You keep talking about "distribution." And moreover, you keep talking about distributing new copies, because reselling originals is covered by the First Sale Doctrine.
Here's what you don't seem to get: I'm talking about USE, not distribution of new copies. You, as the copyright holder, do NOT get to tell me, the owner of the copy, how I can or cannot USE my own property!
You cannot entirely _own_ GPL'ed software unless it's you who wrote it. You are free to use it and redistribute it under the terms of the license, but it's not _your_ code.
You own the copy and you can do whatever you want to with it within the bounds of the law. That copy is _yours_ to do with as you please.
If I own the copyright to my source code/software I can also change the license.
Sure, and changing the license lets you change the restrictions on making copies. You cannot change the license to tell buyer (owner) of a copy that he can't use the software on Tuesdays, for example, because he already had the right to use it on Tuesdays simply by buying the software.
To legitimately enforce such a provision restricting use, it would have had to have been written into a proper contract, negotiated and agreed upon at the time of the transaction, not after the fact.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work (and does work for everything except software); this court decision was wrong.
Copyright law itself says the copyright holder has exclusive rights TO MAKE COPIES, with a few exceptions. Everything outside of those exceptions is controlled by the copyright holder EXCEPT THINGS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE MAKING A COPY.
You can try pointing that out, but it's entirely irrelevant because an owner of a copy has the right under the First Sale Doctrine to re-sell that copy.
The situation the GPL relies on is entirely different, where the owner of a copy DUPLICATES IT and then distributes the new copies.
So I modify any and all GPL software and redistribute without releasing the source code. According to you I don't have to follow the GPL at all as I own whatever code it contains.
I did not say that. I said that you are not required to have a license to USE GPL software. You own the copy, but not the copyright. If you modify and redistribute, which is not the same thing as "use," then you'd be in violation of copyright law unless you chose to accept the GPL.
If it were me, I'd want the ability to switch the "shimmer" off: I'd keep both replacement eye lenses unfiltered, and then get a pair of glasses with a filter on one lens (which is also an idea more helpful for the submitter, since he already had the surgery).
The problem is the definition of copy, and this is where we get into the mess of EULAs. You should not need a copyright license to use a product that you purchased for its intended purpose. OS X does not run from the install DVD, it needs to be copied onto a hard disk to run. This technicality is what allows the EULA to exist.
The only trouble with that argument is that there is a specific exception in US Copyright law that allows you to install software without violating the copyright:
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: COMPUTER PROGRAMS
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The appeals court (not to mention the original court) should have read this clause, thrown out the Apple EULA, and ruled in favor of Psystar.
Even in the case of open source software, it is the same. You don't own GPL software; you license it.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
You are not required to have a license to use GPL software; if you obtained the copy legally then it is yours, you own that copy, and you can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law. In fact, all software -- indeed, all products -- worked this way until this ridiculous court ruling.
To illustrate exactly how ridiculous this court ruling is, imagine if cars were "licensed, not sold" like this: Ford could force you to only buy Ford-brand gasoline, or Toyota could disallow you from driving on Japanese holidays, or any automaker could impose whatever absurd anticompetitive conditions it wanted.
You only need to license GPL software when you want to go beyond the bounds of copyright law (i.e., do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as making a copy).
it does restrict use to exclude things like copying, distribution, public performance and so on.
Copyright law itself does that, you dipshit!
Sony has no right -- or at least, didn't have any right until this terrible precedent was established -- to tell you how to use your own property within the bounds of the law.
Apple like any software developer like Linus or Microsoft can impose conditions on the use of their software.
And that's exactly the problem: no other seller can dictate how "their" product is used; why should software developers be any different?
Moreover, EULAs should be legally worthless by their very nature, because the transaction on which they purport to impose their rules already happened before the buyer was presented with the terms. In other words, the buyer already owns the software, so he doesn't need any additional permission to use his own property.
The court should have ruled in favor of Psystar because copyright law is only supposed to kick in when somebody actually makes a copy, and Psystar didn't do that (installing the software doesn't count; there's a specific exception in the law allowing that).
The GPL is different because it is not an EULA, but rather a distribution license which only kicks in when the licensee does something that would otherwise violate copyright law. Mere use of GPL software does not require acceptance of the GPL!
I'm sure this will make those free market morons happy...
They'd have to be morons indeed to be happy about this most emphatically anti-free-market ruling!
Non-moronic free-market advocates understand that government restrictions such as copyright itself (let alone constructs derived from it, such as EULAs) make the market less free.
To be fair, Firefox Sync doesn't use Google credentials, so you have to create new ones (some would argue that's a good thing though, since it means Google doesn't know about all your browser info).
I don't want a minimalist UI. I want a full-featured and customizable web browser suitable for development work.
You do realize that the whole point of Firefox, even since the days when it was called Firebird or Phoenix, was to not be full-featured (because that's what the Mozilla Suite was for), right?
About 12K years ago, the last ice age ended and sea levels rose, filling a bunch of previously-habitable land up with water. Some of that is believed to have happened very quickly, as ice dams broke in the vicinity of Gibraltar and/or the Bosporus (incidentally, near the areas where the ancestors of the Hebrews lived). You don't think it's reasonable for a group of people living in, say, what is now the middle of the Adriatic Sea to think their entirety of creation (i.e., the few tens of miles or so in any direction that they might have been expected to have explored on foot) was flooded?
where: N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Although this article seems to claim that we now have a decent handle on the 'ne' factor now (and maybe "R*" and "fp" too), we still have no idea what the values of the other factors are.
Android = expensive little smart phone = have to sign a two year contract = minimum extra $100/month bill
My Android phone is $40/month, no contract (with 800 voice minutes, and unlimited text/data). Here's a hint: try one of the smaller companies, such as Virgin Mobile, Boost Mobile, or MetroPCS.
If I remember correctly, there was some news a while back about how they're trying to go "versionless," so maybe hiding the release notes is part of that plan.
Think about what's going on here: when you buy a piece of software, you enter into an agreement with the store by which you agree to exchange money for the software. Once you've done that, you own that copy of the software, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it within the bounds of the law. No third party -- such as the publisher -- has any standing to impose extra terms. Why should they? Since you already own the copy of the software, they have no consideration to offer you (and they can't "offer" the ability to use the thing you already own; you already have that right by law). Therefore, that thing that calls itself an EULA is not a legal document, it's just meaningless bytes.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep talking about "distribution." And moreover, you keep talking about distributing new copies, because reselling originals is covered by the First Sale Doctrine.
Here's what you don't seem to get: I'm talking about USE, not distribution of new copies. You, as the copyright holder, do NOT get to tell me, the owner of the copy, how I can or cannot USE my own property!
You own the copy and you can do whatever you want to with it within the bounds of the law. That copy is _yours_ to do with as you please.
Sure, and changing the license lets you change the restrictions on making copies. You cannot change the license to tell buyer (owner) of a copy that he can't use the software on Tuesdays, for example, because he already had the right to use it on Tuesdays simply by buying the software.
To legitimately enforce such a provision restricting use, it would have had to have been written into a proper contract, negotiated and agreed upon at the time of the transaction, not after the fact.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work (and does work for everything except software); this court decision was wrong.
I can take a Harry Potter book, cross out the ending and write a new one in the margin, and then resell it, yes!
But it's owning the copy that matters! That in itself means you don't need a license for anything other than copying.
Owning the software's copyright (what you mean when you say "owning the software") is just that: owning the right to create copies, and nothing else.
FTFY.
You can try pointing that out, but it's entirely irrelevant because an owner of a copy has the right under the First Sale Doctrine to re-sell that copy.
The situation the GPL relies on is entirely different, where the owner of a copy DUPLICATES IT and then distributes the new copies.
I did not say that. I said that you are not required to have a license to USE GPL software. You own the copy, but not the copyright. If you modify and redistribute, which is not the same thing as "use," then you'd be in violation of copyright law unless you chose to accept the GPL.
PSYSTAR DIDN'T MAKE ANY COPIES!
All it did was preinstall the software -- which is specifically allowed by 17 U.S.C 117 -- and resell the original copy.
If it were me, I'd want the ability to switch the "shimmer" off: I'd keep both replacement eye lenses unfiltered, and then get a pair of glasses with a filter on one lens (which is also an idea more helpful for the submitter, since he already had the surgery).
The only trouble with that argument is that there is a specific exception in US Copyright law that allows you to install software without violating the copyright:
The appeals court (not to mention the original court) should have read this clause, thrown out the Apple EULA, and ruled in favor of Psystar.
THIS IS NOT TRUE!
You are not required to have a license to use GPL software; if you obtained the copy legally then it is yours, you own that copy, and you can do whatever you want with it within the bounds of copyright law. In fact, all software -- indeed, all products -- worked this way until this ridiculous court ruling.
To illustrate exactly how ridiculous this court ruling is, imagine if cars were "licensed, not sold" like this: Ford could force you to only buy Ford-brand gasoline, or Toyota could disallow you from driving on Japanese holidays, or any automaker could impose whatever absurd anticompetitive conditions it wanted.
You only need to license GPL software when you want to go beyond the bounds of copyright law (i.e., do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as making a copy).
Copyright law itself does that, you dipshit!
Sony has no right -- or at least, didn't have any right until this terrible precedent was established -- to tell you how to use your own property within the bounds of the law.
And that's exactly the problem: no other seller can dictate how "their" product is used; why should software developers be any different?
Moreover, EULAs should be legally worthless by their very nature, because the transaction on which they purport to impose their rules already happened before the buyer was presented with the terms. In other words, the buyer already owns the software, so he doesn't need any additional permission to use his own property.
The court should have ruled in favor of Psystar because copyright law is only supposed to kick in when somebody actually makes a copy, and Psystar didn't do that (installing the software doesn't count; there's a specific exception in the law allowing that).
The GPL is different because it is not an EULA, but rather a distribution license which only kicks in when the licensee does something that would otherwise violate copyright law. Mere use of GPL software does not require acceptance of the GPL!
They'd have to be morons indeed to be happy about this most emphatically anti-free-market ruling!
Non-moronic free-market advocates understand that government restrictions such as copyright itself (let alone constructs derived from it, such as EULAs) make the market less free.
I believe you're mistaken: the Space Shuttle has been decommissioned in favor of NOTHING AT ALL.
From the lawmakers' perspective, signing the bill into law is like creating a test build, and the courts are the QA department.
To be fair, Firefox Sync doesn't use Google credentials, so you have to create new ones (some would argue that's a good thing though, since it means Google doesn't know about all your browser info).
I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T has a business method patent on "rollover minutes."
How is the caller supposed to know whether the number is a mobile one or not?
You do realize that the whole point of Firefox, even since the days when it was called Firebird or Phoenix, was to not be full-featured (because that's what the Mozilla Suite was for), right?
About 12K years ago, the last ice age ended and sea levels rose, filling a bunch of previously-habitable land up with water. Some of that is believed to have happened very quickly, as ice dams broke in the vicinity of Gibraltar and/or the Bosporus (incidentally, near the areas where the ancestors of the Hebrews lived). You don't think it's reasonable for a group of people living in, say, what is now the middle of the Adriatic Sea to think their entirety of creation (i.e., the few tens of miles or so in any direction that they might have been expected to have explored on foot) was flooded?
From Wikipedia:
Although this article seems to claim that we now have a decent handle on the 'ne' factor now (and maybe "R*" and "fp" too), we still have no idea what the values of the other factors are.
My Android phone is $40/month, no contract (with 800 voice minutes, and unlimited text/data). Here's a hint: try one of the smaller companies, such as Virgin Mobile, Boost Mobile, or MetroPCS.
If I remember correctly, there was some news a while back about how they're trying to go "versionless," so maybe hiding the release notes is part of that plan.
Think about what's going on here: when you buy a piece of software, you enter into an agreement with the store by which you agree to exchange money for the software. Once you've done that, you own that copy of the software, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it within the bounds of the law. No third party -- such as the publisher -- has any standing to impose extra terms. Why should they? Since you already own the copy of the software, they have no consideration to offer you (and they can't "offer" the ability to use the thing you already own; you already have that right by law). Therefore, that thing that calls itself an EULA is not a legal document, it's just meaningless bytes.