I like the GPL and would only release software under the GPL. My point was that Novell bought into the GPL when it started releasing GPL licensed software. If the licensing arrangement with Microsoft violates the GPL there should be consequences. The person I was replying to seemed to think the GPL lets you do anything you want with the software. The GPL is as valid a license as the one that comes with any paid-for software product.
As a license, the GPL uses copyright law so that it can be enforced. Copyright law allows authors who publish software under the GPL to enforce their rights against companies that steal their code by incorporating the code into products or derived works without making the source available, publishing their patches, etc. You own the copyright on your work unless you assign it to someone else. The GPL is a tool that allows you to license your work for use by other parties. I think the notion of the GPL being a free license and an unencumbered license is the confusion. I look at the GPL as a license the same way I look at other licensing tools. If Novell is violating the GPL in their licensing arrangement with MS, there is open source software available under other licensing regimes.
You could put your work under a different license that allowed users to modify and re-distribute the software in any manner they would like, with or without source code, having to release their changes, etc. That are less encumbered licensing options than releasing it under the GPL, which prevents the licensee from engaging in certain behaviors. The GPL is a great license. I would like to see people treat it just as seriously as they do the license they received for buying Windows or Oracle. Just because they did not pay a dime to acquire the source code, should not mean they can disregard the GPL and claim end users need to purchase additional licenses to use the software.
Sorry, I was being a little loose with my English. This is what I mean, by example:
If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.
I agree completely. Their first interst is making money. However, they've built their brand in recent years as being friendly to open-source developers. I would like to see their reputation as an "open-source friendly" company evaporate as a result of this deal. I would like to see projects notify Novell to stop shipping their code in the Novell distro - because they're violating GPLv3. I don't want to other vendors to cave to Microsoft. Part of it is ignorance and people confuse GPL with "giving it away," and consequently have little respect for something for which they did not pay money. I would like people in the industry to understand that GPL is a choice of license, but just as important and valid as a closed source license.
As far as cow-towing to the preceived need to make it all "Window friendly," I agree. Who's interested in a clone of what you already have?
GPL =/= do whatever you like. The GPL is actually a restrictive licensing agreement. It governs how you use the product, how you can realease something based on that product, what you can incorporate that product into, and in some cases how you release what you create with that product. People confuse GPL == Free as in beer == Do as you will. GPL has built in protections to ensure that anything derived from the GPL is also encumbered the same way as the GPL. Note that *I like the restrictions* GPL puts on code, derivative works, and how it can be used. I'm not an expert, but if you want complete freedom, I think the BSD license is actually a more liberal license than GPL. If Novell is doing something that violates the GPLv3 license, they are welcome to switch to software licensed under different, less restrictive licenses. However, until then, if I release something under GPL I want it to stay under GPL in every sense of the word. That includes vendors falsley claiming customers need to buy a license in order to use my code or use something that uses my code.
Simple, if you don't want to answer the other person's point, simply concoct a straw-man argument to respond to. I'm sure he understood the comment quite clearly and probably accepted the situation in the back of his mind. I expect this is the role he's sized up for his company, to be Microsoft's "loyal opposition." I wonder, to what extent, Microsoft leaned on Novell by suggesting a list of possible infringing software and let Novell do the math?
I've come accross one instance of a FoxPro app that the owner wanted to re-write as a web app. It would really help open up solutions for people with existing FP apps that need to migrate them to something, anything else.
Good question. I sometimes wonder what companies are hoping to get out of sitting on a piece of software for years, loosing the source code, and just preventing anyone from getting any use out of it? I actually had an opportunity to convert a fox-pro app to a web app, but the guy that had the app was insane and I would rather swallow my own tongue than deal with him.
Thanks,
My point about reporting is that you don't need special permission to state that the superbowl occured, where it occured, or who played in it. Imagine if that were the case, and we had to refer to the superbowl as "A really well attended game."
Your right, I did make a gross over-simplification of fair use. However, when people use pieces of someone else's content as part of another piece in a conforming way, they tend to be short.
Thanks. I think we are in agreement. I was tired when I wrote it last night, but you pointed out the major thrust of what they're doing " claim[ing] rights they don't actually have." My point is that they are putting the burden on consumers to enforce their rights. Otherwise, by tacit acceptance, we will loose those rights.
IANAL as well, but punative damages are not available under all circumstances. In addition it is the responsibility of the individual to mitigate any damages. Often, punative damages are capped at some level of actual damages. For example, I might get 3x damages as a punative award inaddition to regular damages. however, I still have show an economic basis for the harm. (IANAL but I used to be an accountant and did cover business law and some contract law). If the damages are considered excessive, the NFL could appeal the damage claim. I can't stand what the NFL is doing, but I don't see how she's going to get to the millions of dollars of damages it would take to get the NFL to change their behavior.
No, the NFL is asserting rights to their material they don't have. If you take them at their word, you would have to get special permission from them to file a news report on the game, for example. That's clearly not the case. You don't have to have special permission to report on the superbowl. They would require, for example, you to get permission to take a 10 sec clip to show someone throwing a helmet. This falls under a paradigm known loosely as fair-use. For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.
What you do not have the right to do: Record the game on your Tivo and post the thing in its entirety, or substantial portions, and place your recordings on YouTube.
What they're making you do is to put yourself in legal jeopardy to protect your rights to use the material. They're not the only ones. For example, documentary film makers (read guys with no budget) often get requests to license music or images that just happen to show up in the course of filming. For example, a song playing in the background, maybe from a nearby house. Technically speaking, they do not have to license the song if it happened to be playing in the background when they were shooting. However, they often choose to pay the royalty fee rather than fight over it (a more expensive proposition), or just drop the scene.
We're heading for a world where you might have to take every photo you want to place on flickr, and photo-shop out the Coke label, the designer logo on the sweatshirt, and the images on any posters or paintings that happen to be in the shot. This is all because attorneys for the trademark or copyright holders want to make you fight for the rights you already have.
I strongly suspect the NFL will continue asserting rights they don't have, putting the burden on the other guy to show their use is fair use. The only thing that would make them change their mind is if it cost them a lot of money - and I don't see how this is going to cost them a lot of money. Even if they have to pay 100,000 in legal fees and damages if this goes to court and they loose, that's chicken scratch. I'm not exactly sure how Ms. Seltzer could show sizeable monetary damages to create the basis for a large enough settlement to matter.
The real problem is that attorneys view this kind of behavior in the best interests of their clients. Make the other guy fight to protect his interests, and maybe it won't be worth his while. Even if it goes to court and she wins, I would expect their behavior would not change. If I did the same thing tommorrow, I suspect I would just get into to a "filing match" until they sued me. Or they sue YouTube, which might mean I have to sign up for another account before I could post content there again. However, it is very interesting to see that the DMCA does have a provision for abuse that might come back to annoy them, if only slightly.
Okay, 5 1/2 years. Prior to that the FBI kept coming to Congress saying they need this special power or this ability and Congress kept turning them down. One reason the USA PATRIOT act was drafted so quickly it was much of what the FBI had been requesting for years. Some of the NSL/NSO program actually started in the late 1990's, and to that degree some fault can be traced back to the previous administration. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks the infringement of basic civil liberties is not right but at least understandable in the short term. Some 5 1/2 years later any patriotic American should find it reprehensible.
If you believe that "fighting terrorism" is a noble reason to ignore the 1st and 4th ammendments to the constitution, I'm sorry to say I don't consider you much of a patriot. In fact, they are doing this for political intimidation, including using espionage laws against whistle-blowers and journalists. What keeps the administration in power - any administration in power - from abusing their powers is sunshine and oversight. Over the last 6 years the Republican congress has done little to no oversight of the executive branch, and the executive branch has shown no interest in transparency or openness. Finally, we're beginning to see a wee bit of sunlight poking into the dark recess of a closed, paranoid, and possibly delusional administration.
As far as the ad-hominem attack on my "bush hating circuits," I did not start out hating Bush. In fact, I voted for the crap-sandwich in 2000 over the douchebag from the previous administration. I grew to dislike this administration because they seem to have failed freshman civics, at least in regards to the US constitution. Not all problems started when Bush took office, but his mediocre leadership has made them worse.
on CSPAN radio. (What a life, eh?) Long story short - one rep said in response to the FBI saying "they'll do their best" to clean up the situation, was "If you don't clean it up, you won't have these NSO/NSL letters to worry about any more." (Taking them away).
The FBI counsel came back to that whole "in an emergency" thing, but they cannot gaurantee that it's an emergency. They couldn't even gaurantee it was part of an investigation (a requirement). What a mess we've created these last six years.
Computers have a higher TCO than empty boxes. Computers consume electricity, while empty boxes consume none. Computers require staffing and software in order to be useful. Empty boxes require no software or staff. While it's true that employees are unable to do any work with empty boxes, this can save companies billions of dollars a year in payroll, as they do not have to hire employees. Also, there are significant savings because it is difficult to commit accounting fraud, or other white collar crimes with an empty box.
Corporate bastardry is a function of wealth and power, not the byproduct of geography or heritage. The Romans were the corporate bastards of their days, doing things like punishing local monarchs who failed to pay tribute by raping their wives. The Catholic church were corporate bastards at one time (they are still in the eyes of some, but they no longer field and army and no longer are able to directly control governments). The French and English were joint corporate bastards of the 16th-19th centuries. Prior to that it was the Spanish. In World War II the Germans and Japanese were utter bastards, even though no one was above dipping their toes into the great lake of bastardry.
When the Chinese progress some more, they will in turn become corporate bastards. You see, being a corporate bastard is a function of putting your own interests ahead of what's good and right (or at least in the sense of attempting to do good and right). Since we are all human beings we all have this temptation and many of us, all too many of us, succumb too quickly. However, when I look around I try to see what are the philosophies and ethics that prevent or stem the decay into corporate bastardry. If the US lived by its ideals, more than by what's expedient, it would definitely be less of a corporate bastard than it is today.
Here's the theory. Let's say I have a subsidiary in Dubai that operates independantly of me. I may be a part owner, but it's perfectly legal for that company to do things that are illegal in the US as long as they're legal in Dubai. For example, I may own stock in a Japanese company that deals with Iran, but as a shareholder I'm not engaging in anything Illegal. Or, for that matter, a European company may deal with Iran, of which I may be part owner. You'll find a number of top-notch European companies, with US subsidiaries, that also have offices in Iran. They sell everythng from medicine to bullets.
There are some conditions on this that make it perfectly legal. The principal concern being my involvement in the company. The company has to operate independantly of me. In other words, I can't tell it what to sell or not sell to Iran, or the terms of the sale, or have control over who the company fires or hires. Most of the examples you gave list people who had direct involvement with prohibited goods or countries. (By the way - that's what the quote at the top of your response states - that I cannot be involved in the transaction). In theory I could have a company that I own and as long as it operates independantly of me, I should be okay.
What makes Halliburton's involvement with Iran fertile grounds for some kind of prosecution is that Halliburton did not just have a subsidiary which operated independantly of the US parent. The address of the subsidiary in the Caymans was little more than a mail drop which forwarded the mail back to the US. You are 100% right that their operations *are* illegal. If the subsidiary had a nice shiney office, with a real staff, and directors who operated independantly of Halliburton in the US, it would be the case. However, by direct involvement with the affairs of its subsidiary, Halliburton is likely breaking US law. And I agree with you, the sole reason people aren't being marched out of the Halliburton offices in handcuffs is the Vice President.
You're only half right on this. Halliburton cannot directly deal with Iran, however, their Cayman subsidiary can deal with Iran and Halliburton can make money on their subsidiary.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the GPL and would only release software under the GPL. My point was that Novell bought into the GPL when it started releasing GPL licensed software. If the licensing arrangement with Microsoft violates the GPL there should be consequences. The person I was replying to seemed to think the GPL lets you do anything you want with the software. The GPL is as valid a license as the one that comes with any paid-for software product.
As a license, the GPL uses copyright law so that it can be enforced. Copyright law allows authors who publish software under the GPL to enforce their rights against companies that steal their code by incorporating the code into products or derived works without making the source available, publishing their patches, etc. You own the copyright on your work unless you assign it to someone else. The GPL is a tool that allows you to license your work for use by other parties. I think the notion of the GPL being a free license and an unencumbered license is the confusion. I look at the GPL as a license the same way I look at other licensing tools. If Novell is violating the GPL in their licensing arrangement with MS, there is open source software available under other licensing regimes.
You could put your work under a different license that allowed users to modify and re-distribute the software in any manner they would like, with or without source code, having to release their changes, etc. That are less encumbered licensing options than releasing it under the GPL, which prevents the licensee from engaging in certain behaviors. The GPL is a great license. I would like to see people treat it just as seriously as they do the license they received for buying Windows or Oracle. Just because they did not pay a dime to acquire the source code, should not mean they can disregard the GPL and claim end users need to purchase additional licenses to use the software.
Sorry, I was being a little loose with my English. This is what I mean, by example:
If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.
Sorry for the confusion.
I agree completely. Their first interst is making money. However, they've built their brand in recent years as being friendly to open-source developers. I would like to see their reputation as an "open-source friendly" company evaporate as a result of this deal. I would like to see projects notify Novell to stop shipping their code in the Novell distro - because they're violating GPLv3. I don't want to other vendors to cave to Microsoft. Part of it is ignorance and people confuse GPL with "giving it away," and consequently have little respect for something for which they did not pay money. I would like people in the industry to understand that GPL is a choice of license, but just as important and valid as a closed source license. As far as cow-towing to the preceived need to make it all "Window friendly," I agree. Who's interested in a clone of what you already have?
GPL =/= do whatever you like. The GPL is actually a restrictive licensing agreement. It governs how you use the product, how you can realease something based on that product, what you can incorporate that product into, and in some cases how you release what you create with that product. People confuse GPL == Free as in beer == Do as you will. GPL has built in protections to ensure that anything derived from the GPL is also encumbered the same way as the GPL. Note that *I like the restrictions* GPL puts on code, derivative works, and how it can be used. I'm not an expert, but if you want complete freedom, I think the BSD license is actually a more liberal license than GPL. If Novell is doing something that violates the GPLv3 license, they are welcome to switch to software licensed under different, less restrictive licenses. However, until then, if I release something under GPL I want it to stay under GPL in every sense of the word. That includes vendors falsley claiming customers need to buy a license in order to use my code or use something that uses my code.
Simple, if you don't want to answer the other person's point, simply concoct a straw-man argument to respond to. I'm sure he understood the comment quite clearly and probably accepted the situation in the back of his mind. I expect this is the role he's sized up for his company, to be Microsoft's "loyal opposition." I wonder, to what extent, Microsoft leaned on Novell by suggesting a list of possible infringing software and let Novell do the math?
I've come accross one instance of a FoxPro app that the owner wanted to re-write as a web app. It would really help open up solutions for people with existing FP apps that need to migrate them to something, anything else.
Good question. I sometimes wonder what companies are hoping to get out of sitting on a piece of software for years, loosing the source code, and just preventing anyone from getting any use out of it? I actually had an opportunity to convert a fox-pro app to a web app, but the guy that had the app was insane and I would rather swallow my own tongue than deal with him.
Suck it - how's your Italian, asshole. English is not my first language.
Thanks, My point about reporting is that you don't need special permission to state that the superbowl occured, where it occured, or who played in it. Imagine if that were the case, and we had to refer to the superbowl as "A really well attended game." Your right, I did make a gross over-simplification of fair use. However, when people use pieces of someone else's content as part of another piece in a conforming way, they tend to be short.
Thanks. I think we are in agreement. I was tired when I wrote it last night, but you pointed out the major thrust of what they're doing " claim[ing] rights they don't actually have." My point is that they are putting the burden on consumers to enforce their rights. Otherwise, by tacit acceptance, we will loose those rights.
Yeah, but I bet they'll still make you go to court to enforce your rights.
IANAL as well, but punative damages are not available under all circumstances. In addition it is the responsibility of the individual to mitigate any damages. Often, punative damages are capped at some level of actual damages. For example, I might get 3x damages as a punative award inaddition to regular damages. however, I still have show an economic basis for the harm. (IANAL but I used to be an accountant and did cover business law and some contract law). If the damages are considered excessive, the NFL could appeal the damage claim. I can't stand what the NFL is doing, but I don't see how she's going to get to the millions of dollars of damages it would take to get the NFL to change their behavior.
Super bowl Sunday is also one of the top days for spousal abuse. If your team looses and you beat your spouse, is that a form of infringement?
No, the NFL is asserting rights to their material they don't have. If you take them at their word, you would have to get special permission from them to file a news report on the game, for example. That's clearly not the case. You don't have to have special permission to report on the superbowl. They would require, for example, you to get permission to take a 10 sec clip to show someone throwing a helmet. This falls under a paradigm known loosely as fair-use. For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.
What you do not have the right to do: Record the game on your Tivo and post the thing in its entirety, or substantial portions, and place your recordings on YouTube.
What they're making you do is to put yourself in legal jeopardy to protect your rights to use the material. They're not the only ones. For example, documentary film makers (read guys with no budget) often get requests to license music or images that just happen to show up in the course of filming. For example, a song playing in the background, maybe from a nearby house. Technically speaking, they do not have to license the song if it happened to be playing in the background when they were shooting. However, they often choose to pay the royalty fee rather than fight over it (a more expensive proposition), or just drop the scene.
We're heading for a world where you might have to take every photo you want to place on flickr, and photo-shop out the Coke label, the designer logo on the sweatshirt, and the images on any posters or paintings that happen to be in the shot. This is all because attorneys for the trademark or copyright holders want to make you fight for the rights you already have.
I strongly suspect the NFL will continue asserting rights they don't have, putting the burden on the other guy to show their use is fair use. The only thing that would make them change their mind is if it cost them a lot of money - and I don't see how this is going to cost them a lot of money. Even if they have to pay 100,000 in legal fees and damages if this goes to court and they loose, that's chicken scratch. I'm not exactly sure how Ms. Seltzer could show sizeable monetary damages to create the basis for a large enough settlement to matter. The real problem is that attorneys view this kind of behavior in the best interests of their clients. Make the other guy fight to protect his interests, and maybe it won't be worth his while. Even if it goes to court and she wins, I would expect their behavior would not change. If I did the same thing tommorrow, I suspect I would just get into to a "filing match" until they sued me. Or they sue YouTube, which might mean I have to sign up for another account before I could post content there again. However, it is very interesting to see that the DMCA does have a provision for abuse that might come back to annoy them, if only slightly.
Okay, 5 1/2 years. Prior to that the FBI kept coming to Congress saying they need this special power or this ability and Congress kept turning them down. One reason the USA PATRIOT act was drafted so quickly it was much of what the FBI had been requesting for years. Some of the NSL/NSO program actually started in the late 1990's, and to that degree some fault can be traced back to the previous administration. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks the infringement of basic civil liberties is not right but at least understandable in the short term. Some 5 1/2 years later any patriotic American should find it reprehensible. If you believe that "fighting terrorism" is a noble reason to ignore the 1st and 4th ammendments to the constitution, I'm sorry to say I don't consider you much of a patriot. In fact, they are doing this for political intimidation, including using espionage laws against whistle-blowers and journalists. What keeps the administration in power - any administration in power - from abusing their powers is sunshine and oversight. Over the last 6 years the Republican congress has done little to no oversight of the executive branch, and the executive branch has shown no interest in transparency or openness. Finally, we're beginning to see a wee bit of sunlight poking into the dark recess of a closed, paranoid, and possibly delusional administration. As far as the ad-hominem attack on my "bush hating circuits," I did not start out hating Bush. In fact, I voted for the crap-sandwich in 2000 over the douchebag from the previous administration. I grew to dislike this administration because they seem to have failed freshman civics, at least in regards to the US constitution. Not all problems started when Bush took office, but his mediocre leadership has made them worse.
on CSPAN radio. (What a life, eh?) Long story short - one rep said in response to the FBI saying "they'll do their best" to clean up the situation, was "If you don't clean it up, you won't have these NSO/NSL letters to worry about any more." (Taking them away).
The FBI counsel came back to that whole "in an emergency" thing, but they cannot gaurantee that it's an emergency. They couldn't even gaurantee it was part of an investigation (a requirement). What a mess we've created these last six years.
For a minute I thought I had to get dressed to buy a PC.
Computers have a higher TCO than empty boxes. Computers consume electricity, while empty boxes consume none. Computers require staffing and software in order to be useful. Empty boxes require no software or staff. While it's true that employees are unable to do any work with empty boxes, this can save companies billions of dollars a year in payroll, as they do not have to hire employees. Also, there are significant savings because it is difficult to commit accounting fraud, or other white collar crimes with an empty box.
Funny, I subbed to HSBC in NY through Sun, and have pretty much the same opinion of their ability to buy/manage IT.
Corporate bastardry is a function of wealth and power, not the byproduct of geography or heritage. The Romans were the corporate bastards of their days, doing things like punishing local monarchs who failed to pay tribute by raping their wives. The Catholic church were corporate bastards at one time (they are still in the eyes of some, but they no longer field and army and no longer are able to directly control governments). The French and English were joint corporate bastards of the 16th-19th centuries. Prior to that it was the Spanish. In World War II the Germans and Japanese were utter bastards, even though no one was above dipping their toes into the great lake of bastardry.
When the Chinese progress some more, they will in turn become corporate bastards. You see, being a corporate bastard is a function of putting your own interests ahead of what's good and right (or at least in the sense of attempting to do good and right). Since we are all human beings we all have this temptation and many of us, all too many of us, succumb too quickly. However, when I look around I try to see what are the philosophies and ethics that prevent or stem the decay into corporate bastardry. If the US lived by its ideals, more than by what's expedient, it would definitely be less of a corporate bastard than it is today.
Here's the theory. Let's say I have a subsidiary in Dubai that operates independantly of me. I may be a part owner, but it's perfectly legal for that company to do things that are illegal in the US as long as they're legal in Dubai. For example, I may own stock in a Japanese company that deals with Iran, but as a shareholder I'm not engaging in anything Illegal. Or, for that matter, a European company may deal with Iran, of which I may be part owner. You'll find a number of top-notch European companies, with US subsidiaries, that also have offices in Iran. They sell everythng from medicine to bullets. There are some conditions on this that make it perfectly legal. The principal concern being my involvement in the company. The company has to operate independantly of me. In other words, I can't tell it what to sell or not sell to Iran, or the terms of the sale, or have control over who the company fires or hires. Most of the examples you gave list people who had direct involvement with prohibited goods or countries. (By the way - that's what the quote at the top of your response states - that I cannot be involved in the transaction). In theory I could have a company that I own and as long as it operates independantly of me, I should be okay. What makes Halliburton's involvement with Iran fertile grounds for some kind of prosecution is that Halliburton did not just have a subsidiary which operated independantly of the US parent. The address of the subsidiary in the Caymans was little more than a mail drop which forwarded the mail back to the US. You are 100% right that their operations *are* illegal. If the subsidiary had a nice shiney office, with a real staff, and directors who operated independantly of Halliburton in the US, it would be the case. However, by direct involvement with the affairs of its subsidiary, Halliburton is likely breaking US law. And I agree with you, the sole reason people aren't being marched out of the Halliburton offices in handcuffs is the Vice President.
Having a .xxx domain was a bad thing. Having to support an additional port for content is better? Let the firewall configuration wars begin!
You're only half right on this. Halliburton cannot directly deal with Iran, however, their Cayman subsidiary can deal with Iran and Halliburton can make money on their subsidiary.