My premise is that Intel would have used their XScale design, because they sunk money into it.
And what would sunk money in XScale have to do with anything? From what I know Intel does not manufacture their XScale on their 14nm process and rely on older fabs even selling off the XScale mobile chip business in 2006 to Marvell. Why would Intel insist on using designs that they sold?
Apple certainly didn't want Intel's XScale. If Apple approached Intel, it would be for Intel to manufacture Apple's designs as they were having problems with Samsung. Instead Apple went with TSMC for A10 and newer.
Oh, for Pete's sake, quit flailing at your strawman. Nobody claimed GPL = copyright, just that you can't violate GPL without infringing copyright.
He clearly did so: "So that only leaves cases where 1. you're violating what copyright law would allow, but following the GPL (which is fine) or 2. violating what copyright law would allow and violating the GPL. Thus, if you're violating the GPL, you're violating copyright law." Scroll up. Want to retract your statement?
No one in this thread (neither me nor anyone else) has claimed that "the GPL is copyright"--your reasoning here is pure strawman--but that doesn't change the fact that all possible violations of the GPL are also copyright violations. In the eyes of the law, this is purely a coincidence (even though the GPL was carefully written to ensure that this would be the case).
NOWHERE in this thread have you used the term "possible". Instead you said this: "If the patches are not in compliance with the GPL, then they're being distributed in violation of copyright law. Which is illegal, last I checked."
And this: "So that only leaves cases where 1. you're violating what copyright law would allow, but following the GPL (which is fine) or 2. violating what copyright law would allow and violating the GPL. Thus, if you're violating the GPL, you're violating copyright law."
And this: " If you have, and you violate the GPL, then you've also violated copyright, because you distributed the code without a valid contract/license. There are no other possibilities with the GPL (even if there certainly are with contracts in general)."
Are you now going to deny you said those things?
The GPL explicitly allows anything copyright allows. Thus, all violations of the GPL are violations of copyright law. Not because the law says so, but because it's logically impossible for it to be otherwise.
I'm tired of having to explain it to you. Why don't you show me one court case or law that backs up this claim. Just one. I suspect you can't.
So, the bottom line is that the OP's claim ("violating the GPL is violating the law") is true, not because the GPL is part of copyright law (your bizarre strawman theory), but because only actions which would otherwise violate copyright law are capable of violating the GPL. There doesn't have to be an explicit legal link if one set of actions is a strict subset of the other. Which it is.
Again show me one case that backs up your claim. Otherwise, you're just dead wrong and in full denial.
First of all, you missed the point. The judge did not have to decide merely that there was a breach of contract; he had to first decide that there was an enforceable contract. By your logic, that should never be because the GPL is copyright. This is where your logic fails. Many copyright and breach of contract suits start with a signed contract which this suit did not have.
Second by your logic a violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright. If your logic is true then ALL of Artifex's claims fall under copyright violation claims. There would be no breach of contract to dispute and the judge would have dismissed those claims. Do you see how your point doesn't make any sense?
What they are saying is that Intel doesn't have any of their own ARM chips that can compete in mobile but they did have modern chip foundries and could manufacture other ARM chips. Samsung has that business model where they make their own designs and manufacture other people's designs too. Your premise is that Intel only use their XScale design which was never adequate. Granted Intel may not want to be a chip foundry for hire but mobile chip numbers have easily eclipsed desktop/laptop chip numbers so Intel is missing out on a huge market.
In the article the hacker admits that in reviewing his hack it appears that not all the attempts were received and processed by the phone. He says out of the 20 attempts, the phone may have actually got 5 or 6. This is not Apple saying it. This is the hacker.
You mean it was an unclear summary. The story itself lays it out: the hacker said there is a way to send a stream of passcode attempts via cable to the iPhone which would override the 10 attempt limit. He later had to admit is that the method he used did not always send the attempt correctly to the phone and it was ignored thus not hitting the limit. He thought he sent 20 attempts when reality it was 5 or 6.
Let me see if I understand you: You claim it doesn't matter that it's not a contract. Here's why you don't get it. If a violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright, the courts would NEVER have to rule whether or not the GPL is an enforceable contract. They would have ruled that it was a violation of copyright. Period. The fact that they didn't rule that GPL is an enforceable contract means that it is not necessarily true that a violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright.
Not all automobiles are trucks, but all automobiles which are trucks are trucks, and all violations of the GPL are copyright infringements, because the GPL doesn't apply to any not-potentially-infringing activities.
Your failing premise first asserts that GPL==copyright. The GPL is nowhere codified as copyright and you cannot show me where it has been.
And I'm not sure what you think Artifex proves, since Artifex sued for copyright violation as well as contract violation. Which is sensible, because it's impossible to violate the GPL without violating copyright law.
Again my point was that the GPL extends copyright. Artifex sued for both because they felt the defendant violated both. If a violation of the GPL was a violation of copyright, why did Artifex sue also for contract breach under the GPL and why did the court grant them that the GPL can be considered an enforceable contract? Again, if a violation of the GPL was a violation of copyright, the court would never had to rule that the GPL was an enforceable contract. The court would have dismissed the claim because Artifex's claims would have fallen entirely under copyright.
Sigh. How much common sense does it take to realize an automobile is not a truck. In the full thread people are claiming that violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright; however, no one single person including you has provided any evidence to that fact. I said that it's not. Then you say I have to prove that. Why don't you prove your case first? But if you must have a case: See MDY v Blizzard.
It doesn't need to specify how you grant permission. It's up to the defendant in an infringement case to demonstrate that they had permission to copy/distribute. In a case of GPL violation, all they have to point to is the terms of the license which, if they did not respect, means they do not have any rights to the work by default under law. How can you not get this?
Again, the GPL is a LICENSE. The GPL is not codified into law; therefore a breach of the license does not necessarily mean a breach of copyright. See MDY vs Blizzard.
Uh, I don't know how you get from that Bruce saying GPL is a contract. He's saying the courts said GPL is a contract.
Let me see if I understand you: You said the GPL isn't a contract. I pointed out that Perens said it is and you're now arguing that technically the courts said it was a contract. Doesn't that still make you just wrong that in fact, the GPL is a contract?
Anyway, the court did not issue any kind of ruling that the GPL is a contract in that case. All they did is say that, in that specific instance, the claims could proceed under contract law. Hardly a ruling for the ages.
Did you not just argue that it wasn't contested? I've pointed out that it has been contested. And you're now saying because the court said the claims could proceed "under contract law" that it's not a contract? Do I understand that you're basically in full denial mode of facts?
We've been arguing generalities, but please give a SPECIFIC example of something you can do that violates GPL but does not violate copyright.
The person making the claim must provide the evidence. What you're saying is that I must provide a negative example which can be impossible. I did however link to an actual court case that cites that the GPL is an enforceable contract.
So that only leaves cases where 1. you're violating what copyright law would allow, but following the GPL (which is fine) or 2. violating what copyright law would allow and violating the GPL. Thus, if you're violating the GPL, you're violating copyright law.
Again, a truck is an automobile. An automobile is not always a truck. If you violate the GPL you may not be violating copyright. You are violating an enforceable contract. See ARTIFEX SOFTWARE, INC v. HANCOM, INC.
All it does is conditionally grant some rights that by default go to the author. If you violate the terms, you have no permissions to the work under copyright law.
No part of US Copyright Law determines HOW an owner can grant distribution rights. It only says that owners have permission. No part of it determines what constitutes a violation of permission. Please cite anywhere in 17 USC 117 where it says this.
The only way to violate the license is to distribute against the terms, which is illegal because your conditional permissions have been revoked. If you don't distribute, then there is nothing to legally bind you. That is why violating the GPL is necessarily and sufficienty a copyright violation.
Again a truck is an automobile. An automobile is not always a truck.
No, it is not, although it has been contested.
Are you arguing that the GPL isn't a contract? Because Bruce Perens (the same person in this article) says otherwise: "What’s made news recently is that the court found that the GPL was an enforceable contract, and is allowing the case to proceed as a complaint of breach of contract, not just copyright infringement (as most similar cases have). . . But the FSF had its own reasons to say it’s a license, reasons that might be more important to the philosophy of Free Software than the court , ..Does the FSF lose anything because the court said the GPL is a contract? I don’t see how. The court didn’t say it’s not a license."
Sigh. Let me explain this in a programmer's way: GPL extends copyright. GPL != copyright. That's what people don't understand. If you violate the GPL, it's not necessarily a violation of copyright law. The GPL is in essence a license which IS a contract.
If you violate the GPL you have no right to distribute. Distributing anyway is against copyright law. Thus, if you distribute while not adhering to GPL what you are doing is against the law.
No, if you violate the GPL, you violate the GPL. You do not necessarily violate copyright. You are equating the two as the same and they are not. GPL is an extension of copyright. A truck is an automobile; not all automobiles are trucks.
GPL does not stipulate restrictions.
Yes it does. Either you don't understand the GPL or you are lying. Specifically, you may modify the source code but you must publish your modifications if you re-distribute.
Yes it does. Specifically you must publish and maintain copyright notices.
Both stipulate under what conditions you are allowed to distribute, something you otherwise would not be allowed to do at all.
Dude, you have to be more precise in your words. You just said above that neither stipulate restrictions then you say that they do stipulate restrictions. Second, distribution rights are always with permission of the copyright holder and the whole point of this conversation is about granting permission.
Neither stipulates restrictions on something you would have been allowed to do. Both stipulate a *removal* on restrictions to distribute.
Again, be clear on your use of words.
If someone acts beyond the freedoms granted by GPL or BSD, their acts then - by definition - violate copyright law, because the acts occur without the freedoms the licences would otherwise have provided.
Again, no. A truck is an automobile. An automobile is not necessarily a truck. A violation of the GPL does not necessarily violate copyright. A violation of copyright will definitely violate the GPL.
That all said, massive increases in available bandwidth make this rather pointless.
True, but a factor is the cost of the bandwidth and who controls it. One of the issues is the ISPs as technically I can get gigabit speeds to my house as the technology exists. Realistically it would cost me a lot and right now none of the ISPs in my area offer it. For cellular ISPs, there has to be massive upgrades to the infrastructure to support higher speeds. This is the problem that companies like Netflix face; there is a wide discrepancy between bandwidths on different networks for their customers. One way to solve this (for now) is better codecs and compression so that content is the same quality regardless the network bandwidth.
If the patches are not in compliance with the GPL, then they're being distributed in violation of copyright law. Which is illegal, last I checked.
The problem is that using the term "illegal" which has very specific legal and judicial meaning. In terms of GPL and copyright, it's a violation of the license and a breach of contract. When we talk about copyright legal terms like "theft" and "illegal" keep being thrown around when they are not precisely used. As an example, if I have an agreement with a consignment store to sell some items for 35% but after selling my items they only give me 25%. Did the consignment store "steal" my property? No, there may be a dispute about terms of the contract and payment, but the store didn't "steal" property. The store didn't "illegally" sell my goods. That's the difference.
The GPL doesn't have to be "codified into law", because nothing else gives you permission to distribute the code in question.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Copyright law says only the copyright holder can distribute work with exceptions like fair use. Copyright law leaves open the idea that the copyright holder can impose restrictions on distribution; it does not clarify what kind of restrictions. Restrictions have been clarified by the courts as valid or invalid. For example, if a music company gives away demo CDs, it cannot declare that those demo CDs cannot be sold later. If a music company licenses music to be used in a movie that does not automatically grant the same music can be used in a video game unless a licensing agreement stipulates it, etc.
The only purpose of the GPL, really, is to provide people with a defense against infringement charges by the copyright holders. And technically, it contains no restrictions at all--it simply has limits on the otherwise-illegal things allows you to do.
I don't think that was the point of the GPL. It was to ensure that code in particular remain open source with stipulations. Other open source licenses like BSD imposes fewer restrictions.
Anything copyright law allows, the GPL allows. So the only way to "violate the GPL" is to do something against the law.
I don't understand your logic here. You said that the GPL isn't law yet you say violating it is against the law. That's not how the law works. When you violate the GPL, you violate a contract because the GPL is additional conditions imposed that are not in the law. If you violate copyright laws that's illegal. Violating GPL is not per se illegal.
If I understand correctly, Bruce has been claiming that GR security isn't following the licenses - in other words is breaking the law
No. GR Security wasn't following the GPLv2 license stipulations and could be in violation of the license. The GPL isn't codified into law. And the phrasing that Perens used was "could be".
Loss of this court case could then be effectively seen as a court judgement that GR Security's patches are illegal. Has anyone read the court judgement in enough detail and with enough understanding to confirm that?
No, GR Security patches are not illegal because the GPLv2 isn't law. The patches may be in non-compliance with GPLv2 though.
I think your analogy is somewhat flawed. Public key cryptography was in somewhat of the same "rut" as video codec. Video codecs have been stuck on hybrid block techniques and Public key cryptography has been stuck using modulo arithmetic (RSA, and Elliptical curves both use modulo arithmetic although they depend on the difficulty of inverting different mathematical operations in modulo arithmetic).
My understanding of ECC is that it does not use the same modulo arithmetic (g^a mod n and g^b mod n) as the main technique and relies on an elliptic curve (y^2 = x^3 + ax +b where g is a random point on the curve) which results in shorter keys.
The main argument the OP was making was that renewable energy was bad for the economy because people have investments in fossil fuels that cannot be changed and this would cause some sort of economic crisis if people were to divest themselves. My point is that it is easy to divest from fossil fuels in retirement funds if people choose to do so. Or they could invest heavily in them.
No, the problem which the summary is terrible at discussing is that video codec research is at a stand still. New video codecs can come and go but they are all the same basic approaches to the problem. Take for example H.264 vs H.265. H.265 adds higher resolution and other advancements over H.264. It has better compression but requires more processing power. But it's not fundamentally different than H.264. VP9 and AV1 isn't fundamentally different either. The main benefit of VP9 and AV1 over H.265 is that they are royalty-free and open.
As with choosing to juggle chainsaws, when you finally go bankrupt from needless medical bills, taxpayers are left to pay for your sorry ass.
What the hell are you talking about? The OP said that it wasn't easy to divest retirement funds. I can easily change my retirement options as can every one else. Sure not everyone will have as many options as they like but to say divesting from fossil fuels isn't easy is either plain ignorance or a bold faced lie. It has nothing to do with medical bills or whatever you are discussing.
Slashdot Mirror
My premise is that Intel would have used their XScale design, because they sunk money into it.
And what would sunk money in XScale have to do with anything? From what I know Intel does not manufacture their XScale on their 14nm process and rely on older fabs even selling off the XScale mobile chip business in 2006 to Marvell. Why would Intel insist on using designs that they sold?
Apple certainly didn't want Intel's XScale. If Apple approached Intel, it would be for Intel to manufacture Apple's designs as they were having problems with Samsung. Instead Apple went with TSMC for A10 and newer.
Oh, for Pete's sake, quit flailing at your strawman. Nobody claimed GPL = copyright, just that you can't violate GPL without infringing copyright.
He clearly did so: "So that only leaves cases where 1. you're violating what copyright law would allow, but following the GPL (which is fine) or 2. violating what copyright law would allow and violating the GPL. Thus, if you're violating the GPL, you're violating copyright law." Scroll up. Want to retract your statement?
No one in this thread (neither me nor anyone else) has claimed that "the GPL is copyright"--your reasoning here is pure strawman--but that doesn't change the fact that all possible violations of the GPL are also copyright violations. In the eyes of the law, this is purely a coincidence (even though the GPL was carefully written to ensure that this would be the case).
NOWHERE in this thread have you used the term "possible". Instead you said this: "If the patches are not in compliance with the GPL, then they're being distributed in violation of copyright law. Which is illegal, last I checked."
And this: "So that only leaves cases where 1. you're violating what copyright law would allow, but following the GPL (which is fine) or 2. violating what copyright law would allow and violating the GPL. Thus, if you're violating the GPL, you're violating copyright law."
And this: " If you have, and you violate the GPL, then you've also violated copyright, because you distributed the code without a valid contract/license. There are no other possibilities with the GPL (even if there certainly are with contracts in general)."
Are you now going to deny you said those things?
The GPL explicitly allows anything copyright allows. Thus, all violations of the GPL are violations of copyright law. Not because the law says so, but because it's logically impossible for it to be otherwise.
I'm tired of having to explain it to you. Why don't you show me one court case or law that backs up this claim. Just one. I suspect you can't.
So, the bottom line is that the OP's claim ("violating the GPL is violating the law") is true, not because the GPL is part of copyright law (your bizarre strawman theory), but because only actions which would otherwise violate copyright law are capable of violating the GPL. There doesn't have to be an explicit legal link if one set of actions is a strict subset of the other. Which it is.
Again show me one case that backs up your claim. Otherwise, you're just dead wrong and in full denial.
First of all, you missed the point. The judge did not have to decide merely that there was a breach of contract; he had to first decide that there was an enforceable contract. By your logic, that should never be because the GPL is copyright. This is where your logic fails. Many copyright and breach of contract suits start with a signed contract which this suit did not have.
Second by your logic a violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright. If your logic is true then ALL of Artifex's claims fall under copyright violation claims. There would be no breach of contract to dispute and the judge would have dismissed those claims. Do you see how your point doesn't make any sense?
Dude, what the hell are you ranting about? I merely said that Intel could be a chip foundry if it wanted to be as they have 14nm fabs.
What they are saying is that Intel doesn't have any of their own ARM chips that can compete in mobile but they did have modern chip foundries and could manufacture other ARM chips. Samsung has that business model where they make their own designs and manufacture other people's designs too. Your premise is that Intel only use their XScale design which was never adequate. Granted Intel may not want to be a chip foundry for hire but mobile chip numbers have easily eclipsed desktop/laptop chip numbers so Intel is missing out on a huge market.
In the article the hacker admits that in reviewing his hack it appears that not all the attempts were received and processed by the phone. He says out of the 20 attempts, the phone may have actually got 5 or 6. This is not Apple saying it. This is the hacker.
You mean it was an unclear summary. The story itself lays it out: the hacker said there is a way to send a stream of passcode attempts via cable to the iPhone which would override the 10 attempt limit. He later had to admit is that the method he used did not always send the attempt correctly to the phone and it was ignored thus not hitting the limit. He thought he sent 20 attempts when reality it was 5 or 6.
It doesn't matter that it's a contract.
Let me see if I understand you: You claim it doesn't matter that it's not a contract. Here's why you don't get it. If a violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright, the courts would NEVER have to rule whether or not the GPL is an enforceable contract. They would have ruled that it was a violation of copyright. Period. The fact that they didn't rule that GPL is an enforceable contract means that it is not necessarily true that a violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright.
Not all automobiles are trucks, but all automobiles which are trucks are trucks, and all violations of the GPL are copyright infringements, because the GPL doesn't apply to any not-potentially-infringing activities.
Your failing premise first asserts that GPL==copyright. The GPL is nowhere codified as copyright and you cannot show me where it has been.
And I'm not sure what you think Artifex proves, since Artifex sued for copyright violation as well as contract violation. Which is sensible, because it's impossible to violate the GPL without violating copyright law.
Again my point was that the GPL extends copyright. Artifex sued for both because they felt the defendant violated both. If a violation of the GPL was a violation of copyright, why did Artifex sue also for contract breach under the GPL and why did the court grant them that the GPL can be considered an enforceable contract? Again, if a violation of the GPL was a violation of copyright, the court would never had to rule that the GPL was an enforceable contract. The court would have dismissed the claim because Artifex's claims would have fallen entirely under copyright.
Sigh. How much common sense does it take to realize an automobile is not a truck. In the full thread people are claiming that violation of the GPL is a violation of copyright; however, no one single person including you has provided any evidence to that fact. I said that it's not. Then you say I have to prove that. Why don't you prove your case first? But if you must have a case: See MDY v Blizzard.
It doesn't need to specify how you grant permission. It's up to the defendant in an infringement case to demonstrate that they had permission to copy/distribute. In a case of GPL violation, all they have to point to is the terms of the license which, if they did not respect, means they do not have any rights to the work by default under law. How can you not get this?
Again, the GPL is a LICENSE. The GPL is not codified into law; therefore a breach of the license does not necessarily mean a breach of copyright. See MDY vs Blizzard.
Uh, I don't know how you get from that Bruce saying GPL is a contract. He's saying the courts said GPL is a contract.
Let me see if I understand you: You said the GPL isn't a contract. I pointed out that Perens said it is and you're now arguing that technically the courts said it was a contract. Doesn't that still make you just wrong that in fact, the GPL is a contract?
Anyway, the court did not issue any kind of ruling that the GPL is a contract in that case. All they did is say that, in that specific instance, the claims could proceed under contract law. Hardly a ruling for the ages.
Did you not just argue that it wasn't contested? I've pointed out that it has been contested. And you're now saying because the court said the claims could proceed "under contract law" that it's not a contract? Do I understand that you're basically in full denial mode of facts?
We've been arguing generalities, but please give a SPECIFIC example of something you can do that violates GPL but does not violate copyright.
The person making the claim must provide the evidence. What you're saying is that I must provide a negative example which can be impossible. I did however link to an actual court case that cites that the GPL is an enforceable contract.
So that only leaves cases where 1. you're violating what copyright law would allow, but following the GPL (which is fine) or 2. violating what copyright law would allow and violating the GPL. Thus, if you're violating the GPL, you're violating copyright law.
Again, a truck is an automobile. An automobile is not always a truck. If you violate the GPL you may not be violating copyright. You are violating an enforceable contract. See ARTIFEX SOFTWARE, INC v. HANCOM, INC.
All it does is conditionally grant some rights that by default go to the author. If you violate the terms, you have no permissions to the work under copyright law.
No part of US Copyright Law determines HOW an owner can grant distribution rights. It only says that owners have permission. No part of it determines what constitutes a violation of permission. Please cite anywhere in 17 USC 117 where it says this.
The only way to violate the license is to distribute against the terms, which is illegal because your conditional permissions have been revoked. If you don't distribute, then there is nothing to legally bind you. That is why violating the GPL is necessarily and sufficienty a copyright violation.
Again a truck is an automobile. An automobile is not always a truck.
No, it is not, although it has been contested.
Are you arguing that the GPL isn't a contract? Because Bruce Perens (the same person in this article) says otherwise: "What’s made news recently is that the court found that the GPL was an enforceable contract, and is allowing the case to proceed as a complaint of breach of contract, not just copyright infringement (as most similar cases have). . . But the FSF had its own reasons to say it’s a license, reasons that might be more important to the philosophy of Free Software than the court , . .Does the FSF lose anything because the court said the GPL is a contract? I don’t see how. The court didn’t say it’s not a license."
Sigh. Let me explain this in a programmer's way: GPL extends copyright. GPL != copyright. That's what people don't understand. If you violate the GPL, it's not necessarily a violation of copyright law. The GPL is in essence a license which IS a contract.
His point is that it is "illegal" and that if violates copyright if you violate the GPL. No you breach a contract if you violate the GPL.
If you violate the GPL you have no right to distribute. Distributing anyway is against copyright law. Thus, if you distribute while not adhering to GPL what you are doing is against the law.
No, if you violate the GPL, you violate the GPL. You do not necessarily violate copyright. You are equating the two as the same and they are not. GPL is an extension of copyright. A truck is an automobile; not all automobiles are trucks.
GPL does not stipulate restrictions.
Yes it does. Either you don't understand the GPL or you are lying. Specifically, you may modify the source code but you must publish your modifications if you re-distribute.
Yes it does. Specifically you must publish and maintain copyright notices.
Both stipulate under what conditions you are allowed to distribute, something you otherwise would not be allowed to do at all.
Dude, you have to be more precise in your words. You just said above that neither stipulate restrictions then you say that they do stipulate restrictions. Second, distribution rights are always with permission of the copyright holder and the whole point of this conversation is about granting permission.
Neither stipulates restrictions on something you would have been allowed to do. Both stipulate a *removal* on restrictions to distribute.
Again, be clear on your use of words.
If someone acts beyond the freedoms granted by GPL or BSD, their acts then - by definition - violate copyright law, because the acts occur without the freedoms the licences would otherwise have provided.
Again, no. A truck is an automobile. An automobile is not necessarily a truck. A violation of the GPL does not necessarily violate copyright. A violation of copyright will definitely violate the GPL.
That all said, massive increases in available bandwidth make this rather pointless.
True, but a factor is the cost of the bandwidth and who controls it. One of the issues is the ISPs as technically I can get gigabit speeds to my house as the technology exists. Realistically it would cost me a lot and right now none of the ISPs in my area offer it. For cellular ISPs, there has to be massive upgrades to the infrastructure to support higher speeds. This is the problem that companies like Netflix face; there is a wide discrepancy between bandwidths on different networks for their customers. One way to solve this (for now) is better codecs and compression so that content is the same quality regardless the network bandwidth.
If the patches are not in compliance with the GPL, then they're being distributed in violation of copyright law. Which is illegal, last I checked.
The problem is that using the term "illegal" which has very specific legal and judicial meaning. In terms of GPL and copyright, it's a violation of the license and a breach of contract. When we talk about copyright legal terms like "theft" and "illegal" keep being thrown around when they are not precisely used. As an example, if I have an agreement with a consignment store to sell some items for 35% but after selling my items they only give me 25%. Did the consignment store "steal" my property? No, there may be a dispute about terms of the contract and payment, but the store didn't "steal" property. The store didn't "illegally" sell my goods. That's the difference.
The GPL doesn't have to be "codified into law", because nothing else gives you permission to distribute the code in question.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Copyright law says only the copyright holder can distribute work with exceptions like fair use. Copyright law leaves open the idea that the copyright holder can impose restrictions on distribution; it does not clarify what kind of restrictions. Restrictions have been clarified by the courts as valid or invalid. For example, if a music company gives away demo CDs, it cannot declare that those demo CDs cannot be sold later. If a music company licenses music to be used in a movie that does not automatically grant the same music can be used in a video game unless a licensing agreement stipulates it, etc.
The only purpose of the GPL, really, is to provide people with a defense against infringement charges by the copyright holders. And technically, it contains no restrictions at all--it simply has limits on the otherwise-illegal things allows you to do.
I don't think that was the point of the GPL. It was to ensure that code in particular remain open source with stipulations. Other open source licenses like BSD imposes fewer restrictions.
Anything copyright law allows, the GPL allows. So the only way to "violate the GPL" is to do something against the law.
I don't understand your logic here. You said that the GPL isn't law yet you say violating it is against the law. That's not how the law works. When you violate the GPL, you violate a contract because the GPL is additional conditions imposed that are not in the law. If you violate copyright laws that's illegal. Violating GPL is not per se illegal.
If I understand correctly, Bruce has been claiming that GR security isn't following the licenses - in other words is breaking the law
No. GR Security wasn't following the GPLv2 license stipulations and could be in violation of the license. The GPL isn't codified into law. And the phrasing that Perens used was "could be".
Loss of this court case could then be effectively seen as a court judgement that GR Security's patches are illegal. Has anyone read the court judgement in enough detail and with enough understanding to confirm that?
No, GR Security patches are not illegal because the GPLv2 isn't law. The patches may be in non-compliance with GPLv2 though.
I think your analogy is somewhat flawed. Public key cryptography was in somewhat of the same "rut" as video codec. Video codecs have been stuck on hybrid block techniques and Public key cryptography has been stuck using modulo arithmetic (RSA, and Elliptical curves both use modulo arithmetic although they depend on the difficulty of inverting different mathematical operations in modulo arithmetic).
My understanding of ECC is that it does not use the same modulo arithmetic (g^a mod n and g^b mod n) as the main technique and relies on an elliptic curve (y^2 = x^3 + ax +b where g is a random point on the curve) which results in shorter keys.
The main argument the OP was making was that renewable energy was bad for the economy because people have investments in fossil fuels that cannot be changed and this would cause some sort of economic crisis if people were to divest themselves. My point is that it is easy to divest from fossil fuels in retirement funds if people choose to do so. Or they could invest heavily in them.
No, the problem which the summary is terrible at discussing is that video codec research is at a stand still. New video codecs can come and go but they are all the same basic approaches to the problem. Take for example H.264 vs H.265. H.265 adds higher resolution and other advancements over H.264. It has better compression but requires more processing power. But it's not fundamentally different than H.264. VP9 and AV1 isn't fundamentally different either. The main benefit of VP9 and AV1 over H.265 is that they are royalty-free and open.
As with choosing to juggle chainsaws, when you finally go bankrupt from needless medical bills, taxpayers are left to pay for your sorry ass.
What the hell are you talking about? The OP said that it wasn't easy to divest retirement funds. I can easily change my retirement options as can every one else. Sure not everyone will have as many options as they like but to say divesting from fossil fuels isn't easy is either plain ignorance or a bold faced lie. It has nothing to do with medical bills or whatever you are discussing.