... and his answer at the time was: the GPL can't do much about it.
Here are some ideas I've had:
Declare that the output of the program is a derived work of the program. I think that's the essential property we're trying to get it. For example, if Andrew writes a GPL game server, and Bob puts it up on www.bobsgames.com and offers access to it, then Andrew could require Bob to give Bob's source + modifications to Bob's users (because Bob's users are getting derivatives of Andy's work).
Go to a different license where the first copy of material received is covered by the license -- similar to those "click to agree" licenses that people stick on binary-only software such as Netscape Communicator and Adobe Acrobat Reader. (Or, for that matter, Windows 98!)
Give up and accept that GPL'd code used on someone else's web site degenerates to a BSD-like license. I don't like this option, but it's the state of reality today.
I've had people try to hire me over the phone when I call a company for tech support. On the other side of the fence, I've had interview candidates call up and cancel their interviews because they got an on-the-spot offer at another interview, and they took it.
The ability of a software company to survive depends on its ability to attract and retain engineering talent.
Microsoft knows this. They have made public comments about their view that developer mindshare is key to their business, and that Java and Linux are making inroads into that mindshare.
Red Hat has found a novel way to attract developer mindshare. That's part of what supports their stock value. As you say, Red Hat actually has an obligation to their shareholders to attract and retain developer talent.
I think Red Hat has a great strategy and great execution for doing so. Contrast with Corel, which provoked some serious developer ill will with their licensing policies.
R: The freedom to read the source code and learn from it. M: The freedom to modify the software so that it fits my needs better. S: The freedom to share the software with other people.
My reading is that the crimes alleged here are very similar to U.S. law (trading on materialnon-public information).
Cowpland could argue that his company didn't actually trade -- that would be an idiotic defense. The OSC would just display the trading records from the exchange.
Cowpland could argue that the information he knew was not material -- that other investors would not care. Just about as idiotic. The OSC would argue that the market did react by slamming the price of Corel stock the day the news did come out. Just about any jury in the world would see the connection by the time a prosecutor got done laying it out.
Cowpland could argue that the information was already public. He would have to introduce evidence, such as a press release or a newspaper article or a government-mandated public filing, and he would have to establish that this evidence had been disseminated to the public before his holding company sold 2.4 million shares.
It's quite unlikely that any such evidence exists.
Finally, Cowpland could argue that even though he was in possession of materialnon-public information, and even though he traded Corel stock, he did not do so because of the information. For example, he could produce records that show that he regularly sold 2.4 million shares of Corel during the second week of *every* month for the past two years.
Or he could argue that he had large debt payments due to a contract he entered into long before he came to know this specific material fact, and he was motivated by a desire to pay those debts. In other words, as you say, he could argue that he really needed the money.
First, I am really happy to see MattMann's article moderated up to +5 because it's right on the money!
The following is from memory. I spent 30 minutes looking for a citation from statutory law and couldn't find the killer source paragraphs, although there are several references in 15 USC Chapter 2B. Also, the following is United States law, which does not apply to Corel in Canada.
An insider is: someone who owns 10% or more of the company; or someone who is on the board of directors of the company; or someone who has a policy-making office in the company.
It is legal for insiders to buy and sell stock in their company. There are restrictions against practices like short swings (buying the stock and selling it in less than six months).
It is not legal for anyone, insider or not, to trade on materialnon-public information. Usually the insiders are in the best position to have knowledge of material non-public information, but other people can know it, too. For example, if your friend works at a printing plant and they call you and tell you that they just printed 400 copies of a document that say "Microsoft Acquisition of FOO.COM" on the front cover, and you then go buy 100 shares of FOO.COM, the SEC will bust your ass.
Material has a specific legal meaning. It means that the information, if known by a reasonable investor, would affect that investor's decision to buy the stock.
Non-public means that the information has not been disseminated to the public.
In this case, Cowpland appeared to have material information (he knew the company earnings were going to suck) and the information was not public (Corel hadn't put out a press release about it).
I don't think the online-ness of his broker has any bearing on the broker's responsibilities. In the United States, brokers are required to have written procedures in place to prevent trading on material non-public information. Part of this procedure is asking all customers "are you an insider of any company".
I believe that if Cowpland had traded on e*trade and answered "no" to this question that the SEC could bust him for criminal fraud. If he answers "yes", then it's my humble non-lawyerly opinion that e*trade would have an obligation to have a human being review all of Cowpland's trades in Corel stock, and to ask him questions like "do you have any material non-public information at this time?" before executing each of his trades.
Indeed there is, thanks, I missed it in my rush to post.
"The underwriters have reserved for sale, at the initial public offering price up to [BLANK] shares of the common stock for employees, directors, other persons associated with us and a number of open source developers who have expressed an interest in purchasing common stock in this offering."
After I placed my order for 6.1, Red Hat's commerce site told me that they would start shipping on 18 October. What really bugs me is having one choice for shipping ($9 two day FedEx) but that expensive shipping isn't going to do me much good with the two week delay in front of it!
So far Corel has failed to agree that their behaviour constitutes infringement of other people's copyrights. Their position, as expressed by their public statements in the Petreley interview, is that their actions are intentional and legal, and that they want the owners of the copyrights involved to "agree that what we are doing is acceptable".
Do you find what they are doing right now acceptable or not?
If not, how much longer are you going to negotiate with them?
This company is a joke! They are incorporated in some lawyer's office in Nevada. They have $0 in total revenue from inception to 31 July 1999. Check out this bald-faced description of their web site:
Linuxone.net offers users access to broad and authoritative content on open source software including news, employment and links to other Linux-related sites. We also offer extensive features for the open source community, software updates and downloads and a shopping center for our shrink-wrapped products and support offerings.
I also note that none of their executive officers except the founder have any equity in the company. That shows how little the CFO, the VP of Marketing, and the Corporate Secretary are involved: not at all. They are window dressing.
LinuxOne.com also plagiarized the Red Hat S-1 filing. For example, compare their "Apache, Perl, Sendmail" text to Red Hat's. For another example, compare their "Strategy" list of goals to Red Hat's "Our Strategy".
LinuxOne.com intends to distribute the stock by offering it for sale directly:
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION: The shares will be offered for sale by our management for a period of 180 days, unless extended in the discretion of our Board of Directors for an additional 90 days. No commissions will be paid to our management for any sales they make. This is a "self-underwritten" offering.
And then this:
LinuxOne has reserved up to 300,000 shares of common stock for sale at the initial public offering price through a directed share program, to directors, officers and employees of LinuxOne and to open source software developers and other persons that LinuxOne believes have contributed to the success of the open source software community and the development of LinuxOne.
Under the guise of an affinity program, they are going to spam and scam us to buy shares in their worthless company!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I find it very disturbing that software engineers in Europe and other places don't get paid what they are worth: a real share of a real company.
Here are some ideas I've had:
Declare that the output of the program is a derived work of the program. I think that's the essential property we're trying to get it. For example, if Andrew writes a GPL game server, and Bob puts it up on www.bobsgames.com and offers access to it, then Andrew could require Bob to give Bob's source + modifications to Bob's users (because Bob's users are getting derivatives of Andy's work).
Go to a different license where the first copy of material received is covered by the license -- similar to those "click to agree" licenses that people stick on binary-only software such as Netscape Communicator and Adobe Acrobat Reader. (Or, for that matter, Windows 98!)
Give up and accept that GPL'd code used on someone else's web site degenerates to a BSD-like license. I don't like this option, but it's the state of reality today.
Your Xeon is morphing into a Y2K-compliant mode, that's all.
See you at Abacus World Expo.
I've had people try to hire me over the phone when I call a company for tech support. On the other side of the fence, I've had interview candidates call up and cancel their interviews because they got an on-the-spot offer at another interview, and they took it.
The ability of a software company to survive depends on its ability to attract and retain engineering talent.
Microsoft knows this. They have made public comments about their view that developer mindshare is key to their business, and that Java and Linux are making inroads into that mindshare.
Red Hat has found a novel way to attract developer mindshare. That's part of what supports their stock value. As you say, Red Hat actually has an obligation to their shareholders to attract and retain developer talent.
I think Red Hat has a great strategy and great execution for doing so. Contrast with Corel, which provoked some serious developer ill will with their licensing policies.
R: The freedom to read the source code and learn from it.
M: The freedom to modify the software so that it fits my needs better.
S: The freedom to share the software with other people.
Ok, so moderate me "corny".
Ontario Securities Commission: Enforcement: Statements of Allegations
My reading is that the crimes alleged here are very similar to U.S. law (trading on material non-public information).
Cowpland could argue that his company didn't actually trade -- that would be an idiotic defense. The OSC would just display the trading records from the exchange.
Cowpland could argue that the information he knew was not material -- that other investors would not care. Just about as idiotic. The OSC would argue that the market did react by slamming the price of Corel stock the day the news did come out. Just about any jury in the world would see the connection by the time a prosecutor got done laying it out.
Cowpland could argue that the information was already public. He would have to introduce evidence, such as a press release or a newspaper article or a government-mandated public filing, and he would have to establish that this evidence had been disseminated to the public before his holding company sold 2.4 million shares.
It's quite unlikely that any such evidence exists.
Finally, Cowpland could argue that even though he was in possession of material non-public information, and even though he traded Corel stock, he did not do so because of the information. For example, he could produce records that show that he regularly sold 2.4 million shares of Corel during the second week of *every* month for the past two years.
Or he could argue that he had large debt payments due to a contract he entered into long before he came to know this specific material fact, and he was motivated by a desire to pay those debts. In other words, as you say, he could argue that he really needed the money.
Case in point in United States law:
Stock Trading by Insider in Possession of Inside Information Not Per Se Illegal
And finally, here is a simple introduction:
Insider Trading
The following is from memory. I spent 30 minutes looking for a citation from statutory law and couldn't find the killer source paragraphs, although there are several references in 15 USC Chapter 2B. Also, the following is United States law, which does not apply to Corel in Canada.
An insider is: someone who owns 10% or more of the company; or someone who is on the board of directors of the company; or someone who has a policy-making office in the company.
It is legal for insiders to buy and sell stock in their company. There are restrictions against practices like short swings (buying the stock and selling it in less than six months).
It is not legal for anyone, insider or not, to trade on material non-public information. Usually the insiders are in the best position to have knowledge of material non-public information, but other people can know it, too. For example, if your friend works at a printing plant and they call you and tell you that they just printed 400 copies of a document that say "Microsoft Acquisition of FOO.COM" on the front cover, and you then go buy 100 shares of FOO.COM, the SEC will bust your ass.
Material has a specific legal meaning. It means that the information, if known by a reasonable investor, would affect that investor's decision to buy the stock.
Non-public means that the information has not been disseminated to the public.
In this case, Cowpland appeared to have material information (he knew the company earnings were going to suck) and the information was not public (Corel hadn't put out a press release about it).
I don't think the online-ness of his broker has any bearing on the broker's responsibilities. In the United States, brokers are required to have written procedures in place to prevent trading on material non-public information. Part of this procedure is asking all customers "are you an insider of any company".
I believe that if Cowpland had traded on e*trade and answered "no" to this question that the SEC could bust him for criminal fraud. If he answers "yes", then it's my humble non-lawyerly opinion that e*trade would have an obligation to have a human being review all of Cowpland's trades in Corel stock, and to ask him questions like "do you have any material non-public information at this time?" before executing each of his trades.
"The underwriters have reserved for sale, at the initial public offering price up to [BLANK] shares of the common stock for employees, directors, other persons associated with us and a number of open source developers who have expressed an interest in purchasing common stock in this offering."
Wow. I wonder how I express such an interest?
I don't see any friends-and-family program in there.
After I placed my order for 6.1, Red Hat's commerce site told me that they would start shipping on 18 October. What really bugs me is having one choice for shipping ($9 two day FedEx) but that expensive shipping isn't going to do me much good with the two week delay in front of it!
Do you find what they are doing right now acceptable or not?
If not, how much longer are you going to negotiate with them?
http://www.freeedgar.com/Search/ FilingsResults.asp?SourcePage=CompanyList&CIK=1095 398&UseFrame=1&FormType=&DateFiled=&Comp anyName=LINUXONE+INC
This company is a joke! They are incorporated in some lawyer's office in Nevada. They have $0 in total revenue from inception to 31 July 1999. Check out this bald-faced description of their web site:
Linuxone.net offers users access to broad and authoritative content on open source software including news, employment and links to other Linux-related sites. We also offer extensive features for the open source community, software updates and downloads and a shopping center for our shrink-wrapped products and support offerings.
I also note that none of their executive officers except the founder have any equity in the company. That shows how little the CFO, the VP of Marketing, and the Corporate Secretary are involved: not at all. They are window dressing.
LinuxOne.com also plagiarized the Red Hat S-1 filing. For example, compare their "Apache, Perl, Sendmail" text to Red Hat's. For another example, compare their "Strategy" list of goals to Red Hat's "Our Strategy".
LinuxOne.com intends to distribute the stock by offering it for sale directly:
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION: The shares will be offered for sale by our management for a period of 180 days, unless extended in the discretion of our Board of Directors for an additional 90 days. No commissions will be paid to our management for any sales they make. This is a "self-underwritten" offering.
And then this:
LinuxOne has reserved up to 300,000 shares of common stock for sale at the initial public offering price through a directed share program, to directors, officers and employees of LinuxOne and to open source software developers and other persons that LinuxOne believes have contributed to the success of the open source software community and the development of LinuxOne.
Under the guise of an affinity program, they are going to spam and scam us to buy shares in their worthless company!