricacies of the situation. Unlike Galoob, the derivitive work created by the library is in fixed form.
Dynamically linking to a library does not include other people's code, and the license restrictions don't apply. Even though header files can be copyrighted, the API cannot.
It's more complicated than that. Distributing a dynamically linked library, without distributing the product which uses the library, is legal, in and of itself. However, linking that library to the distributed product is creating a derivitive work, and so distributing that library (if it only works with one product) may be contributory copyright infringement. From the LGPL:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
But -- and this is the absolutely salient point -- they could.
Are you suggesting that my searches have somehow broken the law?
Are you that confident that they won't decide someday there is profit in, say tracking who searches for Newsweek and sends them junk mail trying to get you to switch to Time?
They'd have to find out my email address first. And then they'd have to send me junk mail. At which point the boycotts would start.
What if you apply for a job at any of the many companies owned by AOL Time Warner, and they check the databases for people known to search Google for information on illegal drugs, or to make AOL-bashing comments on/.?
I will never be so desperate for a job that I will change my lifestyle for a company. If AOL doesn't want to hire me for who I am, then I won't work for them.
"Eh, I figured as much anyway." Would you say that if you found that the CIA had been wiretapping your phone line and/or DSL/Cable line for the past 6 months?
Here's the reality: You block ads. You cost us money. Ultimately, I mean.
Actually this could be easily fixed, since only 12% of ads are paid advertisements. Just have an option in preferences which lets people turn off ads. As long as you don't have more than 88% of people use that option, your revenue loss is $0. In fact, you actually gain revenue, because you'll have higher clickthrough rates (since the adbusters and those strongly opposed to ads don't ever get ads).
If more than 88% (really 94% since you could probably double your CPM rate) of the people go through the bother of turning off ads, then you probably don't have a legitimate revenue stream to begin with.
WRONG. You automatically have the right to use something I make? wtf country is this in?
I automatically have the right to use something I buy. This is the United States.
Re:Hemos, Taco: You blew it.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Not only do they provide bandwidth, they provide the servers, the disk space, and the administration.
Right, they provide for the publication and marketing of our content... Just like the RIAA.
without them providing all this stuff, such a huge site wouldn't be able to survive
And without the RIAA, huge artists wouldn't survive either.
the current SlashDot community would be splintered into many, many litle communitues, each of which would be supported by the generosity of someone paying for it out of pocket
Slashdot could easily be run peer-to-peer, napster-style. Cost to run: about $100/month.
SlashDot is losing money right now. If they want to so much as break even, they have to make money somehow.
Or they could cut costs.
Anyways, you don't have to subscribe.
Nor do you have to buy CDs.
You can just put up with the annoyingly big adds, or use JunkBuster, or something.
You can listen to all your music on the radio.
Putting an annoying ad before comments isn't doing anything close to what the RIAA is doing to the artists and listeners.
Actually, putting annoying ads in the free version of the content is exactly what the RIAA does. At least they're not charging per hit, yet.
Taco admits he doesn't even read the articles...
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 1, Troll
I just read the submission and decide based on that.
Re:Hemos, Taco: You blew it.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Posting doesn't pay the bandwidth bills.
Sure it does. Without posts no one would pay for slashdot. No one. In true RIAA fashion, slashdot has resorted to profiting off other people's content. Sure, they provide the bandwidth and the name recognition. They market my words. It's starting to sound a hell of a lot like the RIAA now. About the only differences are that the RIAA only takes 99% of the profits, whereas slashdot takes 100%, and that the RIAA is successful, whereas slashdot isn't, yet...
Re:Plain, not strict, interpretation
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
You need to distribute whatever is needed to transform the source -- in the form that *you* the developer normally use to modify it -- into the object files you distribute.
Does this mean that AOL is violating the GPL, by not distributing Visual C++ with the source of mozilla?
he said "but its really flashing on and off faster than you can see." NOT that it dims *slightly*. big difference
Hmm, considering that light is quantized in packets called photons, and intensity is simply a measure of the number of photons released per second, I'd have to disagree. Flashing on and off at a certain rate is exactly equivalent to dimming.
They are additional restrictions, and you are (maybe, depending on a courts point of view) bound by the license if you use the product at all.
Contracts are not enforcible if there is no consideration. Giving someone the right to use software is not consideration, because they already have that right under the law.
I would argue, as may others, that the GPL is a more noble cause to resign over than an agreement which exists to make the world's richest corporation even richer.
I don't find it morally wrong to modify someone else's software and sell it to others without releasing the source code. As such I would encourage my employer to break all copyright laws (if it weren't for the fact that that was illegal). I certainly wouldn't discourage it.
Here we have a case where someone is willing to make enhancements to GPLed software and release it for free (beer) for everyone to use. But the GPL proposes that that is illegal. That's ridiculous IMHO, just as ridiculous as Microsoft's EULA. In fact, it's even more ridiculous, because the motive isn't even one of profit, it's over some stupid concept of "software is not free unless you have source code".
If you share RMS's goals, that is, if you want the government to force all programmers to release source code with all software they write, then fine. But I want the government to have less power over programmers, not more.
The GPL is not an end user licensing agreement because end users don't need to worry about it. Only non-end users (those who plan to redistribute) need to accept it.
You only need to worry about any EULA if you do things which require a license. For instance, you only need to worry about the Windows 98 EULA if you use the software on multiple computers on a network, since this is forbidden by copyright law.
You should suggest to your company that instead of releasing the whole source code, they only release an obfuscated patch to the source code. As long as the patch does not contain any of the original work, it is not a derivitive work, and you will not be breaking the GPL.
Re:Your lawyer is a fucking retard
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
'Breaking' the GPL would seem to be a civil, not criminal offence, would it not?
Not if you break it willfully for "purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". Willfully would be hard to prove in this instance though, since a lawyer in good faith advised the company that what it was doing was not illegal.
Sure, cocaine trafficking would be perfectly legal, so long as posession of cocaine was legal in both countries
There is no federal law against possession of cocaine. There couldn't be, since such a law would be unconstitutional (10th ammendment).
and it was transported in such a manner as to not break any meatspace laws.
I see what you're getting at... I was under the impression that Elcomsoft was shipping a product into the U.S. (after further research, I don't think they ever were). I guess I could support a ruling that the internet existed as a separate internationally controlled space.
But I'm one of those folks who believes that 1s and 0s should never be illegal in the first place. I don't think the U.S. court system is ready to give up on laws against spam, hacking, copyright infringement, slander, libel, spying, usury, practice of law without a license, securities fraud, etc. just yet.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case you refer to, FormGen claims that Micro Star is creating derivative works, not that Micro Star is enabling the players to create derivative works.
Yes, on further examination, I guess you're right. I guess Galoob v. Nintendo is the best I can come up with, and Galoob won that case, so it's surely not the best. In both cases the ninth circuit appeals court implies that it is willing to consider preparation of derivitive works to be infringement without distribution of that derivitive work, so long as that derivitive work is in "concrete or permanent form".
You're mistaken. Copyright law says you cannot prepare a derivitive work, regardless of whether or not you distribute that derivitive work. See for example Micro Star v. Formgen. In this case, Micro Star distributed MAP files for Duke Nukem. The MAP files were not derivitive works, but they allowed the end-user to create derivititive works.
Creation of a derivitive work without permission is copyright infringement. Linking a binary to a dynamic library creates a derivitive work.
Including header files only contains code if there are #defines with code in the header file. Even in that case, if they're only short functions defined, it could be argued that the header files are not copyrightable. Remember that "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work".
To be safe, you should reverse engineer your own header files, but the outcome of that particular case is by no means obvious.
as long as your product has zero bits of their data they have nothing to say in the issue
Napster has zero bits of the RIAA's data in it, but they're still liable for contributory copyright infringement. See Galoob v. Nintendo for some of the intricacies of the situation. Unlike Galoob, the derivitive work created by the library is in fixed form.
Dynamically linking to a library does not include other people's code, and the license restrictions don't apply. Even though header files can be copyrighted, the API cannot.
It's more complicated than that. Distributing a dynamically linked library, without distributing the product which uses the library, is legal, in and of itself. However, linking that library to the distributed product is creating a derivitive work, and so distributing that library (if it only works with one product) may be contributory copyright infringement. From the LGPL:
But -- and this is the absolutely salient point -- they could.
Are you suggesting that my searches have somehow broken the law?
Are you that confident that they won't decide someday there is profit in, say tracking who searches for Newsweek and sends them junk mail trying to get you to switch to Time?
They'd have to find out my email address first. And then they'd have to send me junk mail. At which point the boycotts would start.
What if you apply for a job at any of the many companies owned by AOL Time Warner, and they check the databases for people known to search Google for information on illegal drugs, or to make AOL-bashing comments on /.?
I will never be so desperate for a job that I will change my lifestyle for a company. If AOL doesn't want to hire me for who I am, then I won't work for them.
"Eh, I figured as much anyway." Would you say that if you found that the CIA had been wiretapping your phone line and/or DSL/Cable line for the past 6 months?
Yes.
I really hope that you're not drawing this from Radio, as radio stations do not get their content for free.
They generally don't pay the RIAA, they pay the artist, through ASCAP, BMI, et. al.
Here's the reality: You block ads. You cost us money. Ultimately, I mean.
Actually this could be easily fixed, since only 12% of ads are paid advertisements. Just have an option in preferences which lets people turn off ads. As long as you don't have more than 88% of people use that option, your revenue loss is $0. In fact, you actually gain revenue, because you'll have higher clickthrough rates (since the adbusters and those strongly opposed to ads don't ever get ads).
If more than 88% (really 94% since you could probably double your CPM rate) of the people go through the bother of turning off ads, then you probably don't have a legitimate revenue stream to begin with.
WRONG. You automatically have the right to use something I make? wtf country is this in?
I automatically have the right to use something I buy. This is the United States.
Not only do they provide bandwidth, they provide the servers, the disk space, and the administration.
Right, they provide for the publication and marketing of our content... Just like the RIAA.
without them providing all this stuff, such a huge site wouldn't be able to survive
And without the RIAA, huge artists wouldn't survive either.
the current SlashDot community would be splintered into many, many litle communitues, each of which would be supported by the generosity of someone paying for it out of pocket
Slashdot could easily be run peer-to-peer, napster-style. Cost to run: about $100/month.
SlashDot is losing money right now. If they want to so much as break even, they have to make money somehow.
Or they could cut costs.
Anyways, you don't have to subscribe.
Nor do you have to buy CDs.
You can just put up with the annoyingly big adds, or use JunkBuster, or something.
You can listen to all your music on the radio.
Putting an annoying ad before comments isn't doing anything close to what the RIAA is doing to the artists and listeners.
Actually, putting annoying ads in the free version of the content is exactly what the RIAA does. At least they're not charging per hit, yet.
Posting doesn't pay the bandwidth bills.
Sure it does. Without posts no one would pay for slashdot. No one. In true RIAA fashion, slashdot has resorted to profiting off other people's content. Sure, they provide the bandwidth and the name recognition. They market my words. It's starting to sound a hell of a lot like the RIAA now. About the only differences are that the RIAA only takes 99% of the profits, whereas slashdot takes 100%, and that the RIAA is successful, whereas slashdot isn't, yet...
You need to distribute whatever is needed to transform the source -- in the form that *you* the developer normally use to modify it -- into the object files you distribute.
Does this mean that AOL is violating the GPL, by not distributing Visual C++ with the source of mozilla?
he said "but its really flashing on and off faster than you can see." NOT that it dims *slightly*. big difference
Hmm, considering that light is quantized in packets called photons, and intensity is simply a measure of the number of photons released per second, I'd have to disagree. Flashing on and off at a certain rate is exactly equivalent to dimming.
They are additional restrictions, and you are (maybe, depending on a courts point of view) bound by the license if you use the product at all.
Contracts are not enforcible if there is no consideration. Giving someone the right to use software is not consideration, because they already have that right under the law.
I would argue, as may others, that the GPL is a more noble cause to resign over than an agreement which exists to make the world's richest corporation even richer.
I don't find it morally wrong to modify someone else's software and sell it to others without releasing the source code. As such I would encourage my employer to break all copyright laws (if it weren't for the fact that that was illegal). I certainly wouldn't discourage it.
Here we have a case where someone is willing to make enhancements to GPLed software and release it for free (beer) for everyone to use. But the GPL proposes that that is illegal. That's ridiculous IMHO, just as ridiculous as Microsoft's EULA. In fact, it's even more ridiculous, because the motive isn't even one of profit, it's over some stupid concept of "software is not free unless you have source code".
If you share RMS's goals, that is, if you want the government to force all programmers to release source code with all software they write, then fine. But I want the government to have less power over programmers, not more.
The GPL is not an end user licensing agreement because end users don't need to worry about it. Only non-end users (those who plan to redistribute) need to accept it.
You only need to worry about any EULA if you do things which require a license. For instance, you only need to worry about the Windows 98 EULA if you use the software on multiple computers on a network, since this is forbidden by copyright law.
What they're proposing is a civil infraction rather than a criminal one.
Copyright violation can be a criminal offense. The chances of actually getting prosecuted are next to nothing, but it is theoretically possible.
You should suggest to your company that instead of releasing the whole source code, they only release an obfuscated patch to the source code. As long as the patch does not contain any of the original work, it is not a derivitive work, and you will not be breaking the GPL.
'Breaking' the GPL would seem to be a civil, not criminal offence, would it not?
Not if you break it willfully for "purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". Willfully would be hard to prove in this instance though, since a lawyer in good faith advised the company that what it was doing was not illegal.
Speaking only for myself, here. I would resign immediately, and report the abuse to the FSF.
Would resign immediately and notify the BSA if your boss violated the copyright on Windows software?
On a side note, what makes people thing GPL is any more binding than an EULA?
The GPL is an EULA.
Sure, cocaine trafficking would be perfectly legal, so long as posession of cocaine was legal in both countries
There is no federal law against possession of cocaine. There couldn't be, since such a law would be unconstitutional (10th ammendment).
and it was transported in such a manner as to not break any meatspace laws.
I see what you're getting at... I was under the impression that Elcomsoft was shipping a product into the U.S. (after further research, I don't think they ever were). I guess I could support a ruling that the internet existed as a separate internationally controlled space.
But I'm one of those folks who believes that 1s and 0s should never be illegal in the first place. I don't think the U.S. court system is ready to give up on laws against spam, hacking, copyright infringement, slander, libel, spying, usury, practice of law without a license, securities fraud, etc. just yet.