But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license, I would say your license on that program only, you have no violated any other programs license yet.
If I make a contract with you, and you break it, our contract has failed. This does not mean that if someone else has an identical contract with you that it has necessarily failed.
So they send me a C&D doesn't mean anything. It is just a legal request to stop doing something they don't like, it doesn't mean they are right, it doesn't mean it will hold up. Think of all the DMCA C&D's and junk flying around.
I really don't care what the FSF wants. If a person gives me a clear valid license to do something I can do it. They can't place additional restrictions beyond those in the GPL on it.
I would like to see a reference demonstrating this is the intent, or when it has been asserted in the past. I don't see this intent, and I don't know when it has been asserted before.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't agree with that interpretation.
If I break the GPL on one "product" I do not have a license to distribute it and I am violating the copyright on that product and no longer have permission to distribute and modify.
This does not mean I lose my license to distribute other products also licensed under the GPL.
SCO won't be protecting users of GPL software it distributes either. This is just doubletalk.
I would love to see SCO explain how their distribution of GCC, Samba or any other GPL code is any different from someone elses.
I don't think SCO has a general IP strategy. They are using open source, and fighting it at the same time. I heard they had a Using GNU tools seminar at the same conference where they informed people about the dangers of the GPL. Maybe a corporate strategy would help them?
Distribute GPL software. Prove the GPL is invalid because copyright law does not allow you to let others make copies. Continue to distribute GPL software since copyright law no longer applies when a license is ruled invalid.
This does not seem like a strong strategy. I think a good strategy to fight this would be for the Samba team to get an injunction on their new products pending SCOs acceptance of the GPL.
They then have 2 choices, ditch Samba, agree to the GPL, or fight against willfull copyright violation.
If there is no GPL they are infringing on the authors copyright. They are selling this product.
Infringing copyright for financial gain is a criminal offense. By arguing that SCO does not have a license to distribute Linux definately hurts them. To actually hurt ANY Linux distributer they would have to #1 prove they don't have a license to distribute. #2 be a copyright holder.
This is so obvious to me leads me to think that they really are MS monkeys and this may be the strongest attack they could muster.
Clearly having intent to do something makes you responsible.
Knowing also makes you responsible, depending on what you knew.
Ought to have known, or what a reasonable person knows is different. Reasonable people may have a very limited understanding of a computer, which means they could possibly not have any understanding of what it does, as opposed to a computer geek who probaly does. This is why it is a jury of your peers, so they can form an opinion as to what you should and should not be aware of.
I remember back in the PC/C64 transition, coming from the C64 I was horrified that someone would suggest leaving a disk in the drive as you turn on the computer. (FYI leaving a disk in a C64 drive could erase it, and had happened to me)
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court
Not a problem if the GPL is ruled invalid, then SCO is committing a copyright violation for commercial gain. If they are selling someone elses work, for financial gain, knowing they do not have a license to do so they could be in a LOT of trouble. Isn't that actually criminal copyright infringement? Do you think the SCO execs would rather go to jail then lose a lawsuit?
Can they prove it is their code? Do they have a log showing when this code was put in and by who? Do these times predate the corresponding development in Linux? Who put the code in Linux? Was the person who put the code into Linux authorized by the UNIX copyright holder to do so?
My unrelated to code viewing questions. They distrbute the kernel under the GPL, giving enough people a license to continue to redistribute it. They haven't tried to minimize current damages or limit further damage, obviously this isn't costing them very much.
I do pay for some content. I have some subscriptions to some pay sites. But generally I don't because they overprice. I don't want several bill payments running through my credit card.
Online subscriptions are too expensive, I only want to pay a few dollars a year. It should be easy and secure to pay. Automatically renewing subscriptions aren't ideal.
It has to offer something better, and it should prove that it is better. Online prices should be cheaper then a comperable dead tree subscription, even if they offer additional services.
Yes it is, it's been an old joke since they were founded. Also they're a good employer, people would graduate or be on coop, get a job from RIM, and joke how they just got a RIMjob.
and in the america i grew up in we don't censor information from the public
Care to tell me where this magical fantasy land is.
The America I know of (USA, in North America, between Canada and Mexico). Has ALWAYS kept secrets from the populace. Like every government has hidden details, and some unethical people within it.
This si the way it is, and that is why you should vote, and protest and work to change.
On this case, he plead guilty to the charges. The other thing is that if he actively worked to promote violence and attacked government computers he was committing a crime. Protesting and working against the government is fine, just do it legally. Cracking computers, making bombs and advocating violence is wrong.
A convicted criminal does not have the same rights a citizen, that is the way our justice system works.
Slashdot Mirror
1. This new GPL would be incompatible with the current GPL.
2. It is against the moral purpose of the GPL to do so. The Samba team release states this issue quite clearly.
3. Define SCO in such a way the license would follow them, but not harm "innocent" users.
1. Copyright does not have to be actively enforced, trademark does.
2. The GPL allows much use, only violations need to be enforced.
It would be a bad day for IP if they rule that poor enforcement of copyright == public domain.
SCO is simply lacking a good corporate strategy.
They need to figure out if they will agree to the GPL, or fight it. They can't do both, or if they do someone has to get the cat to chase its tail.
This has been discussed repeatedly in the other SCO posts.
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license,
I would say your license on that program only, you have no violated any other programs license yet.
If I make a contract with you, and you break it, our contract has failed.
This does not mean that if someone else has an identical contract with you that it has necessarily failed.
A license agreement is the same.
For the money, flightgear.
Hard to argue with free.
I just need a decent video card to handle it properly.
So they send me a C&D doesn't mean anything.
It is just a legal request to stop doing something they don't like, it doesn't mean they are right, it doesn't mean it will hold up.
Think of all the DMCA C&D's and junk flying around.
I really don't care what the FSF wants. If a person gives me a clear valid license to do something I can do it. They can't place additional restrictions beyond those in the GPL on it.
I would like to see a reference demonstrating this is the intent, or when it has been asserted in the past. I don't see this intent, and I don't know when it has been asserted before.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't agree with that interpretation.
You can not revoke the GPL, this permits forking even if the origional authors don't like you.
The only real power is removing someones rights under the GPL when they violate it.
If I break the GPL on one "product" I do not have a license to distribute it and I am violating the copyright on that product and no longer have permission to distribute and modify.
This does not mean I lose my license to distribute other products also licensed under the GPL.
SCO won't be protecting users of GPL software it distributes either.
This is just doubletalk.
I would love to see SCO explain how their distribution of GCC, Samba or any other GPL code is any different from someone elses.
I don't think SCO has a general IP strategy. They are using open source, and fighting it at the same time.
I heard they had a Using GNU tools seminar at the same conference where they informed people about the dangers of the GPL. Maybe a corporate strategy would help them?
I am not saying the above strategy is correct.
I do not think invalidating the GPL would make the owners lose copyright. I think this is a very dumb strategy, and don't see how it could work.
So their logic is.
Distribute GPL software.
Prove the GPL is invalid because copyright law does not allow you to let others make copies.
Continue to distribute GPL software since copyright law no longer applies when a license is ruled invalid.
This does not seem like a strong strategy.
I think a good strategy to fight this would be for the Samba team to get an injunction on their new products pending SCOs acceptance of the GPL.
They then have 2 choices, ditch Samba, agree to the GPL, or fight against willfull copyright violation.
How can they distribute samba?
? tag=f d_lede1_hed
It is GPL, and they are arguing it is an invalid license.
Unless the agree to the GPL, they can't distribute samba. Isn't this a stupid strategy?
Here is the linke to the story, look at the bottom of it.
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5065286.html
Don't flag, lock it.
Get a keyed lock with one key.
Turn it off, lock it out, carry the key while you work.
That is the ONLY way to do it.
How many people live on the east cost? What portion don't have power, it's a lot.
50 million is a LOT of people, more than quite a few countries.
At the peak some 50 million people were affected, look at the size of the areas affected.
This is a HUGE power outage.
If there is no GPL they are infringing on the authors copyright.
They are selling this product.
Infringing copyright for financial gain is a criminal offense. By arguing that SCO does not have a license to distribute Linux definately hurts them.
To actually hurt ANY Linux distributer they would have to #1 prove they don't have a license to distribute. #2 be a copyright holder.
This is so obvious to me leads me to think that they really are MS monkeys and this may be the strongest attack they could muster.
Credit reports are free in Canada. (if you mail/fax in) Online reporting costs.
Why not suggest they make them free in the US?
It really is in the your, the credit bureaus and the creditors best interest to have accurate information.
The smarter identity theifs actually pay the minimum payment to keep sucking money without alerting you.
BTW my favourite financial advice site is fool.com. They have many intelligent and well written articles that give guidance on these topics.
Cross platform, native widgets.
Combined with python it is very simple and easy.
I wouldn't make commercial apps, but for small development, it's my choice.
Clearly having intent to do something makes you responsible.
Knowing also makes you responsible, depending on what you knew.
Ought to have known, or what a reasonable person knows is different.
Reasonable people may have a very limited understanding of a computer, which means they could possibly not have any understanding of what it does, as opposed to a computer geek who probaly does. This is why it is a jury of your peers, so they can form an opinion as to what you should and should not be aware of.
I remember back in the PC/C64 transition, coming from the C64 I was horrified that someone would suggest leaving a disk in the drive as you turn on the computer. (FYI leaving a disk in a C64 drive could erase it, and had happened to me)
My problem with spam isn't that it exists.
My complaint is it shows up in my inbox.
My problem with violence is it could happen to me, not that it happens to others.
I think this is a typical and selfish attitude.
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court
Not a problem if the GPL is ruled invalid, then SCO is committing a copyright violation for commercial gain.
If they are selling someone elses work, for financial gain, knowing they do not have a license to do so they could be in a LOT of trouble.
Isn't that actually criminal copyright infringement? Do you think the SCO execs would rather go to jail then lose a lawsuit?
I think the questions people want to know are.
Can they prove it is their code?
Do they have a log showing when this code was put in and by who?
Do these times predate the corresponding development in Linux?
Who put the code in Linux?
Was the person who put the code into Linux authorized by the UNIX copyright holder to do so?
My unrelated to code viewing questions.
They distrbute the kernel under the GPL, giving enough people a license to continue to redistribute it.
They haven't tried to minimize current damages or limit further damage, obviously this isn't costing them very much.
I do pay for some content.
I have some subscriptions to some pay sites.
But generally I don't because they overprice.
I don't want several bill payments running through my credit card.
Online subscriptions are too expensive, I only want to pay a few dollars a year. It should be easy and secure to pay. Automatically renewing subscriptions aren't ideal.
It has to offer something better, and it should prove that it is better.
Online prices should be cheaper then a comperable dead tree subscription, even if they offer additional services.
Yes it is, it's been an old joke since they were founded.
Also they're a good employer, people would graduate or be on coop, get a job from RIM, and joke how they just got a RIMjob.
and in the america i grew up in we don't censor information from the public
Care to tell me where this magical fantasy land is.
The America I know of (USA, in North America, between Canada and Mexico). Has ALWAYS kept secrets from the populace. Like every government has hidden details, and some unethical people within it.
This si the way it is, and that is why you should vote, and protest and work to change.
On this case, he plead guilty to the charges. The other thing is that if he actively worked to promote violence and attacked government computers he was committing a crime.
Protesting and working against the government is fine, just do it legally.
Cracking computers, making bombs and advocating violence is wrong.
A convicted criminal does not have the same rights a citizen, that is the way our justice system works.
(I'm not a US citizen)