There certainly is a moral obligation to support a standard that you've forced into existence. To force hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world to work to vet your proposed standard and then not support it is... uh... bad form...
Sutor is correct that it's quite possible that the OOXML that comes out of ISO will not be compatible with the OOXML that Office currently saves. But do keep in mind that Sutor works for IBM and has long been a vocal opponent of OOXML.
"Actually it'd be "You have to release the source code for your product or cease distributing the GPL'd code.". Note that that second is always an option when dealing with the GPL."
Strictly speaking, that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give you that option. However, it ultimately depends upon what the copyright holder would accept. A deep pocketed copyright holder could push it to the limit and require that the code be released under the GPL. Most copyright holders do not have deep pockets.
And there's good reason for this. You don't necessarily know the provenance of the source code.
Here's an example: I was doing evaluations of the two open source identification products available today (from Black Duck and Palamida), and I found an instance where it appeared that code that was originally released under the GPL had found it's way into code that was released under the Apache license. I did some due diligence on this, looking back in the repositories to see when the initial checkins had been done to determine which project had the code first. Admittedly, that's not fool proof, but was the best I could do under the circumstances.
So, now imagine if someone in good faith takes the code from the Apache licensed project and uses it in their proprietary product. They comply with the Apache license. Then someone from the GPL project comes along and says "Hey! You're using OUR code that was made available under the GPL, you have to release the source code for your product." Legally speaking, that could be the result. And some people don't want to take that chance.
There are two things that McAfee is going to be worried about:
1. The accidental introduction of GPL'd code into a product.
and the ambiguous one:
2. What constitutes a derivative work. Some Linux kernel developers believe that ANY kernel module is a derivative work of Linux and thus the source should be made available under the GPL. Others, e.g. Linus, believe that if source code was originally developed for another platform and then is ported to Linux that it may not be a derivative work. Who's right, legally speaking? Who knows! As lawyers like to say, something isn't so until a judge says it is.
"One problem with Macafee's contention that the GPL hasn't been tested in court is that it's wrong. Slashdot reported not long ago about Verizon being sued over GPL violations"
Actually, it's not wrong, at least not by your example. There has been no court decision handed down in that case. In fact, it hasn't even gone to trial. Thus, it hasn't been tested in a (U.S.) court.
A court in Germany did hand down a decision related to the GPL, but that's about it.
THE SAFEST airline in the world, it is widely agreed, is El Al, Israel's national carrier. The safest airport is Ben Gurion International, in Tel Aviv. No El Al plane has been attacked by terrorists in more than three decades, and no flight leaving Ben Gurion has ever been hijacked. So when US aviation intensified its focus on security after 9/11, it seemed a good bet that the experience of travelers in American airports would increasingly come to resemble that of travelers flying out of Tel Aviv.
... Screeners at American airports don't usually engage in conversation with passengers, unless you count their endlessly repeated instructions about emptying pockets and taking laptops out of briefcases. At Ben Gurion, security officials make a point of engaging in dialogue with almost everyone who's catching a plane.
... Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky clothing, say, or a nervous manner.
Even if all of Google's code were open source, it wouldn't be as big a deal as most people seem to think. You've got to have a multi-billion dollar infrastructure to effectively use the code that Google has.
Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public. For example, scholars must be free to quote from their research resources in order to comment on the material.
If the forum does not have any copyright rules (as I mentioned) then the author's posting of the code in an open and public forum intended as an example without any explicit limitations would be considered by a "reasonable man" to be intended to be used by any readers for any purpose.
Courts are not about reason, they are about the law. If there are no copyright rules in the forum, then the author retains all rights to the code. ALL RIGHTS.
The act of publishing a work, i.e. posting to a forum in this case, implies a grant of a number of rights. If you don't limit those rights at time of publication, then you lose them.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
I suggest you do some reading on the subject. You might find this article useful: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/copyright.html While it discusses photographs instead of source code, the idea is the same as both are subject to copyright protection. You might find this text particularly illuminating: There is no such thing as an implied copyright waiver, i.e. if a photograph has been used in violation of a copyright, the fact that the copyright holder did not seek to enforce the copyright at the time does not mean s/he waives his copyright. Copyrights must be explicitly waived...
There is a question of provenance of the code. Just because you found it on some web site doesn't mean THEY didn't copy it from somewhere else and remove the copyright notices - it happens. It's also possible that both got if from a public domain source (there isn't that much code in the public domain, but there is some). However, I strongly suggest you report it to your superiors within the company. If they decide not to do anything about it then don't worry.
Copyright infringement is one of those things where ignorance is not bliss. The longer it goes on, the higher your company's potential liability.
If you create something then there's implied copyright on it, whether someone puts the "(c)" on there or not. Any rights that are not specifically granted to users of the code are not grantef to the users.
Slashdot Mirror
This is obviously not true. After all, Linux zealots constantly say that Linux isn't vulnerable to malware...
There certainly is a moral obligation to support a standard that you've forced into existence. To force hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world to work to vet your proposed standard and then not support it is... uh... bad form...
I'm saying he has an agenda against OOXML. But having an agenda doesn't make someone wrong...
Sutor is correct that it's quite possible that the OOXML that comes out of ISO will not be compatible with the OOXML that Office currently saves. But do keep in mind that Sutor works for IBM and has long been a vocal opponent of OOXML.
"Actually it'd be "You have to release the source code for your product or cease distributing the GPL'd code.". Note that that second is always an option when dealing with the GPL."
Strictly speaking, that isn't true. The GPL doesn't give you that option. However, it ultimately depends upon what the copyright holder would accept. A deep pocketed copyright holder could push it to the limit and require that the code be released under the GPL. Most copyright holders do not have deep pockets.
That didn't test the GPL. That was an allegation of restraint of trade.
A rare voice of sanity in this. I'd mod you up if I could...
"I think it is fairly likely they are just trying to stir up trouble for FOSS community with SEC."
ROFLMAO!!!
Hardly. Just what trouble do you think could be caused with the SEC? I mean OMG, the conspiracy theories abound!
What McAfee is doing is acknowledging a risk in their business and after the Cisco/Linksys debacle they'd be foolish not to.
"I would have thought that Copyright law was pretty unambiguous"
Think again.
What is a "derivative work?" If you create a Linux kernel module is it necessarily a derivative work of Linux? Some believe so, others do not.
And there's good reason for this. You don't necessarily know the provenance of the source code.
Here's an example: I was doing evaluations of the two open source identification products available today (from Black Duck and Palamida), and I found an instance where it appeared that code that was originally released under the GPL had found it's way into code that was released under the Apache license. I did some due diligence on this, looking back in the repositories to see when the initial checkins had been done to determine which project had the code first. Admittedly, that's not fool proof, but was the best I could do under the circumstances.
So, now imagine if someone in good faith takes the code from the Apache licensed project and uses it in their proprietary product. They comply with the Apache license. Then someone from the GPL project comes along and says "Hey! You're using OUR code that was made available under the GPL, you have to release the source code for your product." Legally speaking, that could be the result. And some people don't want to take that chance.
There are two things that McAfee is going to be worried about:
1. The accidental introduction of GPL'd code into a product.
and the ambiguous one:
2. What constitutes a derivative work. Some Linux kernel developers believe that ANY kernel module is a derivative work of Linux and thus the source should be made available under the GPL. Others, e.g. Linus, believe that if source code was originally developed for another platform and then is ported to Linux that it may not be a derivative work. Who's right, legally speaking? Who knows! As lawyers like to say, something isn't so until a judge says it is.
"Did McAfee just openly admit that they stole code from GPL'd software?" No, the did not.
"One problem with Macafee's contention that the GPL hasn't been tested in court is that it's wrong. Slashdot reported not long ago about Verizon being sued over GPL violations"
Actually, it's not wrong, at least not by your example. There has been no court decision handed down in that case. In fact, it hasn't even gone to trial. Thus, it hasn't been tested in a (U.S.) court.
A court in Germany did hand down a decision related to the GPL, but that's about it.
Even if all of Google's code were open source, it wouldn't be as big a deal as most people seem to think. You've got to have a multi-billion dollar infrastructure to effectively use the code that Google has.
And it's not all the contacts in Gmail, it's the ones you've chatted with - likely to be a much smaller number.
Then they'll be more interested in protecting IP...
The SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:
Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
"tomorrow they will also work remotely, from home"
Some of us do that right now
ROFLMAO!!! It's not fair use - not even close.
Source
You really should quit before you get any further behind. You ignorance of copyright is astounding!
You're daft...
Courts are not about reason, they are about the law. If there are no copyright rules in the forum, then the author retains all rights to the code. ALL RIGHTS.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
I suggest you do some reading on the subject. You might find this article useful: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/copyright.html While it discusses photographs instead of source code, the idea is the same as both are subject to copyright protection. You might find this text particularly illuminating: There is no such thing as an implied copyright waiver, i.e. if a photograph has been used in violation of a copyright, the fact that the copyright holder did not seek to enforce the copyright at the time does not mean s/he waives his copyright. Copyrights must be explicitly waived...
There is a question of provenance of the code. Just because you found it on some web site doesn't mean THEY didn't copy it from somewhere else and remove the copyright notices - it happens. It's also possible that both got if from a public domain source (there isn't that much code in the public domain, but there is some). However, I strongly suggest you report it to your superiors within the company. If they decide not to do anything about it then don't worry.
Copyright infringement is one of those things where ignorance is not bliss. The longer it goes on, the higher your company's potential liability.
You're nuts!
If you create something then there's implied copyright on it, whether someone puts the "(c)" on there or not. Any rights that are not specifically granted to users of the code are not grantef to the users.
I sure hope you don't work at MY company!