I thought that Boise (sp?) was their atty. If so, he ain't that sharp. Aside from the corporate domocilie issue, how about not ceasing their own distribution of linux/gnu until *after* commencement of the litigation? Pretty dumb, huh?
Man, if they really wanted/needed to stay out of federal court, they could have simply sued in NY state court. Perhaps SCO's inane course simply proves that all they're shooting for is FUD and maximum delay.
Is the sig line in the SCO FUD letter a typo or is this retard's name really "Darl" ? If so, I can hear the chanting of the croud now: "D - A - R - _ - L" [coming soon to a stadium event near you.]
What kind of idiot would still be holding on to SCO shares? Its action against IBM is so lame that no settlement $ is likely. What is more likely is the humiliating kick in the crotch (and consequent bankruptcy) that is SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.
From the 05/12/03 FUD letter: "We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights. . . . Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights. . .." [obviously a purported denial/revocation of license.]
From the GPL: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
HA! SCO's obvious "attempt" to deny/revoke the licenses of others to use "their" portion of the kernel code obviates all their own rights to copy, modify, distribute the kernel code.
I might have to sue them for declaratory relief in CA just to prove this point.
BTW, SCO's "attempted" revocation is invalid after their acceptance [by use] of GPL'd code in view of the following provisions of the GPL:
"4. . . . However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
I'm relatively new here, but has anyone already thought of this: Slashdot could mirror each site that its articles link to for a 24-hr period. (For that 24-hr period, the slashdot article would point to the slashdot mirror and thereafter, to the original site.)
I used to laugh everytime I tried to load a page from a slashdotted site; now it just pisses me off.
What would happen to the validity of the GPL were it to be scrutinized in a court of law and found to be legally invalid?
-------
Depends on what you mean by "invalid." If it were to be deemd "void" then no one would have the right to use the software that they had been relying on the gpl for the source of their right to use. Thus, unless they had some independent right to use it, their use would be infringing of the author's/owner's copyright.
SCO is suing on a contract to which IBM was a party Redhat, etc. were not parties, thus cannot be sued. IBM was/is the *only* target available to SCO.
SCO's is essentially claiming breach of nondisclosure/confidentially clauses, possibly misappropriation of trade secret (i.e., unauthorized dissemination).
SCO's suit poses no real problem for linux/gnu in general. Any public apprehension to the contrary is merely a FUD effect.
Here's the thing about trade secrets: Once they become generally known they cease to be protectable trade secrets. (It is fundamental that trade secret information must be secret.)
This principal even applies to widespread disseminations of trade secret information where the dissemination was, in of itself, unlawful. (Although, were unlawful dissemination is not widespread, outcome may be different.)
You may have missed the point. Here it is again:
1) NO COURT has any power, authority or juridiction to entertain an action for copyright infringement with respect to a work for which a certificate of registration of copyright has not been issued by the U.S. Copyright Office. Any such action must be dimsmissed ASAP.
2) ONLY the copyright holder (i.e., the author of the work or his assignee), and in some cases, *exclusive* licensees, have standing to bring an action for copyright infringement. An action brought by anyone else must be dismissed ASAP.
- GPL violation is copyright violation.
-- No, GPL violation would be breech of contract.
Ah, but the breach of [the GPL] contract results in automatic termination of the license to use the GPL'd work, thus rendering the 'breacher's' use infringing. (Of course only the owner of the GPL's work would have standing to sue for infringement, and only after having secured a registration certificate for the work.)
"They can un-GPL their code and force it to be removed from the kernel."
Is this true? I sure hope not. Else, the whole GPL thing is a dud. If GPL is revocable then M$ could offer someone like, say, Alan Cox $25 mil or so to retract the GPL on all his stuff and then linuc would be screwed. (Trust me, M$ has $25 mil to spare.)
GPL violation is copyright violation.
OK, but who has the right to enforce the copyright (i.e., sue for infringement)?
In general, *not* the FSF. Only the person who "authored" the infringed code would have standing to sue. What's more, that person would first have to obtain registration for his copyright from the Copyright Office as a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit. MOST GPL's software developers never get around to doing this.
"It's time we found a way to ensure that artists get paid without killing off this tremendous new technology." - EFF Executive Director Shari Steele
I think its time we (the people; our government) stopped going out of our way to protect/preserve the recording industry by artificial means such as the DMCA, proposed DRM hardware laws, etc. It seems to me that technological advances have rendered/are rendering the business of selling phonorecords unenable as a practical matter (information "wanting" to be free and all).
Would we feel sorry and expect that extraordinary law enforcement resources be spent for the protection for car dealers who were going out of business because they stored their inventories in insecure areas with the keys in the ignitions?
And so what if the recording industry as we know it disappears completey? Why should *America* care? If recording artists and record company executives had to change careers and start digging ditches or serving hamburgers, why would that be necessarily bad for our economy? If record buyers instead bought computer hardware or simply saved their money, how would that be bad? If Cunt Rosen had to defend drunk drivers for a living, how would that be bad?
There is nothing inherently valuabe or important in any of the products or services that the RIAA's members provide. Indeed, the commercial viability of their wares derives and depends on an artificiality - copyright law.
I say fuck 'em, let 'em die. We'll all get along just fine.
Whoa - MD5 sum *is* a "derivative work"
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
Everyone seems so resigned to the fact that a MD5 sum (or the like) is not a "derivative work" under US copyright law and therefore not coverable under the GPL. I'm not so sure. 17 USC s. 101 reads (in part):
"A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a . . . condensation . .."
Certainly an MD5 sum is "based" on the file to which it pertains. Refering to it as a "condensation" thereof is, I'm sure, an over-simplification. However, I think that the basic idea underlying derivative works applies. [The statute does not provide a comprehensive definition of "deriviate works" - courts fill in the details.]
Granted, an MD5 sum is just a big freaking number and so it may be argued that, as such, it lacks sufficient "originality" to be subject to copyright protection at all. But heck, it seems to me that all executable code is susecptible of the same characterization but such has not precluded copyright protection for programs generally. Besides, as with all other works subject to copyright protection, anyone would still be free to 'independently' 'create' and use the number comprising the copyright-protected MD5 sum (e.g., by some means independent from the file to which MD5 sum pertains.)
So, I provisionally reject the popular premise in this discussion that MD5 sums are not, in-of-themselves, GPL-able.
I want to set up an internet cafe to cater to all my rich ass, stone(d)runk, speed metal on, elite engineer hippy friends in the bay area. [p.s. hey brian]
Slashdot Mirror
. . . and such 'independent creation' is never copyright infringement (cf. patent infringement.)
I thought that Boise (sp?) was their atty. If so, he ain't that sharp. Aside from the corporate domocilie issue, how about not ceasing their own distribution of linux/gnu until *after* commencement of the litigation? Pretty dumb, huh? Man, if they really wanted/needed to stay out of federal court, they could have simply sued in NY state court. Perhaps SCO's inane course simply proves that all they're shooting for is FUD and maximum delay.
Is the sig line in the SCO FUD letter a typo or is this retard's name really "Darl" ? If so, I can hear the chanting of the croud now: "D - A - R - _ - L" [coming soon to a stadium event near you.]
What kind of idiot would still be holding on to SCO shares? Its action against IBM is so lame that no settlement $ is likely. What is more likely is the humiliating kick in the crotch (and consequent bankruptcy) that is SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.
From the 05/12/03 FUD letter: ."
"We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights. . . . Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights. . .
[obviously a purported denial/revocation of license.]
From the GPL:
"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
HA! SCO's obvious "attempt" to deny/revoke the licenses of others to use "their" portion of the kernel code obviates all their own rights to copy, modify, distribute the kernel code.
I might have to sue them for declaratory relief in CA just to prove this point.
BTW, SCO's "attempted" revocation is invalid after their acceptance [by use] of GPL'd code in view of the following provisions of the GPL:
"4. . . . However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
Slashdotter's gf? What the hell is that? His mother? Some old hardware? A severed hand?
I'm relatively new here, but has anyone already thought of this: Slashdot could mirror each site that its articles link to for a 24-hr period. (For that 24-hr period, the slashdot article would point to the slashdot mirror and thereafter, to the original site.) I used to laugh everytime I tried to load a page from a slashdotted site; now it just pisses me off.
What would happen to the validity of the GPL were it to be scrutinized in a court of law and found to be legally invalid? ------- Depends on what you mean by "invalid." If it were to be deemd "void" then no one would have the right to use the software that they had been relying on the gpl for the source of their right to use. Thus, unless they had some independent right to use it, their use would be infringing of the author's/owner's copyright.
SCO is suing on a contract to which IBM was a party Redhat, etc. were not parties, thus cannot be sued. IBM was/is the *only* target available to SCO. SCO's is essentially claiming breach of nondisclosure/confidentially clauses, possibly misappropriation of trade secret (i.e., unauthorized dissemination). SCO's suit poses no real problem for linux/gnu in general. Any public apprehension to the contrary is merely a FUD effect. Here's the thing about trade secrets: Once they become generally known they cease to be protectable trade secrets. (It is fundamental that trade secret information must be secret.) This principal even applies to widespread disseminations of trade secret information where the dissemination was, in of itself, unlawful. (Although, were unlawful dissemination is not widespread, outcome may be different.)
You may have missed the point. Here it is again: 1) NO COURT has any power, authority or juridiction to entertain an action for copyright infringement with respect to a work for which a certificate of registration of copyright has not been issued by the U.S. Copyright Office. Any such action must be dimsmissed ASAP. 2) ONLY the copyright holder (i.e., the author of the work or his assignee), and in some cases, *exclusive* licensees, have standing to bring an action for copyright infringement. An action brought by anyone else must be dismissed ASAP.
You need a line about when it tries to have sex with your cat.
Would cost at least $500,000. Those pigs likely don't have it to spare.
- GPL violation is copyright violation. -- No, GPL violation would be breech of contract. Ah, but the breach of [the GPL] contract results in automatic termination of the license to use the GPL'd work, thus rendering the 'breacher's' use infringing. (Of course only the owner of the GPL's work would have standing to sue for infringement, and only after having secured a registration certificate for the work.)
"They can un-GPL their code and force it to be removed from the kernel." Is this true? I sure hope not. Else, the whole GPL thing is a dud. If GPL is revocable then M$ could offer someone like, say, Alan Cox $25 mil or so to retract the GPL on all his stuff and then linuc would be screwed. (Trust me, M$ has $25 mil to spare.)
GPL violation is copyright violation. OK, but who has the right to enforce the copyright (i.e., sue for infringement)? In general, *not* the FSF. Only the person who "authored" the infringed code would have standing to sue. What's more, that person would first have to obtain registration for his copyright from the Copyright Office as a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit. MOST GPL's software developers never get around to doing this.
"It's time we found a way to ensure that artists get paid without killing off this tremendous new technology." - EFF Executive Director Shari Steele I think its time we (the people; our government) stopped going out of our way to protect/preserve the recording industry by artificial means such as the DMCA, proposed DRM hardware laws, etc. It seems to me that technological advances have rendered/are rendering the business of selling phonorecords unenable as a practical matter (information "wanting" to be free and all). Would we feel sorry and expect that extraordinary law enforcement resources be spent for the protection for car dealers who were going out of business because they stored their inventories in insecure areas with the keys in the ignitions? And so what if the recording industry as we know it disappears completey? Why should *America* care? If recording artists and record company executives had to change careers and start digging ditches or serving hamburgers, why would that be necessarily bad for our economy? If record buyers instead bought computer hardware or simply saved their money, how would that be bad? If Cunt Rosen had to defend drunk drivers for a living, how would that be bad? There is nothing inherently valuabe or important in any of the products or services that the RIAA's members provide. Indeed, the commercial viability of their wares derives and depends on an artificiality - copyright law. I say fuck 'em, let 'em die. We'll all get along just fine.
Everyone seems so resigned to the fact that a MD5 sum (or the like) is not a "derivative work" under US copyright law and therefore not coverable under the GPL. I'm not so sure. 17 USC s. 101 reads (in part): "A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a . . . condensation . . ."
Certainly an MD5 sum is "based" on the file to which it pertains. Refering to it as a "condensation" thereof is, I'm sure, an over-simplification. However, I think that the basic idea underlying derivative works applies. [The statute does not provide a comprehensive definition of "deriviate works" - courts fill in the details.]
Granted, an MD5 sum is just a big freaking number and so it may be argued that, as such, it lacks sufficient "originality" to be subject to copyright protection at all. But heck, it seems to me that all executable code is susecptible of the same characterization but such has not precluded copyright protection for programs generally. Besides, as with all other works subject to copyright protection, anyone would still be free to 'independently' 'create' and use the number comprising the copyright-protected MD5 sum (e.g., by some means independent from the file to which MD5 sum pertains.)
So, I provisionally reject the popular premise in this discussion that MD5 sums are not, in-of-themselves, GPL-able.
The hacker technology "equal and opposite" to legal coercion/punishment technology (e.g., guns/jails) is #shutdown now -h
I want to set up an internet cafe to cater to all my rich ass, stone(d)runk, speed metal on, elite engineer hippy friends in the bay area. [p.s. hey brian]