MAD is actually a stalemate position. Possessing nuclear assets does not, in and of itself, make a country viable for a MAD stand-off. The key criteria is that each adversary possesses an arsenal, supporting systems and infrastructure, capable of surviving a first strike by their opponent such that they can subsequently inflict comparable damage on the initiating party. Hence Mutually Assured Destruction.
the plaintiff can still attempt discovery to determine intent, this affects damages.
but regardless of any actual litigation, the water has been poisoned.
here's the thing, or actually several things...
a. companies are very risk averse - litigation is expensive and potentially deadly.
b. The GPL has never been formally defined.
b1. The GPL reads like the Port Huron statement - it's not a standard legal document.
b2. This makes it nearly impossible to render a confident legal opinion on exactly what is and is not a valid condition/restriction of the GPL.
b3. the FSF is now claiming that activation of the GPL doesn't actually require redistribution.
c. The FSF is apparently declaring their intent to impose this new interpretation RETROACTIVELY.
d. as you ask, IS THIS EVEN LEGAL - probably not, but no one really knows at this point.
e. If it's not binding the GPL is invalid.
f. If it is binding the GPL is a HUGE LIABILITY.
g. The GPL is either a joke or a HUGE LIABILITY.
h. companies don't want to invest in jokes a/o HUGE LIABILITIES - though they've been known to;)
i. this begs the question - IS THE FSF A HUGE LIABILITY ?
j. a-i = HUGE LIABILTY = RISKY = DONT USE FREE SOFTWARE.
What I'm getting at is that this event will signal to those interests who currently invest in software that GPL software can't be trusted, there are too many legal issues, the governing authority is capricious and likely to act in bad faith, they resent commercial applications of the license, and are litigious. Whether or not this results in a court case, the use of GPL sofware will almost certainly decline.
If the FSF didn't agree with this interpretation, why didn't Moglen simply state that Olson's statement was his own ? The fact that he'd declined to comment indicates to the legal community that this interpretation is valid within the context of the current deliberations.
just wait a few days, this whole thing is likely to brew into a galaxy sized sh*t storm.
I'd say that RMS is actually Stalin, Raymond is Trotsky , the OSI is democratic socialism, Free Software developers are the Ukranians, and the Free Software movement is apparently the 'Big Lie'.
here's the problem, subpeona's can be issued for what's known as 'discovery' - ie. to discover whether there's been infringement. So even if there's no infringement, and one of these firms argues that they aren't violating anything, they can be dragged into court and forced to reveal their code. This threat alone will likely cause them to drop GPL'd code from their projects. AND even if this change to the GPL never comes about, the FSF has signalled the intent to move in this direction either by explicit changes to the license or via legal actions - basically its the end of the free software movement.
* sorry for the curt response, I'm pretty PO'd
arguments over intentions, principles, interpretations are now moot.
The FSF has signalled its intentions, and forced these on the entire FSM , they've confirmed the worst fears of every tech legal counsel and CTO in the world - not only is the license legally suspect, its capricious and the parties behind the Free Software movement will act with malice.
This is a f*cking betrayal.
Can you guess what the response will be the next time you recommend a GPL product - are you willing to further risk your reputation by trying to ensure your clients that the FSF doesn't really mean what it's saying
And don't give me some BS about what it 'really' means - you don't know !! This has been the basic problem w/ GPL adoption from the start - it's legal standing has never been formalized, the courts have never rendered an opinion on the full document. And just when we start getting enterprises, academia, and governments to adopt the GPL -- BLAMMOO -- the FSF cuts our throats.
WOW
Well if this is even partially accurate it's the end of enterprise GPL. Frankly you can forget about the GPL for anything more sophisticated than shell scripts. This'll even knock-out academic and government uses.
I'd love to understand Olson's motive for promoting this change prior to its final determination. Throwing a statement like this into the water is either the result of malice or stupidity.
It's not going to matter whether the FSF does a total about-face and buys ad time on CNN to disavow the change - these statements will be seen as a signal of the FSF's future direction and intent. Its a confirmation of the worst fears of the most FUD-ish critics.
JEESUS H CHRIST -- IDIOTS
this is what we get for trusting a bunch of ideologues.
AND BEFORE you flame me, consider what this change implies regarding the FSF's regard for the free software community - "it doesn't matter what we've said, what you've promised people, how this'll affect your existing work - the FSF is 'Free Software' , we own the movement, you're the sucker for trusting us"
These nets support fragmentation and service levels - ie. they can ensure that the DTV content gets the bandwidth it needs. Internet derived media will be handled under a 'best effort' policy.
IPTV is like streaming video, not store & forward.
This is one reason that people are concerned that telco's may deliberately over-provision for DTV knowing that it'll enable them to crimp on bandwidth available to unaffiliated media.
expect to hear complaints of this in the near future:P
IPTV providers can buy programming from a coop or via deals w/ individual channels and holding companies. This article conflates VOD w/ the entire IPTV service package.
The article's rational, that the studios are afraid of IPTV because they resent HBO, is a bit far flung. What's more likely is that they realize that they'd gotten a raw deal in their VOD agreements w/ cable MSO's and are looking for something better from the telco's. Cable is notorious for its one sided leasing/carriage/distribution agreements - you'll notice that we're about 7 yrs behind in ITV and ADTV services. Frankly some competitive pressure on cable could go along way towards improving this situation.
So I doubt that the current situation will result in a significant delay of IPTV roll-outs. These are far enough along that significant delays would be very costly - it would make more sense to complete them and wait things out.
Also IPTV does not use a single massive consolidated server farm. There are various topologies, and these tend to use regional headends.
I get your point. And to compound the problem certain representatives of the FSF may come out with a statement a few years from now explicitly condemning your attempt to implement a previously compliant binding.
What exactly did we expect Sun to do once it became apparent that the FSM was going to piss all over their implementation of java ?
Now we're beginning to see the response, and in all likelyhood it's going to be joined by allied concerns.
This is called 'playing with the big boys'.
Frankly the FSM is beginning to resemble the ol' communist international - all dogma all the time.
I'm getting sick and tired of being dictated to by FSM hobby-developers.
Drop the f*cking self-righteous indignation.
If things continue on this path, 'free software' will be an anachronism in 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
MAD is actually a stalemate position. Possessing nuclear assets does not, in and of itself, make a country viable for a MAD stand-off. The key criteria is that each adversary possesses an arsenal, supporting systems and infrastructure, capable of surviving a first strike by their opponent such that they can subsequently inflict comparable damage on the initiating party. Hence Mutually Assured Destruction.
I'm sure that someone's already pointed this out , but Adobe announced their intent to purchase MM back in April - http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invrelations/adobe andmacromedia.html
the plaintiff can still attempt discovery to determine intent, this affects damages.
;)
but regardless of any actual litigation, the water has been poisoned.
here's the thing, or actually several things...
a. companies are very risk averse - litigation is expensive and potentially deadly.
b. The GPL has never been formally defined.
b1. The GPL reads like the Port Huron statement - it's not a standard legal document.
b2. This makes it nearly impossible to render a confident legal opinion on exactly what is and is not a valid condition/restriction of the GPL.
b3. the FSF is now claiming that activation of the GPL doesn't actually require redistribution.
c. The FSF is apparently declaring their intent to impose this new interpretation RETROACTIVELY.
d. as you ask, IS THIS EVEN LEGAL - probably not, but no one really knows at this point.
e. If it's not binding the GPL is invalid.
f. If it is binding the GPL is a HUGE LIABILITY.
g. The GPL is either a joke or a HUGE LIABILITY.
h. companies don't want to invest in jokes a/o HUGE LIABILITIES - though they've been known to
i. this begs the question - IS THE FSF A HUGE LIABILITY ?
j. a-i = HUGE LIABILTY = RISKY = DONT USE FREE SOFTWARE.
What I'm getting at is that this event will signal to those interests who currently invest in software that GPL software can't be trusted, there are too many legal issues, the governing authority is capricious and likely to act in bad faith, they resent commercial applications of the license, and are litigious. Whether or not this results in a court case, the use of GPL sofware will almost certainly decline.
If the FSF didn't agree with this interpretation, why didn't Moglen simply state that Olson's statement was his own ? The fact that he'd declined to comment indicates to the legal community that this interpretation is valid within the context of the current deliberations.
just wait a few days, this whole thing is likely to brew into a galaxy sized sh*t storm.
I'd say that RMS is actually Stalin, Raymond is Trotsky , the OSI is democratic socialism, Free Software developers are the Ukranians, and the Free Software movement is apparently the 'Big Lie'.
here's the problem, subpeona's can be issued for what's known as 'discovery' - ie. to discover whether there's been infringement. So even if there's no infringement, and one of these firms argues that they aren't violating anything, they can be dragged into court and forced to reveal their code. This threat alone will likely cause them to drop GPL'd code from their projects. AND even if this change to the GPL never comes about, the FSF has signalled the intent to move in this direction either by explicit changes to the license or via legal actions - basically its the end of the free software movement. * sorry for the curt response, I'm pretty PO'd
ever heard of a subpoena ?
arguments over intentions, principles, interpretations are now moot.
The FSF has signalled its intentions, and forced these on the entire FSM , they've confirmed the worst fears of every tech legal counsel and CTO in the world - not only is the license legally suspect, its capricious and the parties behind the Free Software movement will act with malice.
This is a f*cking betrayal.
Can you guess what the response will be the next time you recommend a GPL product - are you willing to further risk your reputation by trying to ensure your clients that the FSF doesn't really mean what it's saying
And don't give me some BS about what it 'really' means - you don't know !! This has been the basic problem w/ GPL adoption from the start - it's legal standing has never been formalized, the courts have never rendered an opinion on the full document. And just when we start getting enterprises, academia, and governments to adopt the GPL -- BLAMMOO -- the FSF cuts our throats.
doesn't matter, it's too late - this move signals the FSF's intent, we've jumped the shark.
WOW Well if this is even partially accurate it's the end of enterprise GPL. Frankly you can forget about the GPL for anything more sophisticated than shell scripts. This'll even knock-out academic and government uses. I'd love to understand Olson's motive for promoting this change prior to its final determination. Throwing a statement like this into the water is either the result of malice or stupidity. It's not going to matter whether the FSF does a total about-face and buys ad time on CNN to disavow the change - these statements will be seen as a signal of the FSF's future direction and intent. Its a confirmation of the worst fears of the most FUD-ish critics. JEESUS H CHRIST -- IDIOTS this is what we get for trusting a bunch of ideologues. AND BEFORE you flame me, consider what this change implies regarding the FSF's regard for the free software community - "it doesn't matter what we've said, what you've promised people, how this'll affect your existing work - the FSF is 'Free Software' , we own the movement, you're the sucker for trusting us"
These nets support fragmentation and service levels - ie. they can ensure that the DTV content gets the bandwidth it needs. Internet derived media will be handled under a 'best effort' policy. IPTV is like streaming video, not store & forward. This is one reason that people are concerned that telco's may deliberately over-provision for DTV knowing that it'll enable them to crimp on bandwidth available to unaffiliated media. expect to hear complaints of this in the near future :P
IPTV providers can buy programming from a coop or via deals w/ individual channels and holding companies. This article conflates VOD w/ the entire IPTV service package. The article's rational, that the studios are afraid of IPTV because they resent HBO, is a bit far flung. What's more likely is that they realize that they'd gotten a raw deal in their VOD agreements w/ cable MSO's and are looking for something better from the telco's. Cable is notorious for its one sided leasing/carriage/distribution agreements - you'll notice that we're about 7 yrs behind in ITV and ADTV services. Frankly some competitive pressure on cable could go along way towards improving this situation. So I doubt that the current situation will result in a significant delay of IPTV roll-outs. These are far enough along that significant delays would be very costly - it would make more sense to complete them and wait things out. Also IPTV does not use a single massive consolidated server farm. There are various topologies, and these tend to use regional headends.
I get your point. And to compound the problem certain representatives of the FSF may come out with a statement a few years from now explicitly condemning your attempt to implement a previously compliant binding.
What exactly did we expect Sun to do once it became apparent that the FSM was going to piss all over their implementation of java ? Now we're beginning to see the response, and in all likelyhood it's going to be joined by allied concerns. This is called 'playing with the big boys'. Frankly the FSM is beginning to resemble the ol' communist international - all dogma all the time. I'm getting sick and tired of being dictated to by FSM hobby-developers. Drop the f*cking self-righteous indignation. If things continue on this path, 'free software' will be an anachronism in 5 years.