You're right that gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case. Maybe they could have survived had they played that smarter. But you're living in a just world fallacy if you think that makes it okay or removes all freedom of press issues.
There is no fallacy in believing that if Gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case and was made to compensate Hogan, that makes it OK. Those were the facts of the case, and yelling "just world fallacy" is simply a way of arguing that if reality was different, then the outcome would not have been acceptable. But reality was not different, and the only alternative is the view that if Gawker could have outspent Hogan, denied him compensation, and thus survived, that would be OK.
Gawker wronged Hogan, started juggling metaphorical bombs, and blew itself up when its skills didn't match its own expectations.
I don't feel sad, or threatened in my civil liberties, by the outcome.
On the other hand, I find unregulated ecological engineering by a private company to be quite creepy.
You have a strange definition of "unregulated." If the EPA issues a permit after notice and public comment, issues a press release, and nine months later the permitted activity takes place, it is unregulated?
I didn't realize that society had to get your personal approval through the posting of Slashdot articles...
While the user may not be responsible for the sins of the distributor, this is only the case after the distributor successfully conveys the GPL to the user upon the work. I contend that the distributor never had the right to convey the GPL to the user at all upon an infringing derivative work, and that a direct grant by the kernel developers to the user is thus never triggered.
And I contend that you're wrong. In the SFLC's own words:
Automatic Downstream Licensing
Each time you redistribute a GPLâ(TM)d program, the recipient automatically receives a license, under the terms of the GPL involved, from every upstream licensor whose copyrighted material is present in the work you redistribute. You can think of this as creating a three-dimensional rather than linear flow of license rights. Every recipient of the work is âoein privity,â or is directly receiving a license from every licensor.
This mechanism of automatic downstream licensing is central to the working of copyleft. Every licensor independently grants licenses, and every licensor independently terminates the license on violation. In the case of GPLv2, this termination is automatic, while under GPLv3 the party breaching the licenseâ(TM)s terms may be able to cure before termination. Parties further downstream from the infringing party remain licensed, so long as they donâ(TM)t themselves commit infringing actions. Their licenses come directly from all the upstream holders, and are not dependent on the license of the breaching party who distributed to them. For the same reason, an infringer who acquires another copy of the program has not thereby acquired any new license rights: once any upstream licensor of that program has terminated the license for breach of its terms, no new automatic license will issue to the recipient just by acquiring another copy.
It does not matter whether "the distributor []ever had the right to convey the GPL to the user." The user takes their license directly from every contributor, and cannot be liable for using a GPLed work unless they themselves directly violate the GPL.
I no longer need your clarification. It's eminently clear that you're in the wrong.
The fact that the user has the GPL for some other copy of a Linux kernel does not license the infringing derivative work to the user.
This appears to be the crux of our differences. GPLv2 sec. 4 states:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
That section says that the customer has a licence for that copy of the Linux kernel, not any other. Section 4 does not apply only to users who received copies from distributors who were completely in compliance with the GPL, because sec. 6 would make the emphasized language entirely superfluous under that interpretation:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
The customer is not "sublicensed" by the distributor, and therefore does not have their license terminated by termination of the license to the distributor under sec. 6 alone. In short, GPL2 sec. 4 says that the user is not responsible for the sins of a distributor. Every user of GPL licensed code is independently licensed by every contributor to that GPL licensed code to use the copy of the code that they have received, regardless of the compliance of intermediaries, so long as that individual user complies with the GPL.
The argument to the contrary is the "great big 'red flag'" that I've referred to. I'm quite certain that you haven't run that argument by Eben or the FSF, because it necessarily means that anyone using GPL code must audit the person or entity that they received the code from, not only for the copy that they received, but all copies that that distributor has ever distributed, so ensure that they have a license to "that" copy of the GPL-ed code and not "some other copy" of the code.
If you wanted to stoke the perception that GPLed code is "toxic" in yet another unhelpful and nebulous way, you couldn't have picked a better way...
Grsecurity is an unlicensed derivative work and it's owned in part by the kernel developers because it necessarily includes portions of the original work. The GPL does not apply to it at all.
Those portions of the original work have been licensed to the customers by the GPLv2 sec 6. The license to those portions of the original work cannot be terminated per GPLv2 sec 4. The customer is also expressly licensed to make such a combination by GPLv2 sec. 2 so long as they do not publish or distribute the combined work.
End of story.
They're paying for copies. That's how they become a contributory infringer.
Which means that the original developers cannot properly sue the customers for infringement or breach of contract concerning use of the Linux kernel. Check. You've now admitted that there's no basis for liability absent a customer's own violation of the GPL.
They do not have that license for Grsecurity, because Grsecurity's license to the kernel terminated...
But the original developers do not own Grsecurity's modifications. In addition, the original developers cannot sue a user licensed to use the Linux kernel for using Grsecurity's modifications, since users are expressly licensed to modify the original developers' code themselves by the GPL (sec. 2)! Nor can Grsecurity sue any user for using Grsecurity's modifications, since Grsecurity either licensed the modifications to customers (and all users via the GPLv2) or it will be estopped from claiming infringement due to the purported license.
and Grsecurity did not have the right to grant the GPL to the customer for an infringing derivative work.
Wrong. Grsecurity use a GPL license for its own code whenever it chooses. Whether Grsecurity remains licensed to use the Linux kernel or not, both the Linux kernel and Grsecurity's modifications are GPL licensed - the first sentence of GPLv2 sec. 6 expressly says so. Termination of the kernel license to Grsecurity does not affect the rights of their customers, or any other users, per GPLv2 secs. 4 and 6.
If Grsecurity was an independent work rather than derivative, it would have been different.
Denied. You have not explained how Grsecurity cannot license its own modifications under the GPL, nor how anyone other than Grsecurity could sue users for using those modifications. You have admitted that customers and users are licensed to use the Linux kernel even if Grsecurity is not. You will have to admit that users can modify the Linux kernel if they so choose, even using non-GPLv2 modifications, so long as they do not publish or distribute the result (GPLv2 secs. 2 and 3).
To reiterate, the customer has been licensed by the original developers for the original kernel and by Grsecurity for the modifications. If the customers comply with the GPL by, e.g., not publishing or distributing the combination of licensed code, there is no ground to terminate the license from the original developers to the customers and thus no infringement or breach of contract by those customers.
This belongs to a class of arguments I see very frequently, in which the defendant has not complied with the GPL but repeatedly offers the language of the GPL in their defense as if they get to cherry-pick the terms they like.
This is the sort of sloppy reasoning that I see very frequently. You are attempting to treat Grsecurity and the customers as one and the same, when I have been asking specifically about the customers in this instance. You now concede that the customers are licensed, and you cannot identify anything that the customers themselves have done in breach of the licenses, yet you contend that the customers are potentially liable for "contributory infringement" and breach of contract.
The mere fact that you accuse customers of potential "contributory infringement" shows how wrong you are. A contributory infringer is "[o]ne who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement."
How does the customer induce, cause, or contribute to copyright infringement by another by merely using Grsecurity's product? For that matter, how does a customer breach the GPL merely by using Grsecurity's product?
I'm not cherry picking terms. Identify the specific term of the GPLv2 that the customer, not Grsecurity, has not complied with.
You are taking a very simplistic view of the GPL that doesn't fit what you appear to be representing with your user name. Did you actually sit for the Bar?
Why yes, Bruce, I have, and am licensed in multiple states. I actively practice intellectual property law as well.
The customer is obtaining and making use of an infringing derivative work. The status of the kernel is "All Rights Reserved" because the GPL has terminated, and that very clearly makes the customer a contributory infringer.
The license granted to the customer certainly has not terminated. Section 6 grants the customer that license separate and apart from Grsecurity, and the GPL does not provide any grounds for terminating the customer's license, as opposed to Grsecurity's license. You should also reread the termination provision of GPLv2 sec. 4: "However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
In addition, your alleged infringer has granted the customer a license to the infringer's modification under the GPLv2, and nobody else has standing to assert that the customer is allegedly infringing that "infringing derivative work."
Your argument is that if the license to an upstream distrubtor has been terminated, the downstream users are unlicensed and become liable for e.g., copyright infringement and breach of contract. In my view that directly contradicts GPLv2 secs. 4 and 6, and also raises a great big "red flag" for people like my clients.
I suppose I'll simply have to refer your argument to Eben....
Your blog post states that "the contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached."
This is quite concerning. Please explain how you believe that the contract from the Linux kernel developers to the customer has been breached. What violation has the customer committed? More specifically, since the GPLv2 sec. 6 specifies that "[e]ach time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions," how do you contend that the customer is "subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity?" If the customer doesn't redistribute code to a third party, axiomatically they cannot be in breach of anything. I remind you that according to GPLv2 sec. 0, "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope," and that only distribution, not modification alone, triggers secs. 2(b) and 3.
I think that you owe those customers something better than vague threats and an invitation to spend capital contacting their attorney.
It's important to consider the goals of the GPL. You get great Free Software, but it's not a gift. It is sharing with rules that must be followed. You are required to keep it Free. And one of the implied purposes of the GPL is to cause more great Free Software to be made. This means that derivative works that are not shared really go against the purpose as well as the wording of the GPL.
Yes, and you don't get to change the rules either, Bruce.
What they're doing is not "tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution." The person to whom the code is distributed (for sake of argument, "you") remains free to distribute that code to anyone, and that anyone remains free to distribute the code to anyone else.
What they're doing is refusing to distribute a future version of the code to you -- which the GPL permits (e.g., limited availability). If they distribute the code under section 3a, they have no obligation to distribute the code to any other party, i.e., they cannot be compelled to distribute updated versions of the code to you.
Their only obligation to distribute a future version of the code to anyone in particular would arise under a support contract. But the GPL does not require that support even be provided, much less govern support contracts. If they want to condition further support upon non-disclosure of the code, they could do it stupidly -- by having long term support contracts, lump sum fees, and a termination provision (courts dislike forfeiture-like penalties) -- or wisely -- by having month to month terms, monthly fees, and simply refusing to renew at the end of the term. There's no mechanism, whether in copyright or contract, to force them to continue to accommodate a customer that they do not want to deal with after they've complied with GPLv2 section 3a and any support contract's current term has expired.
If they've done this wisely, they're within the letter of the license and this is another instance, like Tivoization, where the free software community is simply going to have to learn to adapt.
This means that derivative works that are not shared really go against the purpose as well as the wording of the GPL.
You haven't convinced me that this goes against the wording of the GPL. As to the purpose, since you've succeeded in having the GPL held to form a contract, you'll have to take the "four corners" doctrine, construction against the draftsperson, and all the rest of contract law along for the ride as well. Once a party can show literal compliance with a contract's terms, attempts to add "tantamount" obligations or argue "tantamount" violations become extremely difficult. In the end, both sides have to follow the rules of the document.
Why is it just up to Tim Berners-Lee to decide yes or no on this?
Who would you have decide this? A standards organization, and a standards committee, headed by a person who has the responsbility to announce the decision? With an appeals process?
Ok. The W3C. The Advisory Committee on Encrypted Media Extensions. Tim Berners-Lee, the person who pretty much set up the the involved standards. With an appeals process and W3C member vote.
Not that you care about any of that. Any process that doesn't produce the outcome that you want is the product of death and appointment to Godhood, it appears.
The courts frequently strike down such arbitration clauses as such clauses are direct unilateral violation of rights in a given jurisdiction.
IANAL
That's obvious, because you're wrong.
The Federal government passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes such arbitration clauses, and there's a pesky thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. AT&T itself won a U.S. Supreme court case that said that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, on the basis of statutory interpretation, since nobody seriously questioned that wireless contracts were within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Relying on the California Supreme Court's Discover Bank decision, [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] found the arbitration provision unconscionable because it disallowed classwide proceedings. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the provision was unconscionable under California law and held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which makes arbitration agreements "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract," 9 U. S. C. sec. 2, did not preempt its ruling.
Held: Because it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67, California's Discover Bank rule is preempted by the FAA. Pp. 4-18.
You have just now decided to discredit statements based entirely on the source without analysis of the statement itself.
No, I've decided to discredit statements based on other statements made by the same source. You've confusing ad hominem argument, which is a logical fallacy, with credibility analysis, which is a logical inference of the accuracy of some statements based upon the known accuracy of others. You may also refer to it as reputation.
Focus on the discussion, not the people.
That was the discussion. The solar panel statements were wrong. The Voyager statements were wrong. Your discussion is, in general, wrong.
Assumes they have a really short lifespan. Basically they are using manufacturer's estimated lifespan of 25 years, when in truth, these things do not stop working. No moving parts, hermetically sealed so no water, insects, or even air gets in, low electrical voltage. The most common cause of destruction is something hitting them - lightning bolts, hail, baseballs. They can theoretically last for centuries, not 25 years.
Wrong. Silicon plate panels, i.e., the ones nobody wants to purchase anymore because they're ungodly expensive in comparison to alternatives, degrade at 0.5-0.7% of power capacity per year.
Thin film panels, i.e., the ones everyone is currently buying due to cost advantages, degrade at 1-1.5% of power capacity per year.
After you've lost 20% of your capacity and can no longer satisfy your design load, you're not going to be happily touting how you can still get power out of your panels.
Who says? The NREL, based upon about 1700 data points (Fig. 2 of linked report).
NASA's Voyagers 1 and 2 are both going strong after 37 years exposure to micrometeorites in space.
Chalk up an own goal! Voyagers 1 and 2 are powered by RTGs, not solar panels. Nothing that is destined to operate much beyond Mars orbit is powered by solar panels. Inverse square law of solar radiation intensity and all.
And with that your credibility is gone. Thank you for playing the "I don't know what I'm talking about but will push my agenda anyway" game.
The UCB study was paid for by the Mayor after he saw an early draft of the UW post. Check the Seattle Weekly article on the topic. The UCB report is pure BS.
I'd order another study myself if I was given UW's pure BS. From your own cited source:
"Among other things, the UW study did not include multisite businesses in the study, which the UW researchers argued produced a cleaner data set but which Berkeley researchers said meant a huge portion of Seattleâ(TM)s low-wage work force was left out of the study. "
"Cleaner" as in is necessary to show the purported effect?
Ok. So what about that data means that they have to exclude data for workers at businesses that have more than one location? Nothing. Run the analysis on the whole data set.
Yes, but the customer is going to continue to extort them anyway, with or without your help.
Accessory after the fact is still accessory to a crime. The fact that the customer needs you to be an accessory to mitigate their damage is going to get you --)(-- that much with a prosecutor with a mind to punish anyone they can reach.
My reference to The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security was an acknowledgment that educating users (like how to not get hit by phishing attacks in the first place) is an extreme uphill battle which is oftentimes lost. Just look at the frequency and extent of these sorts of attacks.
I read the initial post as a "educating the non-customers by cutting off the proof-of-ransom communication channel was a dumb idea" criticism.
It would be funny, except that people are paying the ransom and not getting their files back. Perhaps there will be a positive result here and people will start to get the idea that it is never worthwhile to pay the ransom and to keep backups instead. Oh, who am I kidding? That is #5 of The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security [ranum.com].
So if I were the email provider, you're saying that I owe it to non-customers to continue to serve a customer violating my TOS and bringing my services into disrepute so that the customer may continue to extort them.
Just a small nitpick here. The units are energy/area, as in J/(m^2) not energy/(area^2), which would translate to energy/((m^2)^2). I'm not sure just what that would be, but it's clearly not what you intended.
You're absolutely right and I noticed that a couple hours after posting.
I blame switching from (energy/(length^2)) to (energy/area) to avoid cries of "what the hell do you mean, length" while rushing and caffeine deprived.
I also figured the correction wasn't worth yet another post.
It clearly shows a 1.8 deg C increaase in the ocean temperatures.
It doesn't show an "increaase" in much of anything. It shows an increase in heat content, i.e., a quantity of energy per unit area as defined in equation 1, when integrated over an area. You'll note that the units are energy/(area^2), as in J/(m^2). You're correct that the number is based upon temperature, but then you go off the rails...
Yet the data it came from - the Atlantic, Pacific, Southern, and Indian oceans - each show 0.2 to 0.6 deg C increase.
BZZT. The figure 1 data is not an average. It's a quantity integrated over depth (equation 1), then over the area of the ocean basin (figure 1), to give you a change in the quantity of thermal energy versus a comparison point -- modern day . You'll notice that the units on the Y axis are Joules, not degrees F or C.
Somehow an avarage of (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6) has yielded 1.8 deg C.
Somehow a TOTAL of an ADDITIVE quantity (increase of thermal energy in each of four oceans making up the "global" ocean) of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.6 added up to 1.8 -- x10^23 Joules. As everyone would expect.
That's a bit of a problem...
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
I never anticipated the extent to which cell phones in general and smart phones in particular were going to be a monumental annoyance to those who share the planet with their users.
Oh, but we fully anticipated how much of a monumental annoyance non-users would be to us. We've built a priso^H^Hvate island for you and the don't-own-a-television people to live out your days in the smug company of your peers.
Title of article is wrong. No reimbursements were made. Read TFA
Why don't you take your own advice? From the second link:
"We will establish a process to credit customer accounts which experienced a margin call or stop loss order executed on the GDAX ETH-USD order book as a direct result of the rapid price movement at 12.30pm PT on June 21, 2017. This process will allow affected customers to restore the value of their ETH-USD account to the equivalent value of their ETH-USD account at the moment prior to the rapid price movement. To clarify: * For customers who had buy orders filledâSâ"âSwe are honoring all executed orders and no trades will be reversed. * For affected customers who had margin calls or stop loss orders executedâS -- âSwe are crediting you using company funds."
Slashdot Mirror
There is no fallacy in believing that if Gawker made serious errors in the Hogan case and was made to compensate Hogan, that makes it OK. Those were the facts of the case, and yelling "just world fallacy" is simply a way of arguing that if reality was different, then the outcome would not have been acceptable. But reality was not different, and the only alternative is the view that if Gawker could have outspent Hogan, denied him compensation, and thus survived, that would be OK.
Gawker wronged Hogan, started juggling metaphorical bombs, and blew itself up when its skills didn't match its own expectations.
I don't feel sad, or threatened in my civil liberties, by the outcome.
You have a strange definition of "unregulated." If the EPA issues a permit after notice and public comment, issues a press release, and nine months later the permitted activity takes place, it is unregulated?
I didn't realize that society had to get your personal approval through the posting of Slashdot articles...
And I contend that you're wrong. In the SFLC's own words:
It does not matter whether "the distributor []ever had the right to convey the GPL to the user." The user takes their license directly from every contributor, and cannot be liable for using a GPLed work unless they themselves directly violate the GPL.
I no longer need your clarification. It's eminently clear that you're in the wrong.
Just to be clear Bruce,
This appears to be the crux of our differences. GPLv2 sec. 4 states:
That section says that the customer has a licence for that copy of the Linux kernel, not any other. Section 4 does not apply only to users who received copies from distributors who were completely in compliance with the GPL, because sec. 6 would make the emphasized language entirely superfluous under that interpretation:
The customer is not "sublicensed" by the distributor, and therefore does not have their license terminated by termination of the license to the distributor under sec. 6 alone. In short, GPL2 sec. 4 says that the user is not responsible for the sins of a distributor. Every user of GPL licensed code is independently licensed by every contributor to that GPL licensed code to use the copy of the code that they have received, regardless of the compliance of intermediaries, so long as that individual user complies with the GPL.
The argument to the contrary is the "great big 'red flag'" that I've referred to. I'm quite certain that you haven't run that argument by Eben or the FSF, because it necessarily means that anyone using GPL code must audit the person or entity that they received the code from, not only for the copy that they received, but all copies that that distributor has ever distributed, so ensure that they have a license to "that" copy of the GPL-ed code and not "some other copy" of the code.
If you wanted to stoke the perception that GPLed code is "toxic" in yet another unhelpful and nebulous way, you couldn't have picked a better way...
Those portions of the original work have been licensed to the customers by the GPLv2 sec 6. The license to those portions of the original work cannot be terminated per GPLv2 sec 4. The customer is also expressly licensed to make such a combination by GPLv2 sec. 2 so long as they do not publish or distribute the combined work.
End of story.
No. Merely purchasing the existing combination of code does not provide the required right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity. You are well outside the bounds of your expertise, and it shows.
Which means that the original developers cannot properly sue the customers for infringement or breach of contract concerning use of the Linux kernel. Check. You've now admitted that there's no basis for liability absent a customer's own violation of the GPL.
But the original developers do not own Grsecurity's modifications. In addition, the original developers cannot sue a user licensed to use the Linux kernel for using Grsecurity's modifications, since users are expressly licensed to modify the original developers' code themselves by the GPL (sec. 2)! Nor can Grsecurity sue any user for using Grsecurity's modifications, since Grsecurity either licensed the modifications to customers (and all users via the GPLv2) or it will be estopped from claiming infringement due to the purported license.
Wrong. Grsecurity use a GPL license for its own code whenever it chooses. Whether Grsecurity remains licensed to use the Linux kernel or not, both the Linux kernel and Grsecurity's modifications are GPL licensed - the first sentence of GPLv2 sec. 6 expressly says so. Termination of the kernel license to Grsecurity does not affect the rights of their customers, or any other users, per GPLv2 secs. 4 and 6.
Denied. You have not explained how Grsecurity cannot license its own modifications under the GPL, nor how anyone other than Grsecurity could sue users for using those modifications. You have admitted that customers and users are licensed to use the Linux kernel even if Grsecurity is not. You will have to admit that users can modify the Linux kernel if they so choose, even using non-GPLv2 modifications, so long as they do not publish or distribute the result (GPLv2 secs. 2 and 3).
To reiterate, the customer has been licensed by the original developers for the original kernel and by Grsecurity for the modifications. If the customers comply with the GPL by, e.g., not publishing or distributing the combination of licensed code, there is no ground to terminate the license from the original developers to the customers and thus no infringement or breach of contract by those customers.
This is the sort of sloppy reasoning that I see very frequently. You are attempting to treat Grsecurity and the customers as one and the same, when I have been asking specifically about the customers in this instance. You now concede that the customers are licensed, and you cannot identify anything that the customers themselves have done in breach of the licenses, yet you contend that the customers are potentially liable for "contributory infringement" and breach of contract.
The mere fact that you accuse customers of potential "contributory infringement" shows how wrong you are. A contributory infringer is "[o]ne who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement."
How does the customer induce, cause, or contribute to copyright infringement by another by merely using Grsecurity's product? For that matter, how does a customer breach the GPL merely by using Grsecurity's product?
I'm not cherry picking terms. Identify the specific term of the GPLv2 that the customer, not Grsecurity, has not complied with.
Why yes, Bruce, I have, and am licensed in multiple states. I actively practice intellectual property law as well.
The license granted to the customer certainly has not terminated. Section 6 grants the customer that license separate and apart from Grsecurity, and the GPL does not provide any grounds for terminating the customer's license, as opposed to Grsecurity's license. You should also reread the termination provision of GPLv2 sec. 4: "However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
In addition, your alleged infringer has granted the customer a license to the infringer's modification under the GPLv2, and nobody else has standing to assert that the customer is allegedly infringing that "infringing derivative work."
Your argument is that if the license to an upstream distrubtor has been terminated, the downstream users are unlicensed and become liable for e.g., copyright infringement and breach of contract. In my view that directly contradicts GPLv2 secs. 4 and 6, and also raises a great big "red flag" for people like my clients.
I suppose I'll simply have to refer your argument to Eben....
Bruce,
Your blog post states that "the contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached."
This is quite concerning. Please explain how you believe that the contract from the Linux kernel developers to the customer has been breached. What violation has the customer committed? More specifically, since the GPLv2 sec. 6 specifies that "[e]ach time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions," how do you contend that the customer is "subject to both contributory infringement and breach of contract by employing this product in conjunction with the Linux kernel under the no-redistribution policy currently employed by Grsecurity?" If the customer doesn't redistribute code to a third party, axiomatically they cannot be in breach of anything. I remind you that according to GPLv2 sec. 0, "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope," and that only distribution, not modification alone, triggers secs. 2(b) and 3.
I think that you owe those customers something better than vague threats and an invitation to spend capital contacting their attorney.
Yes, and you don't get to change the rules either, Bruce.
What they're doing is not "tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution." The person to whom the code is distributed (for sake of argument, "you") remains free to distribute that code to anyone, and that anyone remains free to distribute the code to anyone else.
What they're doing is refusing to distribute a future version of the code to you -- which the GPL permits (e.g., limited availability). If they distribute the code under section 3a, they have no obligation to distribute the code to any other party, i.e., they cannot be compelled to distribute updated versions of the code to you.
Their only obligation to distribute a future version of the code to anyone in particular would arise under a support contract. But the GPL does not require that support even be provided, much less govern support contracts. If they want to condition further support upon non-disclosure of the code, they could do it stupidly -- by having long term support contracts, lump sum fees, and a termination provision (courts dislike forfeiture-like penalties) -- or wisely -- by having month to month terms, monthly fees, and simply refusing to renew at the end of the term. There's no mechanism, whether in copyright or contract, to force them to continue to accommodate a customer that they do not want to deal with after they've complied with GPLv2 section 3a and any support contract's current term has expired.
If they've done this wisely, they're within the letter of the license and this is another instance, like Tivoization, where the free software community is simply going to have to learn to adapt.
You haven't convinced me that this goes against the wording of the GPL. As to the purpose, since you've succeeded in having the GPL held to form a contract, you'll have to take the "four corners" doctrine, construction against the draftsperson, and all the rest of contract law along for the ride as well. Once a party can show literal compliance with a contract's terms, attempts to add "tantamount" obligations or argue "tantamount" violations become extremely difficult. In the end, both sides have to follow the rules of the document.
Who would you have decide this? A standards organization, and a standards committee, headed by a person who has the responsbility to announce the decision? With an appeals process?
Ok. The W3C. The Advisory Committee on Encrypted Media Extensions. Tim Berners-Lee, the person who pretty much set up the the involved standards. With an appeals process and W3C member vote.
Not that you care about any of that. Any process that doesn't produce the outcome that you want is the product of death and appointment to Godhood, it appears.
That's obvious, because you're wrong.
The Federal government passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes such arbitration clauses, and there's a pesky thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. AT&T itself won a U.S. Supreme court case that said that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, on the basis of statutory interpretation, since nobody seriously questioned that wireless contracts were within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Specifically,
IAAL.
No, I've decided to discredit statements based on other statements made by the same source. You've confusing ad hominem argument, which is a logical fallacy, with credibility analysis, which is a logical inference of the accuracy of some statements based upon the known accuracy of others. You may also refer to it as reputation.
That was the discussion. The solar panel statements were wrong. The Voyager statements were wrong. Your discussion is, in general, wrong.
Wrong. Silicon plate panels, i.e., the ones nobody wants to purchase anymore because they're ungodly expensive in comparison to alternatives, degrade at 0.5-0.7% of power capacity per year.
Thin film panels, i.e., the ones everyone is currently buying due to cost advantages, degrade at 1-1.5% of power capacity per year.
After you've lost 20% of your capacity and can no longer satisfy your design load, you're not going to be happily touting how you can still get power out of your panels.
Who says? The NREL, based upon about 1700 data points (Fig. 2 of linked report).
Don't sell me bullshit either.
Chalk up an own goal! Voyagers 1 and 2 are powered by RTGs, not solar panels. Nothing that is destined to operate much beyond Mars orbit is powered by solar panels. Inverse square law of solar radiation intensity and all.
And with that your credibility is gone. Thank you for playing the "I don't know what I'm talking about but will push my agenda anyway" game.
I'd order another study myself if I was given UW's pure BS. From your own cited source:
"Among other things, the UW study did not include multisite businesses in the study, which the UW researchers argued produced a cleaner data set but which Berkeley researchers said meant a huge portion of Seattleâ(TM)s low-wage work force was left out of the study. "
"Cleaner" as in is necessary to show the purported effect?
It doesn't matter how large your study population is if your selection process is biased.
Using confidential payroll data from the Washington Employment Security Department, the researchers compare employment, hours and wages of workers in Seattle and various other parts of Washington both before and after Seattle began raising its minimum wage.
Ok. So what about that data means that they have to exclude data for workers at businesses that have more than one location? Nothing. Run the analysis on the whole data set.
If you exclude all the employees from businesses that have multiple locations, then focus only on single-location businesses that are under pressure by the excluded businesses, you're pretty much guaranteed to get that result.
Accessory after the fact is still accessory to a crime. The fact that the customer needs you to be an accessory to mitigate their damage is going to get you --)(-- that much with a prosecutor with a mind to punish anyone they can reach.
I read the initial post as a "educating the non-customers by cutting off the proof-of-ransom communication channel was a dumb idea" criticism.
My apologies.
So if I were the email provider, you're saying that I owe it to non-customers to continue to serve a customer violating my TOS and bringing my services into disrepute so that the customer may continue to extort them.
Screw that. Extortionist begone.
You're absolutely right and I noticed that a couple hours after posting.
I blame switching from (energy/(length^2)) to (energy/area) to avoid cries of "what the hell do you mean, length" while rushing and caffeine deprived.
I also figured the correction wasn't worth yet another post.
The title is "Area Integrated OHC [Ocean Heat Content]."
The Y axis is "OHC [Ocean Heat Content] *10^23 J [Joules]."
The X axis is Year.
If you interpreted any of that to mean that Fig. 1 plots an average temperature, then you've failed a task that average 4th-5th graders have mastered.
Ok.
It doesn't show an "increaase" in much of anything. It shows an increase in heat content, i.e., a quantity of energy per unit area as defined in equation 1, when integrated over an area. You'll note that the units are energy/(area^2), as in J/(m^2). You're correct that the number is based upon temperature, but then you go off the rails...
BZZT. The figure 1 data is not an average. It's a quantity integrated over depth (equation 1), then over the area of the ocean basin (figure 1), to give you a change in the quantity of thermal energy versus a comparison point -- modern day . You'll notice that the units on the Y axis are Joules, not degrees F or C.
Somehow a TOTAL of an ADDITIVE quantity (increase of thermal energy in each of four oceans making up the "global" ocean) of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.6 added up to 1.8 -- x10^23 Joules. As everyone would expect.
For you and your reading comprehension skills. My children can read and understand a graph better than you.
Oh, but we fully anticipated how much of a monumental annoyance non-users would be to us. We've built a priso^H^Hvate island for you and the don't-own-a-television people to live out your days in the smug company of your peers.
Why don't you take your own advice? From the second link:
"We will establish a process to credit customer accounts which experienced a margin call or stop loss order executed on the GDAX ETH-USD order book as a direct result of the rapid price movement at 12.30pm PT on June 21, 2017. This process will allow affected customers to restore the value of their ETH-USD account to the equivalent value of their ETH-USD account at the moment prior to the rapid price movement. To clarify:
* For customers who had buy orders filledâSâ"âSwe are honoring all executed orders and no trades will be reversed.
* For affected customers who had margin calls or stop loss orders executedâS -- âSwe are crediting you using company funds."