If you think that the business world is fleeing the "viral GPL", then why is Apple shipping every single Macintosh, and every single copy of Leopard, together with the gcc compiler suite?
The business world has no fear of GPL. The GPL is a license. If a business wants to use someone else's copyrighted code, then they check the license, and the cost, and decide whether the license and the cost are acceptable or not. Some companies will decide that using code licensed under GPL is not suitable to them. Microsoft would never add GPL'd code to Microsoft Office. Not because they are afraid of the GPL, but because they understand it and find the license terms unacceptable.
It's bad nitpicking, for several reasons, not the least of which being that GPL violation is copyright infringement, among other things, so you're in distinction-without-a-difference land. Breach of license is a means of infringing on a copyright, and frankly is more useful as a term that "he violated my copyright!" which urges the followup question, "How?" This takes care of both in one fell swoop. You are wrong. GPL violation is _not_ copyright infringement. Distributing software without permission of the copyright holder is copyright infringement. Not meeting the terms of the GPL just invalidates any claims that you might have permission of the copyright holder. That is an important distinction, because it means the copyright infringement has happened, and distributing the source code now doesn't help anymore.
You cannot sue anyone for breach of the GPL. You can only sue for copyright infringement. They can then use the GPL as a possible defence saying that the GPL allowed them to copy your software, and then you tell the court why it doesn't.
I'm not sure if I buy that. At least, I don't think it's that simple. If I sell hardware with GPL firmware, and I don't do firmware support myself, I can't imagine that simply retailing the hardware incurs any kind of source code requirement.
Forget about the terms of the GPL. If someone sells you a product, and you sell it on, and the product contains parts that are protected by copyright and you don't have permission from the copyright holder, you are responsible. If I produce 1000 illegal copies of MS Vista, sell them to you, and you sell them on, you can't deny responsibility. Microsoft can and will sue you. You may be able to sue me in turn, depending on circumstances.
Same here. When Verizon gives the product to the end user, they are infringing Busybox's copyright. It doesn't matter whether that is their suppliers fault or not, they are responsible. If their supplier lied to them and didn't tell them that the product contained Busybox's code, then Verizon can sue their supplier.
If one is distributing the software unmodified, can they not just point requesters to where they got the source from in the first place? It's been a while since I looked at the GPL, but I thought this was the case. Whether you modified the software or not, you have three choices if you distribute it (and "distribute" means: Give a copy to someone else):
1. Ship the software together with a copy of the GPL and the source code.
2. Ship the software together with a copy of the GPL, a promise valid for three years to provide the source code, and the information how to get the source code.
3. If your distribution is not commercial, and the software is unmodified, and you received it from someone who used method (2) or (3), then ship the software together with a copy of the GPL and the information how to get the source code.
(3) obviously cannot apply if you modified the software, because nobody else has the code. It also doesn't apply to Verizon, because their distribution is commercial. So they have to ship with source code, or with an offer to supply the source code. They didn't do either, so their distributing the software is copyright infringement.
Maybe so, but any GPS mapping system should know about the 30 limit and consider it in it's route optimization calculations.
If the speed limit is 30 in the area, but a route bypassing it is 60, it doesn't take much to make the longer but higher speed route faster. The whole problem could be fixed quite easily by changing the map data to a speed limit of 5 mph. That would automatically keep anyone away who tries to go through a village as a shortcut; genuine visitors would be a bit surprised that the last mile of road supposedly takes 12 minutes, but they would still be led to the right place.
I read the article, and it scared me a little because it sounds like there is a chance for SCO to appeal on the grounds that a jury should have decided exactly what the APA meant. I haven't read the full text of the APA and I don't remember the details from back when groklaw dissected it, but TFA manages to find quotes from it that seem contradictory. The article title is indeed inflammatory, and SCO's infringement claims certainly are bogus. My concern is SCO could use this to draw everything out still longer. Of course, there is the issue of them being bankrupt and bleeding the remaining assets they have, but it would be a damn shame if there was the appearance of SCO having any claim at all, especially if they go out of business before they can be proven wrong.
The first assertion, that a jury should have decided what the APA meant, is complete nonsense. If - hypothetically - SCO had shown an APA and Novell had shown an APA with slightly different wording, then we would have a dispute about which is the genuine APA. That would be a dispute of fact, and juries decide about disputed facts. However, if the text of the APA is not disputed, and it isn't, then what it _means_ is a matter of law, and that is solely for the judge to decide.
Yes, TFA manages to find quotes that seem contradictory, that is because it leaves out things that make it clear. The APA is not judged by extracts, the whole thing is read and examined, and if you take the whole APA and leave nothing out then there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Note that if you take the first half sentence of this paragraph and leave out the rest, it looks like I was supporting the author of TFA, which I am absolutely not.
Yes, customers have rights. Exercising them is up to the customer. I don't have to help them/you. If my help is desired, ask nicely. Payment would help.
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch. I still have about a hundred LPs. I have the right to record them on my Mac and turn them into AAC files. It's just an awful lot of work. If Apple sold the AAC files to me for $3 to $4 per LP, I would buy them immediately even though I legally don't need these files. (I spent 14.99 yesterday for a 320KBit MP3 download of two LPs that I own from the new Deutsche Grammophon shop).
Now with DVDs and Handbrake it is slightly different; i wouldn't pay $3 to $4 to save me the work of turning a DVD into h.264 format, but some people would. I would probably willingly pay some lesser amount. What people need to realize is that even though it is your right, it is still work.
I suspect very few of the "call the Waaaambulance" type people here have actually read the article. There's actually quite compelling evidence of shady or unfair goings on in that trial. Completely striking the testimony of one of the main negotiators because of a family member with vested interests (having a wife work at one company is worse than you working for another company?) does seem extremely odd. It's not even slight testimony, it essentially was confirmation that SCO were told and led to believe they had ownership of Unix rights. Although this testimony could've had holes picked in, to completely discount something so incredibly important to the case is odd. You haven't followed this case, have you?
There is an absolutely, one hundred percent clear contract between Novell and SCO: The contract says "Novell sells the business to SCO, excluding any copyrights". That's what the contract says. Sure, Novell _intended_ to sell the copyrights as well, but SCO didn't have the money for that. SCO's witnesses were excluded for a very good reason: The contract is absolutely clear. It means what it says. Any witness that says otherwise can and must be ignored. That's what the law actually says: Any witness contradicting the meaning of a written contract must be ignored.
SCO was never "told and led to believe they had ownership of Unix rights". They tried to buy these rights. Novell wanted to sell them. SCO didn't have the money.
Just yesterday I went to a shop selling 50 inch LCD TVs. I wanted to buy one. I said "would you sell that TV to me"? They said "Of course, absolutely yes". I said "How much is it?" They said "$3,000". I said "Umph. I've only got $200". I left the shop with a tiny 15" TV. But I have a dozen witnesses that I wanted to buy the 50" one, and they can all confirm that the shop wanted to sell me one. Even the shop assistant and his manager witnessed under oath that they wanted to sell me a 50" TV. So surely I have the right to get that TV for my $200?
1. Yes, Novell always wanted to sell the whole business including copyrights. Unfortunately, SCO's predecessor didn't have the money to afford paying for the copyrights, so the copyrights were excluded. So the question that the CEO was asked isn't the one that counts: He was asked "what was your intention to sell". He was not asked "and what _did_ you actually sell".
2. Novell and SCO signed a contract. And that contract is absolutely one hundred percent clear: Copyrights were not included. That's what the words of the contract say. Now the wording of the contract is undisputed. SCO can argue as much as they want what the contract _means_, but there is no disagreement about the text. As the text of the contract is undisputed, the judge can and must decide what the contract means as a matter of law. No jury required, no jury actually allowed because there are no disputed facts. With the written contract available, there is no need for any witnesses. Actually, the judge is required by law to _ignore_ all witnesses that contradict the clear text of the contract. TFA claims that "nobody remembers anymore what the contract means". That is nonsense. The text of the contract is available, so you just give it to the judge to read and the judge will tell exactly what it means. That's why you write down contracts, so that you don't rely on people's memories.
3. Even if a contract claims to sell the copyrights, copyrights need to be transferred by a separate transfer document. That is a legal requirement. As SCO cannot show such a transfer document, Novell still holds the copyrights. Now SCO could have tried to sue Novell to have the copyrights transferred, but they haven't. The copyrights are Novell's until Novell signs a transfer document, no matter what the contract says.
That answer is so bad it almost sounds like sarcasm. Given how easy it is to sniff sensitive data from an unencrypted wireless network, I can't imagine Bruce would allow it unless he segments his network or wires up his own PC. What is more likely to happen: That someone reads sensitive data from his unprotected wireless network, or that he is killed in a complete random traffic accident?
What makes you think they are selling at a loss? Are you aware that iPod nano's are speculated to cost less than 50$ each to manufacture? You are confusing the speculations about "bill of parts" with "cost to manufacture". Not the same thing. And once you've manufactured it, it costs a bit of money to get it from a factory in China into the hands of a customer.
Ok call it a loan of sorts (whether it's an ethical loan is another debate)... but what I'm saying basically is why doesn't Apple front those costs to the artists instead. How about giving them a larger chunk of the profits as an incentive to going to Apple instead of an RIAA based company? They already have an advertising arm and distribution arm. All they need to do is build a few studios. Steve Jobs has at some point made some comments about the mad business model that the music industry has; spending lots of money to try to find one band who recovers it all. Apple could do some completely different things. For example, they could _hire_ musicians to make a good record, then for example turn it into a download that plays on all iPods and on all Macs for free; anywhere else you have to pay. I'd wonder how much a good record would cost if everything is done in a sensible way. They could concentrate on quality instead of playing things safe.
Well I believe Apple is specifically barred from doing that after a trademark settlement with Apple Corps. The fact that they even have a music store has been the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. I think it's settled again, but I don't know if they've ever released the terms of the settlement, so I don't know if they're allowed yet to act as a record label. After the latest round Apple Inc. can do whatever they want with the name. Apple Inc. now owns the trademark for "Apple" for use in the music industry, and Apple Corps. has an unlimited license to use the name.
For me this is a very strange moment. In my entire life, I've never met anyone who has even heard of Andreas Vollenweider, and I'm sitting here with my IPOD listening to "Down to the Moon" when I read your comment. Well, I've get "Behind the Gardens - Behind the Wall - Under the Tree" and "Caverna Magica". Well worth listening to. Just lots of work getting the old LPs out, cleaning them carefully and recording them, then typing all the titles in yourself because the CD database doesn't work for things you recorded from LP.
If the author of the code posted it in a forum, I would personally call that implicit permission to use the code. Otherwise, why even post it? To show off his great coding ability? Every programmer (myself included) does this all the time and I have never heard of "Forum police" going after them. As to the legality of downloading it, if it is showing in your browser window, you have already downloaded it. How do you know it is the author who posted it? Even if it is the author, how do you know he is the copyright holder?
Here is how it works at my company: No code is included unless a lawyer has checked the license and has checked that the source of the code has the rights to it. So using code that doesn't come with a license is a definite no. Using code that was published with a note "public domain, feel free to use it" is a no until the author has been contacted and confirmed that he has the copyrights. For 200 lines of code, it is obviously easier for me to rewrite it than to get the lawyers involved.
Or you could not accept the GPL, and let the lawyers loose on the poor unsuspecting copyright holder that dares to take you to court. Sony are in the wrong, but it's unthinkable that a judge would order them to release the source to their entire game. It is indeed unthinkable, because the GPL is not a contract. A judge would likely say that copyright infringement has happened. And that damages have to be paid. Now the plaintiff may offer that Sony could publish the source code under the GPL instead of paying damages. In that case it is completely up to Sony to accept the offer or not, but nobody can force them.
The only reason why people have published source code in the past was because it was the cheaper solution. If I had one million lines of Linux code and 1000 lines of my own, I would likely publish the source code. If I had 1000 lines of GPL'd code and one million lines of my own, I might be more willing to pay damages.
I thought Fair Use required attribution of the source?... Stripping it out and claiming it as your own, that's a case example of copyright infringement. What these guys are doing is far, far away from any legal definition of fair use. If I take five lines of source code from Microsoft Word or from Open Office to demonstrate a particularly good or bad programming style in a book about large scale software development, that would be fair use. If I took half of their source code to help writing my own word processor, that is nowhere near "fair use", and that is what happened here.
Wouldn't pulling off something like this require a level of knowledge and togetherness more in line with a government agency, rather than a "terrorist" group? Not necessarily. If you have a fault in a processor that will get a certain calculation always wrong in a predictable way, and the source code for a decryption engine available, then this _may_ be enough for a talented hacker with lots of time, with the help of a good mathematician, to crack the system. Depends on what the fault is.
Re:Python is part of the answer
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
Now, the odds of a computer's processor getting hit by a gamma ray and turning a NOT FOUR COLORABLE result into a positive one is non-zero. Negligible, of course. And for this reason I have no doubt the FCT is true. But the truth of FCT does not logically follow from the experiment. What will we do when we start enumerating enough objects that the odds aren't negligible? Careful; it depends on exactly what the software is used for. If I need to proof that out of a set of 2000 complicated graphs each single one is four-colourable, then I can write a program that prints my 2000 graphs on a colour printer using four colours. If it took me manually one hour per graph to find a four-colouring and only one minute to check whether a four-colouring is correct, then there can be no reasonable objection to the use of a computer. Worst case; one of the graphs printed used five colours, and another one wasn't coloured according to the rules, I do these two graphs by hand.
So yes they lost money. The Shareholder my not had it directly effect their bank account but if Apple Decided to call a quits or got bought by Dell then they would receive less from their portion of ownership. You are completely wrong. Apple did not pay a fine at all. Apple corrected their profit numbers which had been calculated incorrectly. And you may not believe it, but Apple actually benefits from this financially: Since it was found out that options were backdated, Apples profits were less than everyone (including Apple) assumed, so Apple paid too much in taxes, which they now get back. On the other hand, those people who received the options received more from Apple than they had believed, so they made more profit than believed, and they have to pay taxes for the difference.
Minor nitpick: Apple didn't pay a fine they 'took a charge', which is an accounting adjustment. It still hurt them on paper to the tune of $84 million, but it's not exactly the same thing. Another nitpick: Share_holders_ were not actually damaged at all. Share options were given out, but not accounted for in the correct way. That means that paper profits were too high. This was later adjusted down by $84 million. However, the actual profit was not changed at all, just the reported profit.
You were only affected if you bought Apple after the backdating happened, assuming that Apple was worth more than it actually was, and sold after the adjustment, when everyone knew the true value. Or if you bought before the backdating, and sold afterwards, so you got more money for your shares than you should have.
If you bought before the backdating happened and kept your shares, then you wrongly believed for a few years that your shares were worth more than they actually were, but that is not damaging.
Can't you just plead the 5th when they ask for the key? you do have the right to remain silent. how is asking you for a key and demanding an answer different from asking for where you hid the body and demanding the same? Since this is happening in the UK, pleading "the 5th" which is an American thing won't work. Even if you are a US citizen. Find a UK law first that protects you.
But this is not about self-incrimination. It is not like asking "where did you hide the body", it is like asking "please give us the key to your cellar so we can lawfully check if there is a body in there".
In the US at least, they'd have to convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you actually had the key for you to be convicted for refusing to hand it over. No. The law says that under certain circumstances you have to hand over the key. So they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't hand over the key, that's all.
Simple question that you should ask whoever wants you to sign this: What is in it for you? They ask you to give the company something, so you would expect some compensation for that, like a raise.
Then point out to them that the "six months after employment" term makes you virtually unemployable in a similar company. Surely they will understand that they couldn't have hired you if you had signed a similar contract with your previous employer. So ask them to add a paragraph where they commit to pay the difference between your salary and your current salary for six months after the employment ends. When you leave them, you can then flip burgers at MacDonald's for six months while they pay the difference in salary.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that the business world is fleeing the "viral GPL", then why is Apple shipping every single Macintosh, and every single copy of Leopard, together with the gcc compiler suite?
The business world has no fear of GPL. The GPL is a license. If a business wants to use someone else's copyrighted code, then they check the license, and the cost, and decide whether the license and the cost are acceptable or not. Some companies will decide that using code licensed under GPL is not suitable to them. Microsoft would never add GPL'd code to Microsoft Office. Not because they are afraid of the GPL, but because they understand it and find the license terms unacceptable.
You cannot sue anyone for breach of the GPL. You can only sue for copyright infringement. They can then use the GPL as a possible defence saying that the GPL allowed them to copy your software, and then you tell the court why it doesn't.
Forget about the terms of the GPL. If someone sells you a product, and you sell it on, and the product contains parts that are protected by copyright and you don't have permission from the copyright holder, you are responsible. If I produce 1000 illegal copies of MS Vista, sell them to you, and you sell them on, you can't deny responsibility. Microsoft can and will sue you. You may be able to sue me in turn, depending on circumstances.
Same here. When Verizon gives the product to the end user, they are infringing Busybox's copyright. It doesn't matter whether that is their suppliers fault or not, they are responsible. If their supplier lied to them and didn't tell them that the product contained Busybox's code, then Verizon can sue their supplier.
1. Ship the software together with a copy of the GPL and the source code. 2. Ship the software together with a copy of the GPL, a promise valid for three years to provide the source code, and the information how to get the source code. 3. If your distribution is not commercial, and the software is unmodified, and you received it from someone who used method (2) or (3), then ship the software together with a copy of the GPL and the information how to get the source code. (3) obviously cannot apply if you modified the software, because nobody else has the code. It also doesn't apply to Verizon, because their distribution is commercial. So they have to ship with source code, or with an offer to supply the source code. They didn't do either, so their distributing the software is copyright infringement.
If the speed limit is 30 in the area, but a route bypassing it is 60, it doesn't take much to make the longer but higher speed route faster. The whole problem could be fixed quite easily by changing the map data to a speed limit of 5 mph. That would automatically keep anyone away who tries to go through a village as a shortcut; genuine visitors would be a bit surprised that the last mile of road supposedly takes 12 minutes, but they would still be led to the right place.
The first assertion, that a jury should have decided what the APA meant, is complete nonsense. If - hypothetically - SCO had shown an APA and Novell had shown an APA with slightly different wording, then we would have a dispute about which is the genuine APA. That would be a dispute of fact, and juries decide about disputed facts. However, if the text of the APA is not disputed, and it isn't, then what it _means_ is a matter of law, and that is solely for the judge to decide.
Yes, TFA manages to find quotes that seem contradictory, that is because it leaves out things that make it clear. The APA is not judged by extracts, the whole thing is read and examined, and if you take the whole APA and leave nothing out then there is no ambiguity whatsoever. Note that if you take the first half sentence of this paragraph and leave out the rest, it looks like I was supporting the author of TFA, which I am absolutely not.
Apple is (apparently) offering to help. They would expect payment - natch. I still have about a hundred LPs. I have the right to record them on my Mac and turn them into AAC files. It's just an awful lot of work. If Apple sold the AAC files to me for $3 to $4 per LP, I would buy them immediately even though I legally don't need these files. (I spent 14.99 yesterday for a 320KBit MP3 download of two LPs that I own from the new Deutsche Grammophon shop).
Now with DVDs and Handbrake it is slightly different; i wouldn't pay $3 to $4 to save me the work of turning a DVD into h.264 format, but some people would. I would probably willingly pay some lesser amount. What people need to realize is that even though it is your right, it is still work.
There is an absolutely, one hundred percent clear contract between Novell and SCO: The contract says "Novell sells the business to SCO, excluding any copyrights". That's what the contract says. Sure, Novell _intended_ to sell the copyrights as well, but SCO didn't have the money for that. SCO's witnesses were excluded for a very good reason: The contract is absolutely clear. It means what it says. Any witness that says otherwise can and must be ignored. That's what the law actually says: Any witness contradicting the meaning of a written contract must be ignored.
SCO was never "told and led to believe they had ownership of Unix rights". They tried to buy these rights. Novell wanted to sell them. SCO didn't have the money.
Just yesterday I went to a shop selling 50 inch LCD TVs. I wanted to buy one. I said "would you sell that TV to me"? They said "Of course, absolutely yes". I said "How much is it?" They said "$3,000". I said "Umph. I've only got $200". I left the shop with a tiny 15" TV. But I have a dozen witnesses that I wanted to buy the 50" one, and they can all confirm that the shop wanted to sell me one. Even the shop assistant and his manager witnessed under oath that they wanted to sell me a 50" TV. So surely I have the right to get that TV for my $200?
There are a few things that you are missing:
1. Yes, Novell always wanted to sell the whole business including copyrights. Unfortunately, SCO's predecessor didn't have the money to afford paying for the copyrights, so the copyrights were excluded. So the question that the CEO was asked isn't the one that counts: He was asked "what was your intention to sell". He was not asked "and what _did_ you actually sell". 2. Novell and SCO signed a contract. And that contract is absolutely one hundred percent clear: Copyrights were not included. That's what the words of the contract say. Now the wording of the contract is undisputed. SCO can argue as much as they want what the contract _means_, but there is no disagreement about the text. As the text of the contract is undisputed, the judge can and must decide what the contract means as a matter of law. No jury required, no jury actually allowed because there are no disputed facts. With the written contract available, there is no need for any witnesses. Actually, the judge is required by law to _ignore_ all witnesses that contradict the clear text of the contract. TFA claims that "nobody remembers anymore what the contract means". That is nonsense. The text of the contract is available, so you just give it to the judge to read and the judge will tell exactly what it means. That's why you write down contracts, so that you don't rely on people's memories.
3. Even if a contract claims to sell the copyrights, copyrights need to be transferred by a separate transfer document. That is a legal requirement. As SCO cannot show such a transfer document, Novell still holds the copyrights. Now SCO could have tried to sue Novell to have the copyrights transferred, but they haven't. The copyrights are Novell's until Novell signs a transfer document, no matter what the contract says.
Here is how it works at my company: No code is included unless a lawyer has checked the license and has checked that the source of the code has the rights to it. So using code that doesn't come with a license is a definite no. Using code that was published with a note "public domain, feel free to use it" is a no until the author has been contacted and confirmed that he has the copyrights. For 200 lines of code, it is obviously easier for me to rewrite it than to get the lawyers involved.
The only reason why people have published source code in the past was because it was the cheaper solution. If I had one million lines of Linux code and 1000 lines of my own, I would likely publish the source code. If I had 1000 lines of GPL'd code and one million lines of my own, I might be more willing to pay damages.
You were only affected if you bought Apple after the backdating happened, assuming that Apple was worth more than it actually was, and sold after the adjustment, when everyone knew the true value. Or if you bought before the backdating, and sold afterwards, so you got more money for your shares than you should have.
If you bought before the backdating happened and kept your shares, then you wrongly believed for a few years that your shares were worth more than they actually were, but that is not damaging.
But this is not about self-incrimination. It is not like asking "where did you hide the body", it is like asking "please give us the key to your cellar so we can lawfully check if there is a body in there".
Simple question that you should ask whoever wants you to sign this: What is in it for you? They ask you to give the company something, so you would expect some compensation for that, like a raise.
Then point out to them that the "six months after employment" term makes you virtually unemployable in a similar company. Surely they will understand that they couldn't have hired you if you had signed a similar contract with your previous employer. So ask them to add a paragraph where they commit to pay the difference between your salary and your current salary for six months after the employment ends. When you leave them, you can then flip burgers at MacDonald's for six months while they pay the difference in salary.