On 31/03/2009 00:36, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
No, it would not be reasonable. In fact that would just be a nice fat
paycheck for the plaintiff's lawyer (and probably the defendant's
lawyer) and nothing else.
Nobody can expect someone to glimpse at machine code and later recall
how it was coded so they can use it in their own code. Not assembly,
machine code. This so-called defendant would have to specifically go
looking for code in random memory, then either disassemble it or
hand-parse the machine code. I've debugged plenty of code on Microsoft's
OS, and I haven't ever been sued, or had any worry of being sued,
because I accidentally saw some of their disassembled code. My
interpretation of the non-support from these developers was "we don't
like non-GPL'd software, so we aren't going to help you," not "Oh, well
if we look at this binary code someone might sue us." I think you are
reading an issue into this that doesn't exist.
what if the defendant doesn't have/want to spend that money on lawyers?
even if the chance is tiny, it is not zero.
besides, even if I'm completely wrong on this and you're completely
right (which I don't believe to be the case), you're forgetting that
those developers are all volonteers working on the project on their
spare time. They don't have to do anything at all. sure it sucks they
don't want to help you out but they are not under any obligation to do
so. That reminds me a phrase: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".
people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and
they even won the case!). other people sued a company since their
peanuts contains nuts. why would a developer is free to assume he/she
won't be sued for accidentally seeing the memory of that closed source
driver in the debugger?
Anyone can sue you for anything. To say that they will win is another
thing. Nobody's going to sue someone for seeing machine code in memory
that happens to be of proprietary software, not because they are nice,
but because they'd have no case.
In the McDonald's case, the coffee was not just hot, the coffee caused
3rd degree burns, which required skin grafting. The jury awarded
punitive damages in excess of 2.8 million *not* at the request of the
plaintiff, but because they believed McDonald's would not change their
policy (of making their coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than any other
vendor) unless they did so. That is what punitive damages are for. The
lady only sought to have her medical costs covered (which McDonald's
refused). This case has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with copyright law, so
I have no idea why you brought it up. People always point to this case
as an example of ridiculous judgements, but this one actually strikes me
as fair.
Other examples of lawsuits are definitely frivolous. If that peanut case
is true, I'd use that one instead (it sounds too ridiculous to be true,
I'd appreciate a citation). But let's not forget you are citing a small
number of bizarre cases in an ocean of lawsuits that actually make
sense. To worry that someone might frivolously sue you is like worrying
that you might trip over your shoelaces and so you don't ever wear shoes.
I don't have a citation for this, sorry. In British law and therefore
our law in Israel (which was influenced by the British) there is a
concept of "a reasonable man", I'm pretty sure this also applies to
European law as well. The idea is that a reasonable man as understood by
the law knows that peanuts are a kind of nuts. therefore these kinds of
frivolous cases are dismissed and will never reach court and waste
time/money. this is missing in the US where anyone can sue anyone else
for anything.
this concept can also aid people in their cases. for example, there was
one case of a man suing his insurance company for not paying for an
implant (heart I think). the company said in the policy that all
implants are covered but in the small letters said it will not pay for a
very specific equipment part that is essential to that operation. a
reasonable man doesn't need a M.D to sign such a policy and therefore
the company had to pay.
My assertion is not that the GPL should be illegal or be forcibly
removed, my assertion (and ESR's as I interpret it) is that GPL'd
software doesn't foster as much productivity or usefulness as other open
source licenses, and therefore should be avoided. Why should anyone use
GPL when there are much less restrictive licenses available? The world
is full of for-profit companies using open source software, and the vast
majority of them don't touch GPL'd software unless they have to. Why is
that?
you mix to separate things. a closed source company probably will not
want to be a *client* of GPL-like source, sure. that's different from a
company that uses GPL-like licenses for it's own products and code.
Sure, it is not the only project that is GPL'd, but it is one of the
only GPL'd projects out there that is the basis of a successful company.
I don't really know of any others. So here is a challenge, name 10 of
those companies.
come on.. why did Sun choose the GPL as the basis for almost all it's
products over less restrictive licenses as you say?
Sun's products that are GPL'ed: Java, Netbeans, solaris, etc.. even the
specs for their CPU are open sourced!
that telephony project, asterix (IIRC), provides jobs for many
consultant companies on setting up your own telephony solution based on
that project.
that's just of the top of my head without doing any search...
-Steve
