Eiffel Software, Inc. has an interesting interpretation of the licensing it believes that it is offering:
* If you wish to earn a commercial benefit from your application and not release its source code, you must purchase the number of licenses you need for your development from Eiffel Software. After you purchase licenses, you are free to use and distribute your application the way you want.
* If you select the Open Source license, you must release your development under an Open Source license for the benefit of the community at large.
I think I've figured out why so much of the discussion of Google Print so completely misses the point: we're too used to thinking about copyright law through the lens of the GPL.
The GPL licenses unlimited copying of a work without restrictions. The GPL's restrictions attach only upon the re-distribution of the copyrighted material (or of copies or of derived works). So when we think about "copyright violations," we think first about re-distribution.
Discussion about Google Print has been confused by this pre-occupation, because what Google proposes to re-distribute (bibliographic information and very short extracts) arguably falls under the ambit of fair use.
But books -- with a few exceptions! -- aren't covered by the GPL. Making a copy of a book, even if you re-distribute none of it, is illegal unless you receive prior permission from the author, publisher or whomever holds the copyright.
We all know this. We know that we can't just stroll into a library and start making photocopies of entire books. And we know that if we set out to make copies of every single book in the New York Public Library, there'd be trouble. And rightly so.
And we also know that if Microsoft announced that it had decided to copy millions of books, without the copyright-holders' permission, we'd be up in arms.
The other argument one hears is that copyright-holders should welcome the chance to be included in Google's database. Perhaps. But shouldn't the choice be up to them? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the deal, or simply accept or reject whatever terms Google happens to offer?
Opt-out is not only a bad answer, it's dishonest.
Opt-out is a bad answer for exactly the same reasons we reject it with respect to privacy and spam. We shouldn't have to do something "extra" just to get a spammer or a credit card company to not violate our rights.
Opt-out is also a lie. Go get a book from your bookshelf, and flip to the copyright notice. In many cases, you'll find a little statement with words to the effect of, "All rights reserved." Now, this notice isn't required by U.S. or international copyright law anymore. But it's still there, in millions upon millions of copyrighted works: "All rights reserved." Translation: "I OPT OUT!!!"
Naturally, Google has no intention whatsoever of respecting this perfectly clear and unambiguous denial of permission to do exactly what Google proposes to do.
And that's what the issue really boils down to: Google is doing a plainly illegal thing, in the face of explicit prohibition by the copyright-holders, with a simple justification: "Oh...you don't mean us."
The Author's Guild is simply answering: "Yes, we really do."
"Users meanwhile need to understand that Linux enduser license agreements are an 'as is' contract, meaning Linux users aren't protected from copyright or intellectual-property infringement claims..."
Quoted from the July 28th edition of Information Week magazine in an Article by Larry Greenmeier titled "Sco Group Threatens Users in Linux Fight" p.24 -- sorry, I couldn't find a link online.
Agree with it or not, at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable.
Perhaps...but it's a lawyer who believes that "Linux enduser license agreements" exist. So perhaps this should be taken with a grain of salt.
But thats only if on return from ap_ssi_get_tag_and_value that tag is a NULL pointer and tag_val is non-NULL.
Read the condition in line 2817 again.
Notice that it tests both tag and tag_val against NULL, implying that the author of the function believed that tag could be NULL at the same time that tag_val was non-NULL.
If ap_ssi_get_tag_and_value cant return these conditions then this is not a defect.
The code itself implies that this guarantee is NOT provided. And Reason's software notices this fact. (There are similar patterns in all of the "dereferencing a NULL pointer" errors that I looked at -- that is, it's always code that's dereferencing a pointer that is tested for NULL along previously along the code path, but not modified as a result of the test.)
So...whatever Reason's software is doing, it's considerably more clever than you imply.
There is another option along these lines, without the drawbacks and without the need for any change in law: IIRC, patent applicants are required to affirm that they have made a dilligent search for prior art and found none. Making this claim falsely constitutes fraud.
Of course, actually getting criminal convictions might be difficult...how do you prove that the claim was knowingly false? But a couple of indictments might just encourage potential applicants to think twice before they file.
At present, the principle seems to be, "File a claim for everything, see what the PTO gives you." The specter of criminal liability for obviously frivolous claims (given the widespread existence of prior art) might change this thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
* If you wish to earn a commercial benefit from your application and not release its source code, you must purchase the number of licenses you need for your development from Eiffel Software. After you purchase licenses, you are free to use and distribute your application the way you want.
* If you select the Open Source license, you must release your development under an Open Source license for the benefit of the community at large.
Source: http://www.eiffel.com/licensing/licensing.html
So, either the Eiffel folks don't understand the GPL, or there's a GPL'd runtime module that that has to be linked into your executable code.
Either way, this is more restrictive than, say, the licence for gcc.
I think I've figured out why so much of the discussion of Google Print so completely misses the point: we're too used to thinking about copyright law through the lens of the GPL.
The GPL licenses unlimited copying of a work without restrictions. The GPL's restrictions attach only upon the re-distribution of the copyrighted material (or of copies or of derived works). So when we think about "copyright violations," we think first about re-distribution.
Discussion about Google Print has been confused by this pre-occupation, because what Google proposes to re-distribute (bibliographic information and very short extracts) arguably falls under the ambit of fair use.
But books -- with a few exceptions! -- aren't covered by the GPL. Making a copy of a book, even if you re-distribute none of it, is illegal unless you receive prior permission from the author, publisher or whomever holds the copyright.
We all know this. We know that we can't just stroll into a library and start making photocopies of entire books. And we know that if we set out to make copies of every single book in the New York Public Library, there'd be trouble. And rightly so.
And we also know that if Microsoft announced that it had decided to copy millions of books, without the copyright-holders' permission, we'd be up in arms.
The other argument one hears is that copyright-holders should welcome the chance to be included in Google's database. Perhaps. But shouldn't the choice be up to them? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the deal, or simply accept or reject whatever terms Google happens to offer?
Opt-out is not only a bad answer, it's dishonest.
Opt-out is a bad answer for exactly the same reasons we reject it with respect to privacy and spam. We shouldn't have to do something "extra" just to get a spammer or a credit card company to not violate our rights.
Opt-out is also a lie. Go get a book from your bookshelf, and flip to the copyright notice. In many cases, you'll find a little statement with words to the effect of, "All rights reserved." Now, this notice isn't required by U.S. or international copyright law anymore. But it's still there, in millions upon millions of copyrighted works: "All rights reserved." Translation: "I OPT OUT!!!"
Naturally, Google has no intention whatsoever of respecting this perfectly clear and unambiguous denial of permission to do exactly what Google proposes to do.
And that's what the issue really boils down to: Google is doing a plainly illegal thing, in the face of explicit prohibition by the copyright-holders, with a simple justification: "Oh...you don't mean us."
The Author's Guild is simply answering: "Yes, we really do."
Programming does not "jive" with parenthood. It may however jibe with parenthood. Sorry. Just a pet peeve of mine....
Quoted from the July 28th edition of Information Week magazine in an Article by Larry Greenmeier titled "Sco Group Threatens Users in Linux Fight" p.24 -- sorry, I couldn't find a link online.
Agree with it or not, at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable.
Perhaps...but it's a lawyer who believes that "Linux enduser license agreements" exist. So perhaps this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Read the condition in line 2817 again.
Notice that it tests both tag and tag_val against NULL, implying that the author of the function believed that tag could be NULL at the same time that tag_val was non-NULL.
If ap_ssi_get_tag_and_value cant return these conditions then this is not a defect.
The code itself implies that this guarantee is NOT provided. And Reason's software notices this fact. (There are similar patterns in all of the "dereferencing a NULL pointer" errors that I looked at -- that is, it's always code that's dereferencing a pointer that is tested for NULL along previously along the code path, but not modified as a result of the test.)
So...whatever Reason's software is doing, it's considerably more clever than you imply.
> This is what they're pantenting.
Flatly wrong. Read the patent claims. Read, for example, Claim 1. Nothing about caching or indexing there.
There is another option along these lines, without the drawbacks and without the need for any change in law: IIRC, patent applicants are required to affirm that they have made a dilligent search for prior art and found none. Making this claim falsely constitutes fraud.
Of course, actually getting criminal convictions might be difficult...how do you prove that the claim was knowingly false? But a couple of indictments might just encourage potential applicants to think twice before they file.
At present, the principle seems to be, "File a claim for everything, see what the PTO gives you." The specter of criminal liability for obviously frivolous claims (given the widespread existence of prior art) might change this thinking.