"If nothing else, they could sue the pants off anyone maintaining and/or contributing to the project, and anyone who hosts a download for distribution of infringing property."
What for? Remeber they are patent trolls; they are there for the licensing/agreement money, not to avoid competition against their own product line; if there's no money why waste their time?
In fact, it can be advantageous for them to allow an open source-community based product to "violate" the patent: since they couldn't get money from them, there's nothing to loose *but* if it happens that such document format becomes the 'de facto' standard, then closed source companies will want to support it if only for compatibility; then what? they'll have to license from them (==money arriving).
"The interview is the place you convince the employer to give you that job. Once you've gotten past that stage you can negotiate the salary and benefits up or down (though usually benefits are standard company-wide and not negotiable)."
I think "different countries, different customes" then. In my country, except for high managerial positions, almost everything is tied out after the final interview (which usually it's the only face-to-face interview): you'll recieve a closed offer after that which you are expected to either accept or reject without further negotiation since that's what the final interview is for; hence you should be sure all major issues are already strighten out to your comfort.
It is not, unless you really want *any* job they could offer (flipping burgers included). If that's not the case, the goal of the interview is not to get the offer but to get the offer *if* it fits both parties. If you can naturally get the questions you are interested in rised during the interview, good, if not, directly question them shows professionality and that you are really interested on the job, not only the paycheck.
"Someone who is confident that the aircraft will work."
And doesn't find anything with a higher short-time benefit return.
And that's exactly the point: under such circumnstances nobody would build aircrafts if they could manage mom-n-pop's stores at better short-range profits.
"The extension was part of a project done for a client of ours [...] we did everything we could to contact upstream, and it was either fork or keep things to ourselves."
So your client needs where already fulfilled and the upstream maintainer was MIA; so there wouldn't be no new upstream versions, so there wouldn't be nothing to repatch. Therefore, what was the problem with keeping things to yourselves or just publishing the patch on the old project devel list and that's all?
"If you have no choice, then you have no choice."
Unless you expect further conflicting development from upstream there's no need to fork (of course you still might *want* to fork, but then that's your choice, quite different to "there was no choice"): there would be only clean patches to apply or nothing to patch at all.
"Debian has no problems violating its free software guidelines to include non-free firmware in its distribution"
In which part of either main or contrib can you find non-free firmware now? Because having freely distributable non-free software on non-free is and always has been quite within Debian's guidelines, you know... (or are you just trolling?)
Yes: that's something that the new generations don't even grasp. I think we should give a bonus point to the software companies for the brilliant mind-molding campaign (first it was the sources; manuals came after that -remember the "grey wall"?). It is closed source the newcomer: up to the seventies not giving you the source code would seem quite as stupid as if somebody would try to sell you a car but retains control of the engine keys (who can avoid a car analogy on Slashdot?).
"You certainly don't need an grant from the licensor to use a piece of software."
Good to know I can use as much copies of Windows as I want without a license from Microsoft. It's a pity the BSA doesn't seem to think the same.
"And even if you don't (which you do), he gives you an impicit license by giving it to you."
If that's the case which is not in the vast majorities of cases with regards to open source: most of the times it is not the provider giving it to me but I taking it (i.e. downloading) from the provider. A subtle but important difference.
"The question is what happens when an open source product is used in a sold product. Is the seller of the end-product solely liable, or is the producer of the open-source (and free) component also liable?"
You sold it to me, you retaliate me. Full stop. (of course IANAL, so take my opinion at your own risk).
"Can Sony recoup their fines from the battery manufacturer, if the battery was not delivered to spec?"
Not. But Sony can certainly sue the battery manufacturer out of their own concerns by whatever it considers apropriate.
"Can Sony sue to recoup their costs from the authors of that piece of software, which was provided free-of-charge under an OS license, and was probably not developed specifically for Sony's specifications?"
Certainly yes. But that's not the question. The question is "can Sony win?" I don't think so. By not checking the software against their own internal specifications and not contacting the providers -which I'll suppouse acting on good faith, to see what can really be expected from the software, Sony is obviously failing on its due dilligence. It is not the same an end user agains a corp (which may have an extra protection through consumer laws) than a corp trying to go cheap and both laws and tribunals recognize the difference.
"Either this clause in unenforceable because their is no agreement (one party did not agree to it), or the GPL requires every user to accept the terms of it."
You didn't do your homework, did you?
Case 1) You don't want to accept the GPL: good to know, but then you have to abide by laws, IP laws. What can you do with a random piece of software you don't own an explicit rights grant from its IP holders? You certainly can't use it, copy it, modify it nor redistribute it. Since you can't use it, how do you expect to ask for proportional damages on its defects? Case 2) You do accept the GPL: OK, now you can use it, modify it, copy and redistribute it but by you accepting the GPL you resign at the same time to ask for damages if things wreak havoc.
That's the way the things go. Of course, that doesn't preclude local laws from saying anything else. I.e.: I don't expect the GPL to be a safeguard if you on purpose write a piece of software that will make the user's home explode and transmit AIDS at the same time; local consumer laws may hold you responsible for unrelated unintentioned damages -my home is on fire because I used your GPL word processor, and even might hold you responsible for related unitentional damages -I lost one year of bussiness transactions I confied to this GPL RDBM), but that's local laws and local tribunals to say.
"But if I just give away my leftovers from my restaurant to some soup kitchen free, would I still be liable?"
For sure. Just take to the extreme and see:
Your honour, I'm only a poor terrorist and all I did was provide anthrax *for free* via the water system to NY. It's not as if I made a profit out of it, is it?
"What if I brown bag my lunch and in the work place they order pizza for some reason and I give my brown bag to the homeless guy on the way to the trolley stop without even opening to check if the sandwich has spoiled, would I still be liable?"
So it was cocaine!? Your honor, I only took the brown bag from my godfather and passed it to the guy looking as a 50's gangster, but I didn't even opened it to see what was in the bag!
"Pretty much every EULA I've read states that you not hold the vendor accountable for defects in their software or any data loss of yours that occurs while using their software."
So what? It is not as if EULA writer was Yahveh and it was written on the Stones of Law. Since nobody gets to negotiate the terms of the EULA with the provider, the EULA itself is nothing more than a declaration of intentions on the provider's side. As such declaration of intentions it can obviously be overruled by laws and courts if/when "the other side" (the end user) finds it against his interests.
"Then you don't know the Japanese people very well."
You mean, the Japanese people which went to war out of being afraid of starving and without raw materials due to USA blockage because they knew they couldn't sustain it?
"All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait. False."
I'm overthrown with your arguments on how an island blocked, almost starving, without navy, army or raw materials could sustain even the most passive "wait and see" strategy.
If Japan was serious about surrendering, why did they let the US bomb them twice before actually doing "it?"
You say "Japan let the US bomb them" as if they were able to stop USA from it (look with care to your answer or you will end up in the uncomfortable position of having to explain things like why USA let Al-Qaeda thrasing the Twin Towers).
"Maybe my logic is flawed"
I'd say yes, it is.
"but if surrender was a serious consideration before any of the nukes were dropped, why did it take 2 nukes before it actually happened?"
One thing is "honorable surrending" and a different one "unconditional surrending". And the two bombs where thrown on a three day span. Don't you know what "burocracy" means? I wouldn't be too much surprised if we learnt that three days were not enough for the Emperor to even know about it, much less for all the people involved to make there minds from "honorable surrending" to "unconditional surrending" (and even then, and after two nukes, under the condition that the Emperor would save his head and title).
"So your solution is to create even more useless bullshit lawsuits?"
Did you forget the part about *clueless* user? Net neutrality when properly understood and legislated is good for the user. Of course no one can stop a clueless-anything from sueing (see SCO) but that he ends on shit is nothing but good for natural selection.
"The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way... which probably angers the DPRK to no end)."
Who still wants to believe such propaganda? Japan was already looking for their way to surrender via USSR and they were already deprived of naval and air forces; raw materials and food. All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait. Those two nukes probably were much more a message to USSR than to Japan.
"Problem is when they start getting clueless clients who complain "I can't download XYZ at the *guaranteed* speed of 7mbps!" because the line between here and buttswala goes over a port thats at 99.9% capacity."
What's the problem? The clueless client sue the telco, the telco shows its capacity to be the legal one, the clueless client loses the trial, pays his lawyers and everybody is happy again.
"If you bring your own bag of chips into a gas station mart, walk around a little, and then hand it to the cashier, they'll scan it and charge you. "
Even if it happens to be a chips brand not sold on that station mark? Is really the cashier going to say "uhhh... this bar code doesn't show up on my inventory, so I'll bill you, uhhh... a nickle"? No, I don't think so, but that's exactly what has been done in this case: they don't sell Jefferson's chips but they still cash for them.
"If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money?"
Slashdot Mirror
"If nothing else, they could sue the pants off anyone maintaining and/or contributing to the project, and anyone who hosts a download for distribution of infringing property."
What for? Remeber they are patent trolls; they are there for the licensing/agreement money, not to avoid competition against their own product line; if there's no money why waste their time?
In fact, it can be advantageous for them to allow an open source-community based product to "violate" the patent: since they couldn't get money from them, there's nothing to loose *but* if it happens that such document format becomes the 'de facto' standard, then closed source companies will want to support it if only for compatibility; then what? they'll have to license from them (==money arriving).
"The interview is the place you convince the employer to give you that job. Once you've gotten past that stage you can negotiate the salary and benefits up or down (though usually benefits are standard company-wide and not negotiable)."
I think "different countries, different customes" then. In my country, except for high managerial positions, almost everything is tied out after the final interview (which usually it's the only face-to-face interview): you'll recieve a closed offer after that which you are expected to either accept or reject without further negotiation since that's what the final interview is for; hence you should be sure all major issues are already strighten out to your comfort.
"You can't turn down an offer until you get an offer. All the questions about benefits, dress code, where do I eat, can be answered elsewhere."
Probably you are right. Where/when do you propose "elsewhere" means?
"After Microsoft there has been no small time 3 person shop who could challenge Microsoft in dollar terms."
I think I want to challenge your assertion. Maybe I can *Google* for some counterexamples.
"The goal of the interview is to get the offer"
It is not, unless you really want *any* job they could offer (flipping burgers included). If that's not the case, the goal of the interview is not to get the offer but to get the offer *if* it fits both parties. If you can naturally get the questions you are interested in rised during the interview, good, if not, directly question them shows professionality and that you are really interested on the job, not only the paycheck.
"Someone who is confident that the aircraft will work."
And doesn't find anything with a higher short-time benefit return.
And that's exactly the point: under such circumnstances nobody would build aircrafts if they could manage mom-n-pop's stores at better short-range profits.
"We ended up forking - mawstats."
What for?
"The extension was part of a project done for a client of ours [...] we did everything we could to contact upstream, and it was either fork or keep things to ourselves."
So your client needs where already fulfilled and the upstream maintainer was MIA; so there wouldn't be no new upstream versions, so there wouldn't be nothing to repatch. Therefore, what was the problem with keeping things to yourselves or just publishing the patch on the old project devel list and that's all?
"If you have no choice, then you have no choice."
Unless you expect further conflicting development from upstream there's no need to fork (of course you still might *want* to fork, but then that's your choice, quite different to "there was no choice"): there would be only clean patches to apply or nothing to patch at all.
"Debian has no problems violating its free software guidelines to include non-free firmware in its distribution"
In which part of either main or contrib can you find non-free firmware now? Because having freely distributable non-free software on non-free is and always has been quite within Debian's guidelines, you know... (or are you just trolling?)
"Actually free software isn't new."
Yes: that's something that the new generations don't even grasp. I think we should give a bonus point to the software companies for the brilliant mind-molding campaign (first it was the sources; manuals came after that -remember the "grey wall"?). It is closed source the newcomer: up to the seventies not giving you the source code would seem quite as stupid as if somebody would try to sell you a car but retains control of the engine keys (who can avoid a car analogy on Slashdot?).
"The two main ways to monetarize and support OSS projects is giving support and ads."
Don't think so. The main way to monetarize OSS is billing for coding. Well, just like any other honest job over there.
"You certainly don't need an grant from the licensor to use a piece of software."
Good to know I can use as much copies of Windows as I want without a license from Microsoft. It's a pity the BSA doesn't seem to think the same.
"And even if you don't (which you do), he gives you an impicit license by giving it to you."
If that's the case which is not in the vast majorities of cases with regards to open source: most of the times it is not the provider giving it to me but I taking it (i.e. downloading) from the provider. A subtle but important difference.
"The question is what happens when an open source product is used in a sold product. Is the seller of the end-product solely liable, or is the producer of the open-source (and free) component also liable?"
You sold it to me, you retaliate me. Full stop. (of course IANAL, so take my opinion at your own risk).
"Can Sony recoup their fines from the battery manufacturer, if the battery was not delivered to spec?"
Not. But Sony can certainly sue the battery manufacturer out of their own concerns by whatever it considers apropriate.
"Can Sony sue to recoup their costs from the authors of that piece of software, which was provided free-of-charge under an OS license, and was probably not developed specifically for Sony's specifications?"
Certainly yes. But that's not the question. The question is "can Sony win?" I don't think so. By not checking the software against their own internal specifications and not contacting the providers -which I'll suppouse acting on good faith, to see what can really be expected from the software, Sony is obviously failing on its due dilligence. It is not the same an end user agains a corp (which may have an extra protection through consumer laws) than a corp trying to go cheap and both laws and tribunals recognize the difference.
"Either this clause in unenforceable because their is no agreement (one party did not agree to it), or the GPL requires every user to accept the terms of it."
You didn't do your homework, did you?
Case 1) You don't want to accept the GPL: good to know, but then you have to abide by laws, IP laws. What can you do with a random piece of software you don't own an explicit rights grant from its IP holders? You certainly can't use it, copy it, modify it nor redistribute it. Since you can't use it, how do you expect to ask for proportional damages on its defects?
Case 2) You do accept the GPL: OK, now you can use it, modify it, copy and redistribute it but by you accepting the GPL you resign at the same time to ask for damages if things wreak havoc.
That's the way the things go. Of course, that doesn't preclude local laws from saying anything else. I.e.: I don't expect the GPL to be a safeguard if you on purpose write a piece of software that will make the user's home explode and transmit AIDS at the same time; local consumer laws may hold you responsible for unrelated unintentioned damages -my home is on fire because I used your GPL word processor, and even might hold you responsible for related unitentional damages -I lost one year of bussiness transactions I confied to this GPL RDBM), but that's local laws and local tribunals to say.
"But if I just give away my leftovers from my restaurant to some soup kitchen free, would I still be liable?"
For sure. Just take to the extreme and see:
Your honour, I'm only a poor terrorist and all I did was provide anthrax *for free* via the water system to NY. It's not as if I made a profit out of it, is it?
"What if I brown bag my lunch and in the work place they order pizza for some reason and I give my brown bag to the homeless guy on the way to the trolley stop without even opening to check if the sandwich has spoiled, would I still be liable?"
So it was cocaine!? Your honor, I only took the brown bag from my godfather and passed it to the guy looking as a 50's gangster, but I didn't even opened it to see what was in the bag!
All in all, if you break it, you pay for it.
"Pretty much every EULA I've read states that you not hold the vendor accountable for defects in their software or any data loss of yours that occurs while using their software."
So what? It is not as if EULA writer was Yahveh and it was written on the Stones of Law. Since nobody gets to negotiate the terms of the EULA with the provider, the EULA itself is nothing more than a declaration of intentions on the provider's side. As such declaration of intentions it can obviously be overruled by laws and courts if/when "the other side" (the end user) finds it against his interests.
"Then you don't know the Japanese people very well."
You mean, the Japanese people which went to war out of being afraid of starving and without raw materials due to USA blockage because they knew they couldn't sustain it?
"And yes, it's lazyness: he's a sysadmin, and he knows the security implications. He just chooses not to care."
A sysamdin is not in the position to care. He is, at most, in the position to assess and then do as ordered.
"All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait.
False."
I'm overthrown with your arguments on how an island blocked, almost starving, without navy, army or raw materials could sustain even the most passive "wait and see" strategy.
If Japan was serious about surrendering, why did they let the US bomb them twice before actually doing "it?"
You say "Japan let the US bomb them" as if they were able to stop USA from it (look with care to your answer or you will end up in the uncomfortable position of having to explain things like why USA let Al-Qaeda thrasing the Twin Towers).
"Maybe my logic is flawed"
I'd say yes, it is.
"but if surrender was a serious consideration before any of the nukes were dropped, why did it take 2 nukes before it actually happened?"
One thing is "honorable surrending" and a different one "unconditional surrending". And the two bombs where thrown on a three day span. Don't you know what "burocracy" means? I wouldn't be too much surprised if we learnt that three days were not enough for the Emperor to even know about it, much less for all the people involved to make there minds from "honorable surrending" to "unconditional surrending" (and even then, and after two nukes, under the condition that the Emperor would save his head and title).
"So your solution is to create even more useless bullshit lawsuits?"
Did you forget the part about *clueless* user? Net neutrality when properly understood and legislated is good for the user. Of course no one can stop a clueless-anything from sueing (see SCO) but that he ends on shit is nothing but good for natural selection.
"The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way ... which probably angers the DPRK to no end)."
Who still wants to believe such propaganda? Japan was already looking for their way to surrender via USSR and they were already deprived of naval and air forces; raw materials and food. All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait. Those two nukes probably were much more a message to USSR than to Japan.
"Problem is when they start getting clueless clients who complain "I can't download XYZ at the *guaranteed* speed of 7mbps!" because the line between here and buttswala goes over a port thats at 99.9% capacity."
What's the problem? The clueless client sue the telco, the telco shows its capacity to be the legal one, the clueless client loses the trial, pays his lawyers and everybody is happy again.
"If you bring your own bag of chips into a gas station mart, walk around a little, and then hand it to the cashier, they'll scan it and charge you. "
Even if it happens to be a chips brand not sold on that station mark? Is really the cashier going to say "uhhh... this bar code doesn't show up on my inventory, so I'll bill you, uhhh... a nickle"? No, I don't think so, but that's exactly what has been done in this case: they don't sell Jefferson's chips but they still cash for them.
"If you are stupid enough to offer me money for a copy of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries, Thomas Jefferson's or William Shakespeare's writings or anything else in the public domain, why shouldn't I accept your money?"
Because it's fraud?
Troll!? Whoever modded me troll has to have a look at the Avogadro's number and its relationship with this thread.