Since most of the code that actually handles loot and such isn't going to be in the client, it's going to be server-side, good luck with that piracy thing.
Well, in the case being discussed, yes, he simply could have kept his pants zipped. It's not like it would have required some enormous sacrifice on his part. He's the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world, and he makes himself and his policies vulnerable because he has to have sex with some intern in the White House. Whatever you think about his policies, it was just plain dumb.
Lawyers cost money. Based on personal experience, some lawyers are good and will try to do an honest day's work and will be up front with you about likely outcomes. Others will simply bill you till the money runs out.
BEFORE you get a lawyer, just sit down and think through what EVIDENCE you would present in court. Not crying about how "I GPL'ed it and I worship at Stallman's shrine" but hard evidence that the code your wrote while employed at a company that became part of that company's product is actually your code and not the company's code. You need something... an email, a commit log, a manager who is willing to come over to your side, etc. If you don't have that, distributing the code or going to court is simply asking for trouble.
If the person who GPL'ed the code did not have copyright, the original GPL license simply isn't valid. The issue of "revoking" the license doesn't come up.
Actually, it sounds like he wasn't careful, he was amazingly sloppy. He apparently has zero documentation that the company agreed to release what he wrote under GPL (if he had, I'm sure he would mention it). He wants to claim ownership over code that is part of a company product that he developed while an employee of the company. That's a pretty dicey area. If I'm working at a company and I write code that becomes part of the product, the default assumption HAS to be that it's the property of the company, unless I have something in writing that says otherwise. Imagine the chaos that would result if the individual developers of a commercial product could say "I was home working on my own for a week in February, so I own this chunk of the library routines." It would be like the current patent nonsense multiplied a million fold.
IF he had something in writing, or IF what he developed wasn't part of the company product, or IF he had some audit trail of commits to a 3rd party repository that didn't include even a hint of usage of proprietary company code, THEN he would have a case. As it stands, he has nothing.
If he was producing the code as part of a work project, the code didn't belong to him, and he had no right to GPL it in the first place. To take an example from my own work experience, I happened to notice that a guy I worked with putting his own name as the copyright owner on code he was writing. That didn't make him the copyright owner, we simply changed the copyright notice, because he had no right to do so.
If you think about it, a company has to insist on the copyright to the code. It can't be held hostage to every employee. Just because I'm writing code at home, if I'm writing it as part of a project for work, it makes sense that the company would get the copyright. And if it isn't part of a work project, as I said elsewhere, it's not clear how the company ended up with the code, or why they would care about the copyright.
His comments are ambiguous. The most likely interpretation is that he worked at home on code that became part of his company's product, and he put GPL on the code he developed at home. After all, if this was just some "after hours" project that had nothing to do with work, how did the company end up with the code? The company wouldn't know or care if the code was unrelated to his work.
Also, his comments about working "night & day" for the company pretty much imply that the work he was doing at home was for a company project. Pretty hard to read the article and come up with any other interpretation.
So I'm working on a company project, but where I work controls who owns the code? If I move to a different desk, or I get an idea for improving the code while I'm out on a walk, that changes ownership? Now THAT would be absurd.
The poster says "I was terminated from a company that I worked day and night for for about 5 years. During the last 2 years of that time, I created a simple web framework and contributed it to open source. " It doesn't sound like it's derivative of GPL, it sounds like he created some code for the company and put GPL on it. In which case the code belongs to the company, and they are free to take it in-house any time they want.
Except it doesn't sound like it's the case here. It sounds like this guy wrote code for the company, in which case it doesn't matter whether he worked at home, at the office, or at 37,000 feet, it belongs to the company, and he had no right to put any particular license on it.
"Sloppy coding" explains that they captured they data. The fact that they saved it for years, and presumably processed that data, indicates it goes beyond just being "sloppy". If you think about the steps, there's capturing the packet data, which certainly might capture more than you want to look at. Could be an accident. Then there's logging the data. Seems unlikely that you would log more than you need, after all, we are talking about a LOT of data. And then there's processing the data, where you certainly know what data you are picking through.
I don't think it's an evil Google / KGB conspiracy, but I don't think Google is innocent either. They just vacuumed up as much data as they could snarf w/o worrying about whether it was legal or not, because that's the way they roll, and now they are paying the price. Maybe they'll be a bit more careful in the future.
But of course, Iran has only peaceful intentions, so speeding up the enrichment process couldn't possibly be a problem, right? After all, the only way it's a problem is if Iran is building nuclear weapons, and if they are, sounds like screwing with their existing centrifuges was a pretty good idea.
People whose jobs were eliminated are upset. And in other news, Francisco Franco is still dead.
The Constellation program was in deep trouble. It was a political program with no particular point whose purpose was to keep work going in various congressional districts. Yes, pulling the plug took courage. It also opened up the opportunity for the government to do what makes sense: work on the technologies necessary for bigger and better plans than going back to the rock we visited 40 years ago. Meanwhile, private industry is doing what it does well, which is to build a commercial space program that doesn't need government life support.
No, it assumes that I actually have money in the bank and that the stuff that I buy with my credit card I have money to pay for. If I become unemployed, I pay off the credit card with the cash I have in the bank. I'm not running up credit, hoping that my next paycheck will come in and I'll pay it off that way. Yes, if you are using CC to spend money you don't have, then I agree, you are digging a hole. I am not.
Or you could pay your credit card bill off in full every month, the way I do, and enjoy the convenience of having a credit card and not having any debt.
Ah yes, of course, the ends justify the means. The fact the people who poured their sweat into their writing don't get compensated, well, who cares about them.
Even if really everyone has heard of Google+ (which I doubt), it gives an extra incentive to get a Google+ account: It makes obvious that Facebook can cancel your account at any time without giving you a reason....
You mean like the following from Google's terms of service: "you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you"?
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh.... if ONLY I could mod the parent up. It hits the nail on the head and drives it through the board in one blow. Well said.
Try reading the article and maybe you'll understand.
Since most of the code that actually handles loot and such isn't going to be in the client, it's going to be server-side, good luck with that piracy thing.
Well, in the case being discussed, yes, he simply could have kept his pants zipped. It's not like it would have required some enormous sacrifice on his part. He's the chief executive of the most powerful country in the world, and he makes himself and his policies vulnerable because he has to have sex with some intern in the White House. Whatever you think about his policies, it was just plain dumb.
No, it's not. With Windows 7 it's still clear when you are launching a program and when you are switching to a running program.
Lawyers cost money. Based on personal experience, some lawyers are good and will try to do an honest day's work and will be up front with you about likely outcomes. Others will simply bill you till the money runs out.
BEFORE you get a lawyer, just sit down and think through what EVIDENCE you would present in court. Not crying about how "I GPL'ed it and I worship at Stallman's shrine" but hard evidence that the code your wrote while employed at a company that became part of that company's product is actually your code and not the company's code. You need something... an email, a commit log, a manager who is willing to come over to your side, etc. If you don't have that, distributing the code or going to court is simply asking for trouble.
If the person who GPL'ed the code did not have copyright, the original GPL license simply isn't valid. The issue of "revoking" the license doesn't come up.
Actually, it sounds like he wasn't careful, he was amazingly sloppy. He apparently has zero documentation that the company agreed to release what he wrote under GPL (if he had, I'm sure he would mention it). He wants to claim ownership over code that is part of a company product that he developed while an employee of the company. That's a pretty dicey area. If I'm working at a company and I write code that becomes part of the product, the default assumption HAS to be that it's the property of the company, unless I have something in writing that says otherwise. Imagine the chaos that would result if the individual developers of a commercial product could say "I was home working on my own for a week in February, so I own this chunk of the library routines." It would be like the current patent nonsense multiplied a million fold.
IF he had something in writing, or IF what he developed wasn't part of the company product, or IF he had some audit trail of commits to a 3rd party repository that didn't include even a hint of usage of proprietary company code, THEN he would have a case. As it stands, he has nothing.
If he was producing the code as part of a work project, the code didn't belong to him, and he had no right to GPL it in the first place. To take an example from my own work experience, I happened to notice that a guy I worked with putting his own name as the copyright owner on code he was writing. That didn't make him the copyright owner, we simply changed the copyright notice, because he had no right to do so.
If you think about it, a company has to insist on the copyright to the code. It can't be held hostage to every employee. Just because I'm writing code at home, if I'm writing it as part of a project for work, it makes sense that the company would get the copyright. And if it isn't part of a work project, as I said elsewhere, it's not clear how the company ended up with the code, or why they would care about the copyright.
His comments are ambiguous. The most likely interpretation is that he worked at home on code that became part of his company's product, and he put GPL on the code he developed at home. After all, if this was just some "after hours" project that had nothing to do with work, how did the company end up with the code? The company wouldn't know or care if the code was unrelated to his work.
Also, his comments about working "night & day" for the company pretty much imply that the work he was doing at home was for a company project. Pretty hard to read the article and come up with any other interpretation.
But, it sounds like it was written as part of work project. If so, it's pretty hard to argue that he owns the code.
So I'm working on a company project, but where I work controls who owns the code? If I move to a different desk, or I get an idea for improving the code while I'm out on a walk, that changes ownership? Now THAT would be absurd.
The poster says "I was terminated from a company that I worked day and night for for about 5 years. During the last 2 years of that time, I created a simple web framework and contributed it to open source. " It doesn't sound like it's derivative of GPL, it sounds like he created some code for the company and put GPL on it. In which case the code belongs to the company, and they are free to take it in-house any time they want.
Except it doesn't sound like it's the case here. It sounds like this guy wrote code for the company, in which case it doesn't matter whether he worked at home, at the office, or at 37,000 feet, it belongs to the company, and he had no right to put any particular license on it.
"Sloppy coding" explains that they captured they data. The fact that they saved it for years, and presumably processed that data, indicates it goes beyond just being "sloppy". If you think about the steps, there's capturing the packet data, which certainly might capture more than you want to look at. Could be an accident. Then there's logging the data. Seems unlikely that you would log more than you need, after all, we are talking about a LOT of data. And then there's processing the data, where you certainly know what data you are picking through.
I don't think it's an evil Google / KGB conspiracy, but I don't think Google is innocent either. They just vacuumed up as much data as they could snarf w/o worrying about whether it was legal or not, because that's the way they roll, and now they are paying the price. Maybe they'll be a bit more careful in the future.
But of course, Iran has only peaceful intentions, so speeding up the enrichment process couldn't possibly be a problem, right? After all, the only way it's a problem is if Iran is building nuclear weapons, and if they are, sounds like screwing with their existing centrifuges was a pretty good idea.
People whose jobs were eliminated are upset. And in other news, Francisco Franco is still dead.
The Constellation program was in deep trouble. It was a political program with no particular point whose purpose was to keep work going in various congressional districts. Yes, pulling the plug took courage. It also opened up the opportunity for the government to do what makes sense: work on the technologies necessary for bigger and better plans than going back to the rock we visited 40 years ago. Meanwhile, private industry is doing what it does well, which is to build a commercial space program that doesn't need government life support.
The 9 billion was already wasted, Obama simply had the courage to admit that.
No, it assumes that I actually have money in the bank and that the stuff that I buy with my credit card I have money to pay for. If I become unemployed, I pay off the credit card with the cash I have in the bank. I'm not running up credit, hoping that my next paycheck will come in and I'll pay it off that way. Yes, if you are using CC to spend money you don't have, then I agree, you are digging a hole. I am not.
Or you could pay your credit card bill off in full every month, the way I do, and enjoy the convenience of having a credit card and not having any debt.
Ah yes, of course, the ends justify the means. The fact the people who poured their sweat into their writing don't get compensated, well, who cares about them.
Yes, and Google has the same catchall. It's not like Facebook is unique.
Even if really everyone has heard of Google+ (which I doubt), it gives an extra incentive to get a Google+ account: It makes obvious that Facebook can cancel your account at any time without giving you a reason....
You mean like the following from Google's terms of service: "you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you"?
If Facebook was an internet search provider, then yes, it would be equivalent, but they aren't.
Which doesn't apply in this case, unless Facebook added the terms of service about ads for competitors recently.