It seems to me that the existing email protocol has some fundamental problems that contribute to spam. It is basically impossible to authenticate who an email came from. Do you think that adding a new email protocol could solve these problems?
Specifically, if we created a second protocol that required that all email be digitally signed by the person listed in the "from:" clause and that the originating ISP guarantees this identity, wouldn't that solve most of the problems? The true identity of people who use the bandwidth I pay for to communicate with me seems like a fair thing for me to be able to insist on. I might even be willing to pay a little more to have such a system, although I would think such a system would be cheaper for my ISP, since the cost of carrying 33% garbage isn't there.
I should be able to say I want to filter email from Alan M. Ralsky of West Bloomfield, Mich or from any that passed through any ISP that cannot guarantee me that I can determine this. The problem is that Mr. Ralsky can send me email and I have no hope of identifying that it came from him. All that is required, it seems to me is for the leading ISP's to get together and create and enforce a standard that says your new-style email will be digitally signed with your legal name and that only ISP's that comply with enforcement practices will be allowed to use the new email protocol.
Here's an article on this. The article title gets the point across pretty clearly: "New technology could cut down on whistleblowing". Think Enron, WorldCom, cigarette companies, etc....
It seems that this technology would be pretty valuable for terrorists, no? This is a child pornographer's dream. You want to run a second set of books so you can pay less taxes, use the new MS Office. How exactly will law enforcement do legitimate searches? A lot of the arguments made against strong crypto by the government would seem better aimed at DRM.
Keep in mind that mobsters have been jailed even though they used strong crypto because the government tapped their keyboards (after obtaining legitimate warrents to do so) and sniffed their keys. Do we REALLY want to allow a system where the machine prevents us from gathering such evidence? How would you like to receive a death threat from a mobster via email and be unable to prove it to the police?
Actually, they are doing amazingly well. Given that they just had an IPO a few years ago and that the US is in a recession, the fact that they basically break even can only be considered exceptional. Red Hat's stock has outperformed the S&P over the last 2 years. They are a very well run company.
Actually, this raises a new possibility for malicious code. Instead of trying to remove copy protection -- someone will write code to quietly ACTIVATE IT.
I was skeptical of folding at first, but a little bit of exposure really convinced me. A great example of how to do it is the jEdit source code.
Your idea about a toggle for "hide all comments" seems like a great idea. I'm not aware of anything that does it know for jEdit, (but I could be wrong). Perhaps you should suggest it on the jEdit mailing list.
Eclipse and Netbeans make enterprise deployment, unit testing, and building a lot easier because they were created with that in mind.
jEdit has plugins that do just about anything you might want in that area: CVS, jUnit, Ant, java parsing, coding standards, in-process compilation, XML parsing, XSLT transformations. It's "hypersearch" capabilities are the best I've seen.
You can script jEdit in Beanshell or Jython. The "Commando" feature is as amazing as it is hard to decribe (you define XML to present GUI wizards for launching commands).
I would use emacs or vi, whiach are FAR better than this j* stuff.
BS. I'm so tired of hearing how great emacs and vi are. Both SUCK. Both have a completely unacceptable learning curve and are examples of the kinds of of arcane user interfaces that should be *ridiculed*, not advocated. Many people making fun of MS for clicking "Start" to shutdown had to hit shift-ZZ to save their file. And that's as console applications.
Hello, it's time to get with-it and edit text in a GUI. And don't talk to me about "when I telnet into a box I can't use a GUI". Freaking learn the -X option on ssh or better yet, use an editor that supports remote editing. And don't talk to me about gvim.
People that like them have some kind of desparate psychological need to justify the endless hours of torment they spent years ago learning them. To these people I suggest using jEdit in VI key-binding mode (oh, and pocket protectors are no longer in style).
Yes dialogue is important, even with Microsoft, but NO! MS should not be speaking at this particular forum.
It is certainly the case that we should listen to Microsoft. Yes we should understand their position and business strategies and their criticisms of open source practices and gaps.
However, none of this means MS should speak at this particular forum. The purpose of an event like this is to *advocate* open source and educate people on its benefits. It serves no purpose to hear the alternatives viewpoints *in such a forum*. Do the democrats and republicans invite each other to speak at their political conventions? No! Do they both agree that dialogue, finding common ground, and bipartisanship are extremely important sometimes (even often). Yes. But they don't do it at their conventions because it isn't thematic -- they've created other forums for doing so that serve the purpose of two way dialogue much better.
A convention is not the proper format for hearing from the opposition. Nobody would suggest that a convention is a format where dialouge, defined as two-way conversation occurs. No Q&A sessions do not count, because the audience and the presenter are not given equal footing -- the presenter has the mic and a huge advantage.
All that allowing them to speak does is lend legitimacy to the idea that their "shared source" initiative is a viable substitute worth examining. It's not, and the conference organizers should not give the mic to anybody who doesn't agree. If you want to hear the MS party line on shared source, you certainly have no shortage of opportunities to hear about it.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. This is america's bullshit where you have no job protection. Where you have to fend for yourself through lawyers.
Umm... The issue is not how secure you are of staying in the job you are in now, but rather how secure you are of having a job AT ALL. The US has a much lower unemployment rate than most of the countries in Europe as an almost direct result of our business-friendly environment.
Its really less human than say a nice atmosphere of *living* like a european country, or brazil or korea.
What is inhumane is the high unemployment rate that these countries have. The US is currently in a major economic slowdown and our unemployment rate is 5.7%. France, Germany, Italy, the UK, and Spain are all substantially higher. I can't even believe you would tout Brazil, whose economic instability is legendary.
The article makes those points in the context of Solaris, but I'm making them for all JVM platforms. Nowhere in the article that I can find does the author make positive claims about java on other platforms. He may very well say that the JRE is larger on Solaris than windows, but that does not mean it is a good size on the other platforms.
For proof, examine Bagley's shootout (use google, he blocks slashdot links). On linux, scored purely on memory use, java was 27th of the 31 languages. On windows (via the winNT port of Bagley's shootout) windows was 38 of 43. Interestingly, java is already being beat by Parrot, but NOT by C#!!. Empirically, claim #2 is true on the other popular JVM's too.
As for #1, #3, and #4 -- these claims are problems with the language specification and managment as a whole. Neither the java support model, nor the way that extensions are made, nor the backwards-compatibility across minor releases depend in any way on solaris, because they are just as platform independent as java itself is. Please explain how a java extension that is the same on solaris, windows, linux, and mac is a solaris specific problem. That's complete nonsense. The same is true of the other issues.
Yes. This is called being the "owner of a copy". It is the precise situation that 17 USC 117 speaks about. The owner of a copy may make a copy or adaptation of the software for utilization on a machine.
In fact, no one owns the content. The author may own the *copyright* to the "work", which means that they own several exclusive rights that are specifically enumerated in 17 USC 106. The only thing that you need a licence for are the exclusive rights listed there [and the new DMCA anti-circumvention rights listed in 17 USC 1201 (a) and (b).]
Remember... with some software companies.. you don't even "own" the software..
When you go to the store and pick out an item and go to the counter and pay money for it you are making a "contract of sale" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Your receipt is the documentation of that contract and it specifies fully the terms of that contract. It describes at least three things: a description of the items sold, the quanity of each item, and the price. When you hand over money and take the things described, you "own" them.
The idea that "software isn't sold, it's licenced" is traceable to a case that involved OEM's who were making mass installations. If you install software on more than one machine, you DO need a licence. Microsoft does not sell individual copies of software to such OEM's. Instead they provide one copy on some kind of tape medium and a licence to the OEM to create new copies. However, once these new copies are sold to consumers, they are "owned" by the consumer.
The prestigeous copyright scholar David Nimmer traces the confusion on this issue back to the PR firm at Microsoft and sets the record straight with an extremely rigorous examination of the issue in his paper "The Metamorphosis of Contract Into Expand", which is available on the net (do a google search).
Hmmm. Where does it say that? [cornell.edu] I don't read this anywhere...
17 USC 117 (a)(1) is the first part from the link you posted.
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
This says exactly what I claimed it did. What part do you not understand?
You did actually read it, didn't you? Yes, and unlike you I comprehended the words.
The licence to use the software is not "services". It is nothing. You do not need a licence to install software you own on a single machine.
While it is true that the UCC does not require "additional consideration" to modify a contract, the agreement of the parties to that contract is required. Since the software maker was not a party to the contract of sale, they cannot offer a modification to it. In the instant case, CompUSA never agreed to take the software back after it was opened if the buyer didn't agree to the modification, so neither of the parties agreed to the modification and it is void. Even if the buyer and MS agree, that is a NEW contract unless CompUSA also agrees, which they didn't.
And the "use of software" is NOT consideration unless such use was not already a right of the user. As the owner, you have the right to install and use software on one machine, so that is not consideration.
The EULA states (usually) that if you don't agree with the terms of the license, to return the software to the retailer. But the EULA isn't binding on the retailer, so they aren't obligated to take it back if it's opened.
This is exactly why a EULA is not enforcable, actually. You buy the software at a retailer, and you are the "owner" at that point. You have created a valid contract of sale by giving cash for goods. The standard argument for EULA enforcability is that the EULA is part of the contract of sale, but that is untenable because the software maker (in this case Microsoft) is not a party to that contract and cannot retroactively modify it. Thus to be enforcable, the EULA must stand on its own. But 17 USC 117 gives the "owner" the right to install software on "a" machine. Thus the EULA gives the owner nothing that he didn't have as a result of "first sale", and the EULA fails to be an enforcable contract due to lack of "consideration".
The world seems to be unaware that when you own a copy of software, you DO NOT NEED A LICENCE TO INSTALL IT ON A SINGLE COMPUTER. This is the black letter law. 17 USC 117
It seems that people have already judged them guilty of violating the GPL. I think people need to take a deep breath and answer: What exactly is the evidence that they have incorporated GPL code into their product?
A few functions named the same as their linux counter-parts seems like rather weak evidence of a breach. Copyright does not protect ideas, so if they examined the GPL code, understood how it worked, and then re-implemented it with their own code, then this is a garden variety reverse engineering.
On the other hand, if they actually did lift code, then it should be pretty easy to verify with or without their source code. So before anybody continues on with blabbering about how terrible Castle is, can somebody just say what the evidence is?
It sounds like what's happening here is that Sun's Java people, realizing how many more people are using Java on Linux and Windows, aren't putting as much effort into support for Solaris.
Huh!? Which of the following key points of the memo are specific to Solaris, again? 1. The [Java] support model seems flawed 2. The JRE is very large 3. Extensions do not support modularity 4. [Java] is not backward-compatible across minor releases.
Nope. If somebody steals your refridgerator, they can't argue you weren't going to sell it, so it had no value. You COULD sell it, and the value they got for it on the market puts a minimum equivalent value. Same thing with IP.
Revenue generated by the infringer as a result of the infringement counts as actual damages regardless of whether the copyright owner is even offering his product for sale. This is black letter law and highly uncontroversial. It is not a defense to say "hey the author wasn't making this available". The idea is that the author has the option in the future to sell his copyright and the revenue it generated for the infringer reduces that latent value.
More importantly, GPL code has a value in its ability to motivate people to contribute their IP to it. People seem to neglect this "barter value", but it is real. If somebody would have to go out on the free market and buy the copyright for an equivalent piece of code for $10K, but has gotten it for free because of the IP barter aspect of the GPL, then an economist could probably attach a monetary value to the original code based on barter equivalenvce. Bankruptcy courts and VC's do this kind of analysis all the time on IP owned by startups.
The difference is that the MPAA and RIAA have exercised undue influence to subvert copyright law itself. They have participated in the corruption of the American democratic process and they deserve to be destroyed by the very public whose governement they have corrupted.
I do respect other people's copyrights, except for the MPAA and RIAA. For them I have contempt. They deserve what they get. The law itself is illegal and they made it so.
They may hang by that statement in court, since it shows intent to compete with Linux. You generally don't have a strong argument for fair use when you lift code from your competitors. Moreover, it makes it much more likely that the infringement was "willful", in which case we are talking big bucks in damages.
Are you sure that it makes the GPL irrelevant? You may not be violating copyright law by using the code, but you are violating the terms of your license. As such, you are bad, and can be reasonably sued, and compelled to do what the judge tellys you to do if you lose.
Violating the terms of the licence is only illegal if it results in copyright infringement. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. One factor (of four) in determining whether fair use applies is the quantity of work copied. For three lines of code, that would be small.
The most important factor, however, is commerical impact. If those three lines add a feature that fills a marketing gap, then the result of the copying is unfair competition and thus improperly obtained revenue.
Absent an explicit, signed contract transferring copyright ownership, the author retains copyright for those elements of the work which are his original expression. *Use* requires a licence, ownership transfer requires a signature.
Some people do sign over their copyright ownership when they participate in GPL projects, but more often people don't. The crux of the issue is whether you can *change* the licence. For example, the FSF can update the GPL and the changes take effect immediately on any works they own the rights to.
Assuming that no explicit transfer of copyright ownership has happened, the authors of the particular code that was copied probably each have an independent cause of action against the plaintiffs. That could hurt the plaintiffs, because the statutory damages can be calculated for each act of infringement.
You are confusing the conditions for complying with the licence with the penalties for infringing the copyright.
The judge *could* order compliance with the licence as part of the penalty phase, but it is much more likely that he would award monitary damages.
The interesting thing is that each patch to the linux kernel could be viewed as separately copyrighted by whoever the author of that particular patch is. The statutory damages can reach $100K per violation if the judge wants it to.
During the discovery phase of the trial, the defendent would have to produce the complete source code and build instructions for their product. The plaintiff would have an expert follow the build instructions and verify that they result in the exact exectuable that the defendent ships. Then the expert would examine the source code for "substantial similarity" to the copyrightable elements of the linux kernel code. A judge would hear this testimony and rebuttals and examine the evidence it was based on.
Legal arguments on affirmative defences of fair use and licence compliance could be made. The judge would rule on infringement, then if the plaintiff prevails, he would rule on damages. Factors influencing damages would be willfulness of the infringement and the presense or absense of commercial gain as a result of the infringement.
No, it means that they are commiting willful copyright infringement for commercial gain. The penalties for that are severe and include the larger of statutory and actual damages. The statutory damages can be up to $100K, iirc. Actuals include any revenue which results from the infringement.
I hope somebody tears them a new sphincter, if this is true.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that the existing email protocol has some fundamental problems that contribute to spam. It is basically impossible to authenticate who an email came from. Do you think that adding a new email protocol could solve these problems?
Specifically, if we created a second protocol that required that all email be digitally signed by the person listed in the "from:" clause and that the originating ISP guarantees this identity, wouldn't that solve most of the problems? The true identity of people who use the bandwidth I pay for to communicate with me seems like a fair thing for me to be able to insist on. I might even be willing to pay a little more to have such a system, although I would think such a system would be cheaper for my ISP, since the cost of carrying 33% garbage isn't there.
I should be able to say I want to filter email from Alan M. Ralsky of West Bloomfield, Mich or from any that passed through any ISP that cannot guarantee me that I can determine this. The problem is that Mr. Ralsky can send me email and I have no hope of identifying that it came from him. All that is required, it seems to me is for the leading ISP's to get together and create and enforce a standard that says your new-style email will be digitally signed with your legal name and that only ISP's that comply with enforcement practices will be allowed to use the new email protocol.
Here's an article on this. The article title gets the point across pretty clearly: "New technology could cut down on whistleblowing". Think Enron, WorldCom, cigarette companies, etc... .
It seems that this technology would be pretty valuable for terrorists, no? This is a child pornographer's dream. You want to run a second set of books so you can pay less taxes, use the new MS Office. How exactly will law enforcement do legitimate searches? A lot of the arguments made against strong crypto by the government would seem better aimed at DRM.
Keep in mind that mobsters have been jailed even though they used strong crypto because the government tapped their keyboards (after obtaining legitimate warrents to do so) and sniffed their keys. Do we REALLY want to allow a system where the machine prevents us from gathering such evidence? How would you like to receive a death threat from a mobster via email and be unable to prove it to the police?
Actually, they are doing amazingly well. Given that they just had an IPO a few years ago and that the US is in a recession, the fact that they basically break even can only be considered exceptional. Red Hat's stock has outperformed the S&P over the last 2 years. They are a very well run company.
Actually, this raises a new possibility for malicious code. Instead of trying to remove copy protection -- someone will write code to quietly ACTIVATE IT.
I was skeptical of folding at first, but a little bit of exposure really convinced me. A great example of how to do it is the jEdit source code.
Your idea about a toggle for "hide all comments" seems like a great idea. I'm not aware of anything that does it know for jEdit, (but I could be wrong). Perhaps you should suggest it on the jEdit mailing list.
Eclipse and Netbeans make enterprise deployment, unit testing, and building a lot easier because they were created with that in mind.
jEdit has plugins that do just about anything you might want in that area: CVS, jUnit, Ant, java parsing, coding standards, in-process compilation, XML parsing, XSLT transformations. It's "hypersearch" capabilities are the best I've seen.
You can script jEdit in Beanshell or Jython. The "Commando" feature is as amazing as it is hard to decribe (you define XML to present GUI wizards for launching commands).
I would use emacs or vi, whiach are FAR better than this j* stuff.
BS. I'm so tired of hearing how great emacs and vi are. Both SUCK. Both have a completely unacceptable learning curve and are examples of the kinds of of arcane user interfaces that should be *ridiculed*, not advocated. Many people making fun of MS for clicking "Start" to shutdown had to hit shift-ZZ to save their file. And that's as console applications.
Hello, it's time to get with-it and edit text in a GUI. And don't talk to me about "when I telnet into a box I can't use a GUI". Freaking learn the -X option on ssh or better yet, use an editor that supports remote editing. And don't talk to me about gvim.
People that like them have some kind of desparate psychological need to justify the endless hours of torment they spent years ago learning them. To these people I suggest using jEdit in VI key-binding mode (oh, and pocket protectors are no longer in style).
Yes dialogue is important, even with Microsoft, but NO! MS should not be speaking at this particular forum.
It is certainly the case that we should listen to Microsoft. Yes we should understand their position and business strategies and their criticisms of open source practices and gaps.
However, none of this means MS should speak at this particular forum. The purpose of an event like this is to *advocate* open source and educate people on its benefits. It serves no purpose to hear the alternatives viewpoints *in such a forum*. Do the democrats and republicans invite each other to speak at their political conventions? No! Do they both agree that dialogue, finding common ground, and bipartisanship are extremely important sometimes (even often). Yes. But they don't do it at their conventions because it isn't thematic -- they've created other forums for doing so that serve the purpose of two way dialogue much better.
A convention is not the proper format for hearing from the opposition. Nobody would suggest that a convention is a format where dialouge, defined as two-way conversation occurs. No Q&A sessions do not count, because the audience and the presenter are not given equal footing -- the presenter has the mic and a huge advantage.
All that allowing them to speak does is lend legitimacy to the idea that their "shared source" initiative is a viable substitute worth examining. It's not, and the conference organizers should not give the mic to anybody who doesn't agree. If you want to hear the MS party line on shared source, you certainly have no shortage of opportunities to hear about it.
Sorry, but this is bullshit. This is america's bullshit where you have no job protection. Where you have to fend for yourself through lawyers.
Umm... The issue is not how secure you are of staying in the job you are in now, but rather how secure you are of having a job AT ALL. The US has a much lower unemployment rate than most of the countries in Europe as an almost direct result of our business-friendly environment.
Its really less human than say a nice atmosphere of *living* like a european country, or brazil or korea.
What is inhumane is the high unemployment rate that these countries have. The US is currently in a major economic slowdown and our unemployment rate is 5.7%. France, Germany, Italy, the UK, and Spain are all substantially higher. I can't even believe you would tout Brazil, whose economic instability is legendary.
The article makes those points in the context of Solaris, but I'm making them for all JVM platforms. Nowhere in the article that I can find does the author make positive claims about java on other platforms. He may very well say that the JRE is larger on Solaris than windows, but that does not mean it is a good size on the other platforms.
For proof, examine Bagley's shootout (use google, he blocks slashdot links). On linux, scored purely on memory use, java was 27th of the 31 languages. On windows (via the winNT port of Bagley's shootout) windows was 38 of 43. Interestingly, java is already being beat by Parrot, but NOT by C#!!. Empirically, claim #2 is true on the other popular JVM's too.
As for #1, #3, and #4 -- these claims are problems with the language specification and managment as a whole. Neither the java support model, nor the way that extensions are made, nor the backwards-compatibility across minor releases depend in any way on solaris, because they are just as platform independent as java itself is. Please explain how a java extension that is the same on solaris, windows, linux, and mac is a solaris specific problem. That's complete nonsense. The same is true of the other issues.
Yes. This is called being the "owner of a copy". It is the precise situation that 17 USC 117 speaks about. The owner of a copy may make a copy or adaptation of the software for utilization on a machine.
In fact, no one owns the content. The author may own the *copyright* to the "work", which means that they own several exclusive rights that are specifically enumerated in 17 USC 106. The only thing that you need a licence for are the exclusive rights listed there [and the new DMCA anti-circumvention rights listed in 17 USC 1201 (a) and (b).]
Remember... with some software companies.. you don't even "own" the software..
When you go to the store and pick out an item and go to the counter and pay money for it you are making a "contract of sale" under the Uniform Commercial Code. Your receipt is the documentation of that contract and it specifies fully the terms of that contract. It describes at least three things: a description of the items sold, the quanity of each item, and the price. When you hand over money and take the things described, you "own" them.
The idea that "software isn't sold, it's licenced" is traceable to a case that involved OEM's who were making mass installations. If you install software on more than one machine, you DO need a licence. Microsoft does not sell individual copies of software to such OEM's. Instead they provide one copy on some kind of tape medium and a licence to the OEM to create new copies. However, once these new copies are sold to consumers, they are "owned" by the consumer.
The prestigeous copyright scholar David Nimmer traces the confusion on this issue back to the PR firm at Microsoft and sets the record straight with an extremely rigorous examination of the issue in his paper "The Metamorphosis of Contract Into Expand", which is available on the net (do a google search).
17 USC 117 (a)(1) is the first part from the link you posted. This says exactly what I claimed it did. What part do you not understand?
You did actually read it, didn't you?
Yes, and unlike you I comprehended the words.
The licence to use the software is not "services". It is nothing. You do not need a licence to install software you own on a single machine.
While it is true that the UCC does not require "additional consideration" to modify a contract, the agreement of the parties to that contract is required. Since the software maker was not a party to the contract of sale, they cannot offer a modification to it. In the instant case, CompUSA never agreed to take the software back after it was opened if the buyer didn't agree to the modification, so neither of the parties agreed to the modification and it is void. Even if the buyer and MS agree, that is a NEW contract unless CompUSA also agrees, which they didn't.
And the "use of software" is NOT consideration unless such use was not already a right of the user. As the owner, you have the right to install and use software on one machine, so that is not consideration.
The EULA states (usually) that if you don't agree with the terms of the license, to return the software to the retailer. But the EULA isn't binding on the retailer, so they aren't obligated to take it back if it's opened.
This is exactly why a EULA is not enforcable, actually. You buy the software at a retailer, and you are the "owner" at that point. You have created a valid contract of sale by giving cash for goods. The standard argument for EULA enforcability is that the EULA is part of the contract of sale, but that is untenable because the software maker (in this case Microsoft) is not a party to that contract and cannot retroactively modify it. Thus to be enforcable, the EULA must stand on its own. But 17 USC 117 gives the "owner" the right to install software on "a" machine. Thus the EULA gives the owner nothing that he didn't have as a result of "first sale", and the EULA fails to be an enforcable contract due to lack of "consideration".
The world seems to be unaware that when you own a copy of software, you DO NOT NEED A LICENCE TO INSTALL IT ON A SINGLE COMPUTER. This is the black letter law. 17 USC 117
It seems that people have already judged them guilty of violating the GPL. I think people need to take a deep breath and answer: What exactly is the evidence that they have incorporated GPL code into their product?
A few functions named the same as their linux counter-parts seems like rather weak evidence of a breach. Copyright does not protect ideas, so if they examined the GPL code, understood how it worked, and then re-implemented it with their own code, then this is a garden variety reverse engineering.
On the other hand, if they actually did lift code, then it should be pretty easy to verify with or without their source code. So before anybody continues on with blabbering about how terrible Castle is, can somebody just say what the evidence is?
It sounds like what's happening here is that Sun's Java people, realizing how many more people are using Java on Linux and Windows, aren't putting as much effort into support for Solaris.
Huh!? Which of the following key points of the memo are specific to Solaris, again?
1. The [Java] support model seems flawed
2. The JRE is very large
3. Extensions do not support modularity
4. [Java] is not backward-compatible across minor releases.
Nope. If somebody steals your refridgerator, they can't argue you weren't going to sell it, so it had no value. You COULD sell it, and the value they got for it on the market puts a minimum equivalent value. Same thing with IP.
Revenue generated by the infringer as a result of the infringement counts as actual damages regardless of whether the copyright owner is even offering his product for sale. This is black letter law and highly uncontroversial. It is not a defense to say "hey the author wasn't making this available". The idea is that the author has the option in the future to sell his copyright and the revenue it generated for the infringer reduces that latent value.
More importantly, GPL code has a value in its ability to motivate people to contribute their IP to it. People seem to neglect this "barter value", but it is real. If somebody would have to go out on the free market and buy the copyright for an equivalent piece of code for $10K, but has gotten it for free because of the IP barter aspect of the GPL, then an economist could probably attach a monetary value to the original code based on barter equivalenvce. Bankruptcy courts and VC's do this kind of analysis all the time on IP owned by startups.
The difference is that the MPAA and RIAA have exercised undue influence to subvert copyright law itself. They have participated in the corruption of the American democratic process and they deserve to be destroyed by the very public whose governement they have corrupted.
I do respect other people's copyrights, except for the MPAA and RIAA. For them I have contempt. They deserve what they get. The law itself is illegal and they made it so.
They may hang by that statement in court, since it shows intent to compete with Linux. You generally don't have a strong argument for fair use when you lift code from your competitors. Moreover, it makes it much more likely that the infringement was "willful", in which case we are talking big bucks in damages.
Are you sure that it makes the GPL irrelevant? You may not be violating copyright law by using the code, but you are violating the terms of your license. As such, you are bad, and can be reasonably sued, and compelled to do what the judge tellys you to do if you lose.
Violating the terms of the licence is only illegal if it results in copyright infringement. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. One factor (of four) in determining whether fair use applies is the quantity of work copied. For three lines of code, that would be small.
The most important factor, however, is commerical impact. If those three lines add a feature that fills a marketing gap, then the result of the copying is unfair competition and thus improperly obtained revenue.
Absent an explicit, signed contract transferring copyright ownership, the author retains copyright for those elements of the work which are his original expression. *Use* requires a licence, ownership transfer requires a signature.
Some people do sign over their copyright ownership when they participate in GPL projects, but more often people don't. The crux of the issue is whether you can *change* the licence. For example, the FSF can update the GPL and the changes take effect immediately on any works they own the rights to.
Assuming that no explicit transfer of copyright ownership has happened, the authors of the particular code that was copied probably each have an independent cause of action against the plaintiffs. That could hurt the plaintiffs, because the statutory damages can be calculated for each act of infringement.
You are confusing the conditions for complying with the licence with the penalties for infringing the copyright.
The judge *could* order compliance with the licence as part of the penalty phase, but it is much more likely that he would award monitary damages.
The interesting thing is that each patch to the linux kernel could be viewed as separately copyrighted by whoever the author of that particular patch is. The statutory damages can reach $100K per violation if the judge wants it to.
During the discovery phase of the trial, the defendent would have to produce the complete source code and build instructions for their product. The plaintiff would have an expert follow the build instructions and verify that they result in the exact exectuable that the defendent ships. Then the expert would examine the source code for "substantial similarity" to the copyrightable elements of the linux kernel code. A judge would hear this testimony and rebuttals and examine the evidence it was based on.
Legal arguments on affirmative defences of fair use and licence compliance could be made. The judge would rule on infringement, then if the plaintiff prevails, he would rule on damages. Factors influencing damages would be willfulness of the infringement and the presense or absense of commercial gain as a result of the infringement.
No, it means that they are commiting willful copyright infringement for commercial gain. The penalties for that are severe and include the larger of statutory and actual damages. The statutory damages can be up to $100K, iirc. Actuals include any revenue which results from the infringement.
I hope somebody tears them a new sphincter, if this is true.
Either way works. The point is that the technological methods and standards exist and are completely adequate to protect the web site's interests.