As far as patents go, this analogy is great. (Although lacking in the Slashdot-standard "Car Analogy" standard.) And the settlement and disclosure agreement we're all commenting on requires Microsoft to disclose the patent numbers of the software "inventions" they feel are embodied in the interfaces documented in the ultra-spiffy double-uber-non-disclosable documents. That means that Microsoft has to mark out the patent minefield in their workgroup protocols so that the Samba team knows what they have to re-engineer.
Somehow, I'm failing to make my real point though. My point is this: nondisclosure of the document is effectively pointless, because (A) the code will contain any of the information in the document necessary to fulfill the software's improved functionality, and yet be freely distributable and capable of study from the source code; and (B) patents can't be hidden: the patent numbers disclosed in accordance with the agreement are guaranteed pointers to the actual patent filings, and patent filings must be sufficiently detailed that the patented invention could actually be implemented according to the patent description.
Patents are public things. Inspect one and you have most of the knowledge you need to actually build the patented thing. You just aren't allowed to, unless you have license from the patent-holder. So hiding a patent in a non-disclosable document is a non-issue. Patents aren't the reason to make the document non-disclosable. And obviously, the information itself in the document isn't a reason to make the document non-disclosable, since the information is about to be translated into another language (C, problably) and published for libre. So, ultimately, I'm guessing the document remains non-disclosable for non-pragmatic reasons: bureaucratic inertia at Microsoft ("This document is non-disclosable. It's always been."); deliberate or incidental attempt to make working with the document and its information tougher (witness the necessity of a complete distinct holding entity which will receive the docs); perhaps a futile attempt to lay a "non-disclosure trap" ("I am Inigo Montoya. Your comments include detailed information from a non-disclosable Microsoft document. Prepare to die.")
If you inspect the documentation and write code based on that documentation, you have at least partly disclosed what's in the documentation by embodying it in source code. If the docs are nondisclosable, logic suggests code based on the docs should be.
If the code embodies none of the information in the documentation... WTF was the point of getting the documentation?
Patents here are a bit of a red herring anyways.
Patent protection isn't included. Microsoft disclosed the documentation, but they didn't license or waive patents. If you read the docs and implement a patented algorithm on the basis of those docs, your permission to read the docs doesn't immunize you from patent infringement.
Also, patents aren't necessarily the point of a non-disclosable technical specification. Non-patented trade secrets, for instance, might be the reason for non-disclosability. Or simple corporate paranoia.
I'll say it again: if you write code based on NDA documents, and the source code is distributable, the information in the NDA document is being disclosed in the form of the source code. And that makes no sense to me.
Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars.
Leaving aside the (in my opinion) intellectual dishonesty of ID, a cool (and admittedly fictional) creationist take on the idea of life on Mars: Out of the Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis.
Nothing I'm aware of in creationist canon explicitly excludes the idea of life elsewhere in this universe. It's just not mentioned. Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".
Are you volunteering to pay for the bandwidth consumed? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "metered" access? Did you miss the part of TFA which pointed out that once upon a time, Telstra customers could download OO.o without burning into their prepaid bandwitdth quota, but now they can't, and the reason this has happened is that Telstra feels threatened by OO.o?
Yeah, I thought so. This is/.; it's easier to whip out a quip than actually read and comment intelligently.
Now comes the part where you sidestep how thoroughly you misapprehended the situation by muttering off-topic and irrelevant criticism of metered access.
That's an outstanding point. I never thought I'd see a real-life analogue to Zaphod Beeblebrox, but there you go.
"The purpose of the president of the galaxy is not to exercise power, it is to distract attention from the people who are really exercising power" -- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions.
Hence, why we disenfranchise divorcees, people who've declared bankruptcy, owners of large SUVs, and fans of American Idol. And I'd recommend only selective voting registration for Slashdotters with enough negative moderation too.
Just yesterday I started that book. I just finished reading the chapter (first) which contained that semi-quote.
I was terribly confused at first; I thought I was reading some kind of documentary. Although the parts about all federal services being corporatized was a clue that it was fiction.
Not that the services themselves were corporatized (that's not fiction); that they have corporate trademarks like "Judge Bob's Justice Corporation" was the major clue.
(For those who can't tell the players without a program, we're talking about Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash. Well, at least I am.
Both labs in question are actually U.S. Department of Energy, not Department of Defense. Technically, they're not "military" labs.
More to the point, if they were military labs, the schlubs responsible for the security cockups would have been in the brig and awaiting a court-martial long ago. The knowledge that your "employer" can clap you in prison and then have you shot for almost a trivial incident is, to borrow a phrase, tremendously attention-focusing.
Yeah, yeah, I know, nuclear weapons and technology, blah, blah, blah... but really. Historically, these labs have always been run a little bit like the average academic research lab at any mainline university, and the stereotypes about egghead scientist types hating military-style regimentation (including security processes) rings very true. Read up about the Manhattan Project. (Which is fitting, since these labs are the direct descendants of that program.)
I dunno 'bout that. By admitting it, he kept his damage down to $500k. If it'd gone to trial, and he lost, I'd bet the penalties and forfeiture might have been higher.
"Why would this matter?", I can hear y'all asking. Because that's the margin between profit and loss. According to TFA, he netted $580,000 from his evildoing. After his fines and penalties, he profited $80k.
So, in this case, "4) ???" is actually "4) plead guilty". "5)" remains "PROFIT!".
You have to be marginally smart and be willing to take acceptable short-term losses in order to make crime pay. But it can be done.
They're suing Verizon because Verizon is distributing the hardware boxes (and thus the embedded software).
Verizon could then turn around and sue the hardware manufacturer as well, but they themselves are still liable under coypright law.
I'm not sure if I buy that. At least, I don't think it's that simple. If I sell hardware with GPL firmware, and I don't do firmware support myself, I can't imagine that simply retailing the hardware incurs any kind of source code requirement.
I'm not considering whether Verizon can be sued--anybody can be sued for anything or nothing. I'm wondering whether Verizon should be sued. Whether Verizon is the right target.
Of course, those bets are off if they tailor the firmware themselves. See a comment later in the thread about that.
Also, the GPL is quite clear as to when you are allowed to post a link to a website, and when you have to ship the actual source with the product.
Really? I can't find it. Here are the conditions in the relevant version of the GPL, quoted directly from the Exhibit attached to SFLC's filing in this case:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object
code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do
one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which
must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,
a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and
only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer,
in accord with Subsection b above.)
3 distinct "or" clauses. The "link to a website" case is "b)", where the "ship the actual source" is "a)". Neither has any kind of enforced conditions. So I can't see what you're talking about. Please, enlighten me.
No, I'm sure the real crux of the case is not that Verizon is a big evil corp making megabux fighting network neutrality while stealing Free Software's precious bodily fluids; I'd be willing to be there's actually a sane and reasonable cause of action, like Verizon is modifying Busybox beyond what Actiontec did and not sharing its mods like Actiontec did.
Now that's the answer which makes the most sense. If it's not stock firmware, and the altered firmware is in the scope of the original open source (i.e., not just simple aggregation), then yes, Verizon is obligated to honor source redistribution requirements.
But remember: not everything in the firmware image is necessarily open source. (Again, the "simple aggregation" criterion.) Therefore, not everything would trigger an obligation to share source.
TFA is a fine piece of press-releasemanship, but awfully light on technical goodness. Does anyone know of any in-depth analysis of the nature of the alleged infringement?
ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but ya gotta admit I can fake it pretty well.
I wonder if Verizon is the right place to be looking for the source code?
If the "infringing product" is, indeed, the Actiontec MI424WR, wouldn't the correct place to look be the manufacturer of the hardware and integrator of the firmware, Actiontec?
GPL Code Download is available for the following Actiontec products:
Wireless Broadband Router Model MI424WR
The following is the portion of the Actiontec source code for the MI424WR Products.
List of modules:
busybox-0.50
Release Date Filename
11/27/2007 actiontec_opensrc_mi424wr.tar.gz
Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's there.
So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon? I'm sure Verizon would argue that (A) they're just retailing and installing off-the-shelf hardware, and (B) any license liability is the hardware manufacturer's.
BTW: to the 4 anonymous cowards that I upmodded earlier in this article, sorry you lost my moderation bump. I hate wasting modpoints, but this seemed relevant and important.
In a world of slow-moving shield-fighters, the man with the lasgun is dead, along with anyone within a several-kilometer radius. Pseudo-atomic fusion detonations are bad that way.
To perform non-robotic landings on Mars without violating a ban on human landing, staff the Mars mission with members of the current US administration!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week! Try the veal, it's delicious!
If they're planning to file a copyright infringement lawsuit then, by definition, they (LANCOR) are literally arguing that software was copied.
Naaah. They don't realize it, but what LANCOR is actually literally arguing is that they don't know the difference between copyright and patent.
Next up, LANCOR cites unspecified "intellectual property" which isn't necessarily patent, copyright, or trademark but WHATEVER IT IS OLPC INFRINGED IT OMG!!!!!111one
but the Register writeup makes the entire arb process at WP sound like something between Animal Farm and the French Revolution. Come to think of it, very close to the latter, complete with the rampant paranoia about counter-revolutionary elements.
Next up, la Grande Terreur. A lovely mob dynamic they seem to have going.
Slashdot Mirror
The bumper sticker that epitomizes this mindset:
I may be slow, but at least I'm ahead of you!As far as patents go, this analogy is great. (Although lacking in the Slashdot-standard "Car Analogy" standard.) And the settlement and disclosure agreement we're all commenting on requires Microsoft to disclose the patent numbers of the software "inventions" they feel are embodied in the interfaces documented in the ultra-spiffy double-uber-non-disclosable documents. That means that Microsoft has to mark out the patent minefield in their workgroup protocols so that the Samba team knows what they have to re-engineer.
Somehow, I'm failing to make my real point though. My point is this: nondisclosure of the document is effectively pointless, because (A) the code will contain any of the information in the document necessary to fulfill the software's improved functionality, and yet be freely distributable and capable of study from the source code; and (B) patents can't be hidden: the patent numbers disclosed in accordance with the agreement are guaranteed pointers to the actual patent filings, and patent filings must be sufficiently detailed that the patented invention could actually be implemented according to the patent description.
Patents are public things. Inspect one and you have most of the knowledge you need to actually build the patented thing. You just aren't allowed to, unless you have license from the patent-holder. So hiding a patent in a non-disclosable document is a non-issue. Patents aren't the reason to make the document non-disclosable. And obviously, the information itself in the document isn't a reason to make the document non-disclosable, since the information is about to be translated into another language (C, problably) and published for libre. So, ultimately, I'm guessing the document remains non-disclosable for non-pragmatic reasons: bureaucratic inertia at Microsoft ("This document is non-disclosable. It's always been."); deliberate or incidental attempt to make working with the document and its information tougher (witness the necessity of a complete distinct holding entity which will receive the docs); perhaps a futile attempt to lay a "non-disclosure trap" ("I am Inigo Montoya. Your comments include detailed information from a non-disclosable Microsoft document. Prepare to die.")
Again, it makes no pragmatic sense to me.
Patents here are a bit of a red herring anyways.
I'll say it again: if you write code based on NDA documents, and the source code is distributable, the information in the NDA document is being disclosed in the form of the source code. And that makes no sense to me.
If the licensed documentation is under non-disclosure terms, but the source code is still freely distributable....
what's the point to the documentation not being disclosable?
Talk about pointless legalese...
Real Real men remove bridges without posting "Bridge Out" signs.
Besides that, I simply cannot wait for the ID explanation of life on Mars.
Leaving aside the (in my opinion) intellectual dishonesty of ID, a cool (and admittedly fictional) creationist take on the idea of life on Mars: Out of the Silent Planet by C. S. Lewis.
Nothing I'm aware of in creationist canon explicitly excludes the idea of life elsewhere in this universe. It's just not mentioned. Only the most closed-minded would insist "only the things described in $HOLYBOOK happened, nothing else!".
So.. you've never heard of an intranet? You can run HTTP/HTTPS over a closed network you know.
Or maybe your business environment is isolated mainframes fed data with punched card decks?
Are you volunteering to pay for the bandwidth consumed? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "metered" access? Did you miss the part of TFA which pointed out that once upon a time, Telstra customers could download OO.o without burning into their prepaid bandwitdth quota, but now they can't, and the reason this has happened is that Telstra feels threatened by OO.o?
Yeah, I thought so. This is /.; it's easier to whip out a quip than actually read and comment intelligently.
Now comes the part where you sidestep how thoroughly you misapprehended the situation by muttering off-topic and irrelevant criticism of metered access.
That's an outstanding point. I never thought I'd see a real-life analogue to Zaphod Beeblebrox, but there you go.
"The purpose of the president of the galaxy is not to exercise power, it is to distract attention from the people who are really exercising power"
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions.
Hence, why we disenfranchise divorcees, people who've declared bankruptcy, owners of large SUVs, and fans of American Idol. And I'd recommend only selective voting registration for Slashdotters with enough negative moderation too.
Just yesterday I started that book. I just finished reading the chapter (first) which contained that semi-quote.
I was terribly confused at first; I thought I was reading some kind of documentary. Although the parts about all federal services being corporatized was a clue that it was fiction.
Not that the services themselves were corporatized (that's not fiction); that they have corporate trademarks like "Judge Bob's Justice Corporation" was the major clue.
(For those who can't tell the players without a program, we're talking about Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash. Well, at least I am.
Well, as a long-term plan, it sucks.
As damage control, it's damn fine work. Given the circumstances, it's as close to profit as he can get.
Both labs in question are actually U.S. Department of Energy, not Department of Defense. Technically, they're not "military" labs.
More to the point, if they were military labs, the schlubs responsible for the security cockups would have been in the brig and awaiting a court-martial long ago. The knowledge that your "employer" can clap you in prison and then have you shot for almost a trivial incident is, to borrow a phrase, tremendously attention-focusing.
Yeah, yeah, I know, nuclear weapons and technology, blah, blah, blah... but really. Historically, these labs have always been run a little bit like the average academic research lab at any mainline university, and the stereotypes about egghead scientist types hating military-style regimentation (including security processes) rings very true. Read up about the Manhattan Project. (Which is fitting, since these labs are the direct descendants of that program.)
I dunno 'bout that. By admitting it, he kept his damage down to $500k. If it'd gone to trial, and he lost, I'd bet the penalties and forfeiture might have been higher.
"Why would this matter?", I can hear y'all asking. Because that's the margin between profit and loss. According to TFA, he netted $580,000 from his evildoing. After his fines and penalties, he profited $80k.
So, in this case, "4) ???" is actually "4) plead guilty". "5)" remains "PROFIT!".
You have to be marginally smart and be willing to take acceptable short-term losses in order to make crime pay. But it can be done.
They're suing Verizon because Verizon is distributing the hardware boxes (and thus the embedded software).
Verizon could then turn around and sue the hardware manufacturer as well, but they themselves are still liable under coypright law.
I'm not sure if I buy that. At least, I don't think it's that simple. If I sell hardware with GPL firmware, and I don't do firmware support myself, I can't imagine that simply retailing the hardware incurs any kind of source code requirement.
I'm not considering whether Verizon can be sued--anybody can be sued for anything or nothing. I'm wondering whether Verizon should be sued. Whether Verizon is the right target.
Of course, those bets are off if they tailor the firmware themselves. See a comment later in the thread about that.
Also, the GPL is quite clear as to when you are allowed to post a link to a website, and when you have to ship the actual source with the product.
Really? I can't find it. Here are the conditions in the relevant version of the GPL, quoted directly from the Exhibit attached to SFLC's filing in this case:
3 distinct "or" clauses. The "link to a website" case is "b)", where the "ship the actual source" is "a)". Neither has any kind of enforced conditions. So I can't see what you're talking about. Please, enlighten me.
No, I'm sure the real crux of the case is not that Verizon is a big evil corp making megabux fighting network neutrality while stealing Free Software's precious bodily fluids; I'd be willing to be there's actually a sane and reasonable cause of action, like Verizon is modifying Busybox beyond what Actiontec did and not sharing its mods like Actiontec did.
Now that's the answer which makes the most sense. If it's not stock firmware, and the altered firmware is in the scope of the original open source (i.e., not just simple aggregation), then yes, Verizon is obligated to honor source redistribution requirements.
But remember: not everything in the firmware image is necessarily open source. (Again, the "simple aggregation" criterion.) Therefore, not everything would trigger an obligation to share source.
TFA is a fine piece of press-releasemanship, but awfully light on technical goodness. Does anyone know of any in-depth analysis of the nature of the alleged infringement?
ObDisclaimer: IANAL, but ya gotta admit I can fake it pretty well.
I wonder if Verizon is the right place to be looking for the source code?
If the "infringing product" is, indeed, the Actiontec MI424WR, wouldn't the correct place to look be the manufacturer of the hardware and integrator of the firmware, Actiontec?
Looking on Actiontec's "Support: Open Source" website (http://opensource.actiontec.com/index.html), I see the following:
Hmmm... looks like Actiontec is at least attempting to honor the license. I haven't researched what's in the tarball, but at least it's there.
So, again, why is SFLC suing Verizon? I'm sure Verizon would argue that (A) they're just retailing and installing off-the-shelf hardware, and (B) any license liability is the hardware manufacturer's.
BTW: to the 4 anonymous cowards that I upmodded earlier in this article, sorry you lost my moderation bump. I hate wasting modpoints, but this seemed relevant and important.
In a world of slow-moving shield-fighters, the man with the lasgun is dead, along with anyone within a several-kilometer radius. Pseudo-atomic fusion detonations are bad that way.
the only thing sillier is folks who go to lolcat websites for their medical information and advice.
"I CAN HAS VAXINASHUNZ?"
That's a widely held misconception, but at least in the United States the Internet is not a common carrier network.
As legal defenses go, that one's screwed.
(If you wanna parse the certiorari yourself, it's at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-277.pdf. PDF warning!)
makes me wish I hadn't had children, so that common sense and basic liberty wouldn't be taken hostage in their names.
But then rationality returns to me and I wish that the parents of those tards in Congress hadn't had children.
Sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh and unfair to the mentally retarded, comparing them to Congress.
To perform non-robotic landings on Mars without violating a ban on human landing, staff the Mars mission with members of the current US administration!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week! Try the veal, it's delicious!
If they're planning to file a copyright infringement lawsuit then, by definition, they (LANCOR) are literally arguing that software was copied.
Naaah. They don't realize it, but what LANCOR is actually literally arguing is that they don't know the difference between copyright and patent.
Next up, LANCOR cites unspecified "intellectual property" which isn't necessarily patent, copyright, or trademark but WHATEVER IT IS OLPC INFRINGED IT OMG!!!!!111one
See also SCO v. IBM
but the Register writeup makes the entire arb process at WP sound like something between Animal Farm and the French Revolution. Come to think of it, very close to the latter, complete with the rampant paranoia about counter-revolutionary elements.
Next up, la Grande Terreur. A lovely mob dynamic they seem to have going.
an extra planet outside the orbit of Uranus. Never found that one either, right?
Nope. We got fooled by a "dwarf planet", but we've gotten that straightened out now.
So, yeah, we're still looking for that much-postulated ninth planet.