Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:34:48 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not that it doesn't have it. That would require a change to the law, eh? But then there wouldn't be any issue for the SFLC to sue over either. If you somehow got a hold of Microsoft's source, you would be able to use it, too. Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there? Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I believe. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:03:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical value. Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out this bit o' wisdom: amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Even so how likely is it that the target of this exploit is savvy enough to have combed through the source and implemented his own fix enable by knowing which library version of BusyBox was in use in his $25 router? It would be more probable that he would win the Powerball Lottery twice in a row. You're excluding the middle. Between not knowing anything and hacking the firmware yourself is the possibility that knowing the exact version numbers of the component parts gives the owner the possibility to determine how vulnerable they are, and to take steps, ranging from taking in the router to the reseller to have it serviced, or patching it themselves, and everything in between. Then again, you really don't think these things through, now do you? Your every effort in this thread screams intellectual laziness, if not outright stupidity. Unfortunately, that covers an awful lot of computer users. -- People disagree with me. I just ignore them. -- Linus Torvalds, regarding the use of C++ for the Linux kernel ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
After takin' a swig o' grog, Thufir Hawat belched out this bit o' wisdom: On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. I've never modified vim. Yet I (and thousands of others) find it /immensely/ useful. The same for gcc and g++. OpenOffice. Fluxbox. Python. And many more. Even if I don't modify them, others do, and I get the modifications. That's (to use Bill Gates' favorite enthusiastic ejaculation) *cool*. So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about your business. -- If you are shooting under 80 you are neglecting your business; over 80 you are neglecting your golf. -- Walter Hagen ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message news:87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: No one takes apart complex applications in order to change them, there is no value in having all those restrictions as posed by the GPL. What a bizarre, incorrect claim! I spend a lot of time taking apart complex applications in order to change them. The Linux kernel is one example of a complex application that I spend a lot of time hacking. -- Perhaps you do, but the other 10,000 people nearest you do not. The half-a-dozen people who sit nearest to me at my office can, and sometimes do. My point is that your assertion that no one does these things is egregiously ill-informed, and I think that I have made that point. Would you believe next to no one then? If Actiontec were to sell a million routers to Verizon and Verizon shipped them to a million of their customers, how many would ever be interested in the source? My belief is that number is either zero or close to it. Are you one of the kernel developers? It is hard to interpret the Google information around your name. I doubt any of the kernel developers would recognize my name. I've made a few small kernel contributions, but none recently. I've been doing a lot of Linux kernel work in at the office. We haven't yet tried to contribute it upstream. Perhaps later this year. -- That is extremely unusual, you will have to admit, but, even so, where do your get your Linux source? From Actiontec or some other company using Linux and complying with the GPL distribution requirements or directly from Linus' project site? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly. And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a minimum, sounds like plagiarism. Only if you don't know the meaning of the term. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message news:49a251c4$0$32682$9b4e6...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ekjol.24698$ug1.18...@newsfe16.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with the notion as a concept. However, in the case of BusyBox, such hypothetical benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders. There was no modification that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any user. In the JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be true. You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. What you think is irrelevant Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it from the original source, i.e. Busybox.org or whatever. Right. In true Bill Weisgerber mode, you try to put the burden on the costumer, instead of the distributor. Just where do you get the idea that my name is Bill Weisgerber? I asked before, but you are at a loss for words. Also, if you were interested in BusyBox, where would you yourself go to get source? Actiontec? No one is going to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original source. And you know this from where, exactly? Your ass? It is only basic prudence. Go to the source, not some third party ten times removed. You look silly contesting that idea. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:wrsol.15172$si4.3...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:34:48 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not that it doesn't have it. That would require a change to the law, eh? But then there wouldn't be any issue for the SFLC to sue over either. If you somehow got a hold of Microsoft's source, you would be able to use it, too. Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there? Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I believe. That is more handwaving, I think. Can you point to a site that actually contains Windows source from some old version? In my history I have worked for companies that were subcontracting things to Microsoft and we had direct access to the daily builds of Windows, but there was a pretty strict NDA in place and anyone who might have wanted to leak it out would have been sued to a pulp. As far as I know, that never happened. Plus, you can't make a dime being a follower in a focused market like that. If you have source obtained in violation of the trade secrets laws and try to sell a Windows work-alike created from it, you will have very little success selling it and if you did you would eventually lose it all in court. Windows' value is in its brand, not in its code base. Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in Visi-calc? What could you possibly learn from the source? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:vlsol.15169$si4.13...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about your business. I wouldn't think of distributing it. I also think that suing someone over not distributing it is just a silly ego trip for the authors. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Chris Ahlstrom ahlstr...@launchmodem.com wrote in message news:ahwol.7478$i9.4...@bignews7.bellsouth.net... After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out this bit o' wisdom: amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Even so how likely is it that the target of this exploit is savvy enough to have combed through the source and implemented his own fix enable by knowing which library version of BusyBox was in use in his $25 router? It would be more probable that he would win the Powerball Lottery twice in a row. You're excluding the middle. Between not knowing anything and hacking the firmware yourself is the possibility that knowing the exact version numbers of the component parts gives the owner the possibility to determine how vulnerable they are, and to take steps, ranging from taking in the router to the reseller to have it serviced, or patching it themselves, and everything in between. Then again, you really don't think these things through, now do you? Your every effort in this thread screams intellectual laziness, if not outright stupidity. Unfortunately, that covers an awful lot of computer users. Hello, magpie. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:dtsol.15173$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:03:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical value. Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message news:86ocwtbse3@gareth.avalon.lan... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message news:86skm6bdgk@gareth.avalon.lan... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Mart van de Wege mvdwege_pub...@myrealbox.com wrote in message news:86wsbic07e@gareth.avalon.lan... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote in message news:85r61r4nvu@lola.goethe.zz... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the manufacturer for credit. If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger could be inserted into the router, return to the store is your least problem. Being able to determine possible scope of a security breach is certainly important. You create a whole lot of hypothetical situations, but people buy these things at Sam's Club for $35 and they work just fine. What compromise has there ever been that allowed someone to put a packet logger into the firmware of such a thing? Who would bother? Spammers who like to build botnets out of domestic PCs for example. Do you know of any instance where the botnet was built by compromising the user's router firmware? That is pretty farfetched. Yes, and executable e-mails were once considered to be 'purely theoretical'. I'm sorry, but threat evaluation is just a *tad* more than 'is this being exploited yet?' I don't think that you are sorry in the least. Do you suggest that this theory will first find its way into someone lusting to robotize some kid's PC? I suggest this is possible, yes. Well what is your thought on its being at all probable? Even so how likely is it that the target of this exploit is savvy enough to have combed through the source and implemented his own fix enable by knowing which library version of BusyBox was in use in his $25 router? It would be more probable that he would win the Powerball Lottery twice in a row. You're excluding the middle. Between not knowing anything and hacking the firmware yourself is the possibility that knowing the exact version numbers of the component parts gives the owner the possibility to determine how vulnerable they are, and to take steps, ranging from taking in the router to the reseller to have it serviced, or patching it themselves, and everything in between. Then again, you really don't think these things through, now do you? Your every effort in this thread screams intellectual laziness, if not outright stupidity. Well call me all the names you want, but you are not making any sense yourself. My point is not that the data might be useful if it were available, and it is, but that the totality of those taking advantage of knowing is zero or close to it. In any case just disclosing the version of BusyBox incorporated into the device is sufficient. They do not have to publish the entire code tree to achieve that. Think efficiency. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann wrote: You are obviously not just totally dishonest, you are also incredibly stupid. You simply don't even try to think your arguments through before posting that garbage Many of us who are not gifted with your perfect honesty and genius, do recognize your impending elevation to sainthood. Could you point us in the direction of your beautiful marble mausoleum so that we might piss on it in grateful tribute after you're gone? Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
amicus_curious wrote: I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. Authors who license their code under the GPL believe that users should have the right to run, read, modify, and share software. Through the GPL, they can assure that users have these rights at least for the software to which they hold copyright. When a user has only a binary delivered without GPL notification he cannot read or modify it, and does not know he is permitted to share it. For people who value the freedom of users, this problem outweighs other considerations. The hurt feelings of those who do not deal properly with licensed software are hardly paramount when compliance is so trivially easy. The purpose of free software, as envisioned by the FSF and embodied in the GPL, is for users to have the four freedoms. It does the FSF no good to have a good reputation if that reputation is acquired by allowing users to be denied the four freedoms. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message news:gnrq0u$8t...@colin2.muc.de... It seems to me, you're in favour of ignoring the GPL's conditions, yet are in favour of conforming to the conditions of proprietary licenses. Why? As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I am opposed to copyright of software source entirely. OK, fair enough. Abolishing copyright on source code would give rise to problems of definition, e.g. for interpreted languages, but no worse than what we have at the moment, I suppose. However, the lack of copyright on source code would extinguish free software, or at the very least considerably impede it. Keep it a secret if you don't want others to know. If you want people to learn about your stuff, go ahead and publish the source and be happy that you helped others along. In either case, quit being so obnoxious. Well, thanks, and all that, yet again! I'm happy for people to learn about my code, and modify it. I would NOT be happy about somebody starting off from my code and building their own proprietary stuff based on it. I'm just not keen on being taken advantage of, of being exploited, thank you very much. However, if that somebody contributes his enhancements back to the project, we all win. I asked you a while back to consider why the GPL is such a popular licence for free software. The above is one answer. Hackers are happier contributing their skills when they're confident they're not being used as unpaid labour for Megabucks Incorporated. I do not know of any opportunity for anyone to take an open source product and convert it to commercial, proprietary use. Really? Apple saw fit to take the BSD kernel and use it as the basis of OS/X. It does not make any marketing sense unless you modify it so extensively that it has substantially different fit, form, and feel and provides a highly recognizable benefit to the users who would buy it because of that. Are you aware of the case that sparked the GPL into existence? The Lisp Machine had been developed at MIT as a fully open system, much as you're advocating at the moment. In the mid 1980s, some of the collaborators left MIT, forming a company, Symbolics, to market their own Lisp Machines, using the unrestricted code from MIT. They made proprietary enhancements to it, gaining an unfair advantage. This created a great deal of resentment in those left behind, among them Richard Stallman. One of the GPL's major goals was to prevent the like happening in the future. Look up the history of the MIT Lisp Machine, Symbolics, Lisp Machines Inc., and you might come to understand the GPL better. The big projects, say Linux itself or OO or the GNU utilities, are so complex to begin with that I don't think it would even be possible to do that. If someone did made a significant improvement to Linux or OO or any other FOSS project, I think just knowing the nature of the improvement would be enough of a revelation to allow it to be replicated separately. Indeed, RMS was able to duplicate the enhancements made by the Symbolics team. But it's a stupid waste of effort to do things twice, when there're so many fresh things to be done. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there? Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I believe. That is more handwaving, I think. Can you point to a site that actually contains Windows source from some old version? I believe that the source was leaked years ago, of course it would be piracy to have it, which is the point. So, no, you can't find a site to download it. A dedicated warez type could find it, I'm sure. This is now the point of contention? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000_source_leak -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in Visi-calc? What could you possibly learn from the source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_1-2-3#Rivals -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly. And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a minimum, sounds like plagiarism. Only if you don't know the meaning of the term. How can not attributing source *which you downloaded*, and then choose to distribute in binary *not*, at least ethical, require attribution? -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. FWIW, that's the point in contention in this thread. -Thufir ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. FWIW, that's the point in contention in this thread. Well, Bill Weisgerber has nothing against stealing GPLed code, he even advocates it. And at the same time tells us gloatingly how MS would crush anyone who would do the same with MS code. He is an immoral dishonest twit and MS shill, nothing else -- Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de... In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message news:gnrq0u$8t...@colin2.muc.de... It seems to me, you're in favour of ignoring the GPL's conditions, yet are in favour of conforming to the conditions of proprietary licenses. Why? As I stated elsewhere in this thread, I am opposed to copyright of software source entirely. OK, fair enough. Abolishing copyright on source code would give rise to problems of definition, e.g. for interpreted languages, but no worse than what we have at the moment, I suppose. However, the lack of copyright on source code would extinguish free software, or at the very least considerably impede it. Keep it a secret if you don't want others to know. If you want people to learn about your stuff, go ahead and publish the source and be happy that you helped others along. In either case, quit being so obnoxious. Well, thanks, and all that, yet again! I'm happy for people to learn about my code, and modify it. I would NOT be happy about somebody starting off from my code and building their own proprietary stuff based on it. I'm just not keen on being taken advantage of, of being exploited, thank you very much. However, if that somebody contributes his enhancements back to the project, we all win. I'm a believer in the land of opportunity myself. I am more inspired by there being a real chance for a rags to riches story than I am dismayed about someone else's success due to luck or pluck. Bill Gates made an exhorbitant pile from Microsoft, but to be fair, hundreds of working stiffs got multiple millions along with Bill. Some, like Allen and Ballmer got multiple billions, and I am sure there a single billionairs and hundred-millionairs in there too. Steve Jobs made a bundle, too, as did Michael Dell and others riding the Microsoft coat-tails. It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the world, as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would not be so resentful of the rest. If you resent someone else making money, what is the solution? That no one make any money? That is not good in the long term in a society where the money keeps the economy strong. I asked you a while back to consider why the GPL is such a popular licence for free software. The above is one answer. Hackers are happier contributing their skills when they're confident they're not being used as unpaid labour for Megabucks Incorporated. I do not know of any opportunity for anyone to take an open source product and convert it to commercial, proprietary use. Really? Apple saw fit to take the BSD kernel and use it as the basis of OS/X. But they really do not sell it on the open market like Windows. They sell a comprehensive solution that is dependent on their hardware, just like Actiontec sells a router as a comprehensive functional device. What is under the hood is not important, rather it is just part of the package. Windows, however, is a commercial product on its own, sold to companies who make competing computer systems and to individuals who want to improve what they have or else build their own machines. Apple had to spend a lot of money on their proprietary UI as well. Also, this is not much of an opportunity. If you own an extensive hardware manufacturing company such as Apple, you can avail yourself of the freeBSD and save some RD bucks for your overall product. But that is a very limited opportunity as opportunities go. Very few have such a resource to use to leverage success. Certainly Red Hat and other Linux suppliers of commercial distributions took similar advantage of the free as in beer cost of Linux, too, but you have to invest a couple of billion overall in infrastructure in order to tap that well of opportunity and they are essentially competing as a low price provider in the Unix server market, which is not such a wonderful place to be. If you wanted to commercialize Apache or OO or PHP, where would you run to? The best you can hope for is to come up with a desireable add-on that people see as very desirable to have and that others cannot clone so easily if you keep it a secret. So far I don't know where anyone has done that. The improvements to Linux seem to come from the original project team or else from the commercial suppliers like Red Hat who have a means to extract a financial benefit from their efforts. It does not make any marketing sense unless you modify it so extensively that it has substantially different fit, form, and feel and provides a highly recognizable benefit to the users who would buy it because of that. Are you aware of the case that sparked the GPL into existence? The Lisp Machine had been developed at MIT as a fully open system, much as you're advocating at the moment. In the mid 1980s, some of the collaborators left MIT, forming
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:vibol.22963$az3.17...@newsfe01.iad... On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Are you aware that (old versions) of Windows source are out there? Your wish is just pie-in-the sky. This whole thing goes back to visicalc, I believe. That is more handwaving, I think. Can you point to a site that actually contains Windows source from some old version? I believe that the source was leaked years ago, of course it would be piracy to have it, which is the point. So, no, you can't find a site to download it. A dedicated warez type could find it, I'm sure. This is now the point of contention? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000_source_leak So there is no verifiable source then. Even so, suppose there was. Do you think that anyone would want to use an ersatz verison of Win2k in lieu of a more modern version? My point is that the bulk of commercial use is focused on the new stuff and without the brand and without the latest bells and whistles, there is very little interest in the old stuff at any price. I presume you yourself are among the COLA advocates who insist that Ubuntu is superion to XP or Vista or both? Why isn't the world using it then? Answer: Because the world does not believe that to be the case and very few are becoming convinced. There is quite a bit more to success than just having a better mousetrap and Linux has not even established that much to the satisfaction of those who know about such things. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:wlbol.22964$az3.8...@newsfe01.iad... On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:07 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Do you think anyone, other than the odd hobbyist, is interested in Visi-calc? What could you possibly learn from the source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_1-2-3#Rivals That doesn't seem to be a definitive reply. Grid controls are a dime a dozen these days and calculating the arithment result of a sequence of operations parsed from a delimited string is even easier than invoking a grid control. It was cool in 1972, but not much of a deal today. So I ask you again, what could you learn today? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: We are keeping you busy today, aren't we? ;-) My point is not that the data might be useful if it were available, and it is, but that the totality of those taking advantage of knowing is zero or close to it. In proportion to the number who could, yes. Just like the proportion of googlers who actually click on the ads, or the proportion Usenet postings on a big server, or of sad cases who actually respond to email spam, is vanishingly small. That's not a good argument for not posting source code. In absolute numbers, probably quite a lot - a few tens, or a few hundreds - of people read the source. Who knows? In any case just disclosing the version of BusyBox incorporated into the device is sufficient. They do not have to publish the entire code tree to achieve that. They do. Without them publishing the source, how would you even know which programs it contains, never mind the versions? And how could you be sure that version 1.1.16 in the router was actually identical to 1.1.16 on the BusyBox site? Try looking at the source for SuSE or RedHat Linux sometime. These distributors routinely change the source for the packages they install. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message news:49a2b813$0$31336$9b4e6...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... amicus_curious wrote: Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message news:49a251c4$0$32682$9b4e6...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:ekjol.24698$ug1.18...@newsfe16.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with the notion as a concept. However, in the case of BusyBox, such hypothetical benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders. There was no modification that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any user. In the JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be true. You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. What you think is irrelevant Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it from the original source, i.e. Busybox.org or whatever. Right. In true Bill Weisgerber mode, you try to put the burden on the costumer, instead of the distributor. Just where do you get the idea that my name is Bill Weisgerber? I asked before, but you are at a loss for words. Because you are Bill Weisgerber, that dishonest twit who also posted as billwg And no, I am not at a loss for words. Why would I explain how I know? You are in no way whatsoever entitled to an explanation. Just rest assured that you are *far* *worse* in nymshifting than flatffish will ever be You sound like a small child with such an explanation, i.e. Why? Because!. Even your premise is obscure. You, I believe, were wont to publish a huge list of names, all supposed to be variants of some original flatfish. Your allegation here is that I have done so but once which you declare far worse. That is the height of illogical thought. Also, if you were interested in BusyBox, where would you yourself go to get source? Actiontec? How would I know? I am not interested in BusyBox, so I did not look at it at all. So whether or not anyone uses it is of no consequence to you? Which makes my point. No one is going to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original source. And you know this from where, exactly? Your ass? It is only basic prudence. Go to the source, not some third party ten times removed. You look silly contesting that idea. And how does the customer know which party is the source? For the customer it is the one making that product. So he is going to their website in the first place You are obviously not just totally dishonest, you are also incredibly stupid. You simply don't even try to think your arguments through before posting that garbage Well that is your opinion, but you seem powerless to do anything other than rant. Do you suppose you are impressing anyone? I think that it could only be yourself and I doubt that you are all that impressed with your posts either. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message news:49a2b55e$0$31327$9b4e6...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net... amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:vlsol.15169$si4.13...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: You're begging the question. Your conclusion is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community. So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about your business. I wouldn't think of distributing it. I also think that suing someone over not distributing it is just a silly ego trip for the authors. Nobody gets sued for not distributing GPLed software. You sound dumber by the second Have you so soon forgotten Monsoon Software and the others? They were sued for not distributing the GPL source. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:fnbol.22967$az3.22...@newsfe01.iad... On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:9psol.15170$si4.8...@newsfe22.iad... On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly. And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a minimum, sounds like plagiarism. Only if you don't know the meaning of the term. How can not attributing source *which you downloaded*, and then choose to distribute in binary *not*, at least ethical, require attribution? I don't understand what you are posting here. Are you missing something that ties non-attribution to plagiarism? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:qizol.69959$qt3.68...@newsfe10.iad... amicus_curious wrote: I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. Authors who license their code under the GPL believe that users should have the right to run, read, modify, and share software. Through the GPL, they can assure that users have these rights at least for the software to which they hold copyright. When a user has only a binary delivered without GPL notification he cannot read or modify it, and does not know he is permitted to share it. For people who value the freedom of users, this problem outweighs other considerations. The hurt feelings of those who do not deal properly with licensed software are hardly paramount when compliance is so trivially easy. The purpose of free software, as envisioned by the FSF and embodied in the GPL, is for users to have the four freedoms. It does the FSF no good to have a good reputation if that reputation is acquired by allowing users to be denied the four freedoms. The FSF is a whole different issue. Here we are talking about the two fellas who authored BusyBox. Did you come in late? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de wrote in message news:49a2e461$0$32663$9b4e6...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net... Thufir Hawat wrote: On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:49 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: Then I cannot fathom what your point is, aside from some vague desire on your part to see software copyright revoked. I simply made the comment long ago that the BusyBox authors and their lawsuits were useless activities that gave FOSS a bad name. All that anyone has been able to assert, yourself included, is that the GPL demands that a user follow its exact rules to the letter. FWIW, that's the point in contention in this thread. Well, Bill Weisgerber has nothing against stealing GPLed code, he even advocates it. And at the same time tells us gloatingly how MS would crush anyone who would do the same with MS code. He is an immoral dishonest twit and MS shill, nothing else Blah, blah, rant, and blah, silly. You seem stuck in a rut. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
amicus_curious wrote: The FSF is a whole different issue. Here we are talking about the two fellas who authored BusyBox. Did you come in late? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, the logical assumption is that people who adopt a license with ideological underpinnings share the goals of the creator of the license. Their actions bear that out as well. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Hyman Rosen wrote: amicus_curious wrote: It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the world, as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would not be so resentful of the rest. If you resent someone else making money, what is the solution? That no one make any money? That is not good in the long term in a society where the money keeps the economy strong. The FSF does not want to be of service to the world nor do they resent making money. They believe that software users should be able to run, read, modify, and share that software, and have designed a copyright license so that they and like-minded authors can achieve that principle for software under their control. The only resentment that I can see appears to come from people who want to redistribute such software while denying users the rights that the authors sought to protect. Those people deserve and get no consideration. Everyone is entitled to try and make money. No one is entitled to demand that someone else help them make money. What is under the hood is not important The FSF believes that users of software should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share that software. They believe that users should have full access to what is under the hood. They do not like people who want to prevent such access, and they aim to prevent those people from using the software in that way. My view is that the history of FOSS is pretty much duplicating something that is proprietary. The added improvement is freedom. Freedom my royal ass Hymen -- you mean the RIGHT TO CONTROL. GPL Section 2(b): Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the *RIGHT TO CONTROL* the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (emphasis added) You do not own other people's time. If they wish to devote themselves to duplicating existing software, that us their prerogative. It is not important that free software be original. It is important that it be free, and that it encourages freedom by raising the expense for those who would deny freedom to their users, by forcing them to pay or to duplicate what they might otherwise have gratis. Freedom my royal ass Hymen -- you mean the RIGHT TO CONTROL. GPL Section 2(b): Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the *RIGHT TO CONTROL* the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (emphasis added) Stallman seems to see profits from innovation as something to eradicate. Stallman sees non-free software as something to eradicate. There are a thousand contributors to Linux, but there are tens of millions of users. That seems unbalanced to me. Those millions of users all share in the freedom offered by the GPL. Freedom my royal ass Hyman -- you mean the RIGHT TO CONTROL. GPL Section 2(b): Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the *RIGHT TO CONTROL* the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (emphasis added) What is the meaning of balance here? There is no necessary relationship between numbers of developers and numbers of users. Why not stop the rhetorical bullshit about freedom and admit the FSF wants to control how society treats the concept of intellectual property? A simple Google search for RMS and Eben Moglen's writings reveals the truth. Repeating freedom until your friggin' blue in the face is not going to convince most people that GNUtians don't want to control society's ideas concerning intellectual property. The GPL is not about freedom Hymen -- it's all about control. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rjack wrote: The GPL is not about freedom [flatties] Hymen -- it's all about control. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to *CLAIM* *RIGHTS* or *contest* *your* *rights* to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control *the* *distribution* of derivative or collective works based on the Program .. You may *copy* and *distribute* the Program .. provided that you also .. *accompany* *it* with *the* complete corresponding machine-readable *source* *code* ... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:fycol.15218$si4.12...@newsfe22.iad... amicus_curious wrote: There are a thousand contributors to Linux, but there are tens of millions of users. That seems unbalanced to me. Those millions of users all share in the freedom offered by the GPL. What is the meaning of balance here? There is no necessary relationship between numbers of developers and numbers of users. Those millions of users obtain free software and do nothing to earn the privilege. That is an unbalanced system to be sure. The fundamental premise of FOSS long ago was the notion that opening up the source for others to contribute would pay back the original developer by supplying back the improvements. That has long gone out of whack. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de... Well, thanks, and all that, yet again! I'm happy for people to learn about my code, and modify it. I would NOT be happy about somebody starting off from my code and building their own proprietary stuff based on it. I'm just not keen on being taken advantage of, of being exploited, thank you very much. However, if that somebody contributes his enhancements back to the project, we all win. It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the world, as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would not be so resentful of the rest. Speaking for myself, I'm not resentful of the rest as such. As a taxpayer, though, I am resentful of people who take advantage of what tax provides, without themselves contributing their fair bit. Tax avoidance is the usual euphemism for it, but swindling is what it is. In just the same way, I'd resent people abusing my blood, sweat and tears, by taking my stuff as their own and not giving anything back. Surely you can undertand this attitude? If you resent someone else making money, what is the solution? That no one make any money? I don't resent the making of money. That is not good in the long term in a society where the money keeps the economy strong. Hahahaha! That's a good one! It's probably truer to say that we both live in a society where money has made the economy weak, very weak indeed. I asked you a while back to consider why the GPL is such a popular licence for free software. The above is one answer. Hackers are happier contributing their skills when they're confident they're not being used as unpaid labour for Megabucks Incorporated. I do not know of any opportunity for anyone to take an open source product and convert it to commercial, proprietary use. Really? Apple saw fit to take the BSD kernel and use it as the basis of OS/X. But they really do not sell it on the open market like Windows. Well no, but that was the conversion of OS to proprietary use, exactly as you stipulated three paragraphs up. Also, having taken BSD licensed open source, they are trying to stop Psystar making use of it, despite Psystar being prepared to pay hefty licensing charges. That kind of stinks. They sell a comprehensive solution that is dependent on their hardware, just like Actiontec sells a router as a comprehensive functional device. No, actually, OS/X isn't dependent on Apple's hardware. It will run happily on a Psystar box. What is under the hood is not important, rather it is just part of the package. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Also, this is not much of an opportunity. I'm sure using BSD saved Apple hundreds of millions of dollars development costs. If you own an extensive hardware manufacturing company such as Apple, you can avail yourself of the freeBSD and save some RD bucks for your overall product. But that is a very limited opportunity as opportunities go. Doesn't seem that limited to me. What would count as a sizable opportunity in this context? Very few have such a resource to use to leverage success. Certainly Red Hat and other Linux suppliers of commercial distributions took similar advantage of the free as in beer cost of Linux, too, but you have to invest a couple of billion overall in infrastructure in order to tap that well of opportunity and they are essentially competing as a low price provider in the Unix server market, which is not such a wonderful place to be. I believe Red Hat employees make a good living. Having low cost servers available is good for society in general. It enables us to prattle on at eachother, for one thing. ;-) The improvements to Linux seem to come from the original project team or else from the commercial suppliers like Red Hat who have a means to extract a financial benefit from their efforts. The original project team isn't a meaningful phrase. Anybody who contributes to Linux is a part of the project team, and the bulk of the people on it will drift in, do something, drift out. Hardware manufacturers obviously gain financially by contributing drivers for their hardware. Are you aware of the case that sparked the GPL into existence? The Lisp Machine had been developed at MIT as a fully open system, much as you're advocating at the moment. In the mid 1980s, some of the collaborators left MIT, forming a company, Symbolics, to market their own Lisp Machines, using the unrestricted code from MIT. They made proprietary enhancements to it, gaining an unfair advantage. This created a great deal of resentment in those left behind, among them Richard Stallman. What should these folk have gotten in return for their innovation? I am not at all familiar with the details, but it seems to me that anyone who is clever enough to invent something that others can use
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann wrote: That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them to distribute the binaries in the first place And *that* is every little bit grounds to sue them And *that* is 100% bullshit. You can't just make up your own copyright contract containing legal gibberish and then claim it gives you legal grounds to sue someone. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rjack wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them to distribute the binaries in the first place And *that* is every little bit grounds to sue them And *that* is 100% bullshit. You can't just make up your own copyright contract containing legal gibberish and then claim it gives you legal grounds to sue someone. Idiot -- The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rjack wrote: Why not stop the rhetorical bullshit about freedom and admit the FSF wants to control how society treats the concept of intellectual property? Because the FSF believes that users should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share software. Copyright law grants the right to control copying and distribution of software to its copyright holders. The GPL is an instrument of copyright law, and it maintains the author's right of control, granting others permission for copying and distribution under limited conditions. Those conditions are meant to insure that any user who obtains software under the GPL has the ability to run, read, modify, and share the software. While the FSF may have opinions about how an ideal society would deal with trademarks, copyrights, and patents, their actions through the GPL are meant to insure only the freedom of users who obtain GPLed software. The GPL is not about freedom -- it's all about control. Control is granted by copyright law to rights holders. The GPL maintains that control, for the benefit of users, not for the benefit of software developers, and especially not for software developers who seek to deny users the four freedoms. It is time for you to admit that you resent the tantalizing aspect of free software - that it is tempting but out of reach to developers who do not want to offer their own software on the same terms that they receive the software they want to use. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
amicus_curious wrote: Those millions of users obtain free software and do nothing to earn the privilege. That is an unbalanced system to be sure. The creators of the software have not required that their users do anything to earn the software. That is their privilege. They do require that those who wish to modify and distribute the code earn the right to do so, by distributing under the same license. The fundamental premise of FOSS long ago was the notion that opening up the source for others to contribute would pay back the original developer by supplying back the improvements. That has long gone out of whack. That might have been the premise of the Open Source movement, and is definitely out of whack, but it is not the premise of the FSF. The FSF believes that users of software should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share it. There is no notion in the GPL that anyone gets paid back for software, or that this is a good way to develop software, or anything like that. Free software is simply a social good. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann wrote: Rjack wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them to distribute the binaries in the first place And *that* is every little bit grounds to sue them And *that* is 100% bullshit. You can't just make up your own copyright contract containing legal gibberish and then claim it gives you legal grounds to sue someone. Idiot I might plead to foolish, silly, mad, crazy, insane, dense, brainless, moronic, half-witted or slow-witted. But IDIOT? NEVER! You have deeply wounded my psyche. I am *devastated*. If I promise never to criticize again will you drop the idiot label and whisper sweet nothings in my ear? He. He. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Why not stop the rhetorical bullshit about freedom and admit the FSF wants to control how society treats the concept of intellectual property? Because the FSF believes that users should have the freedom to run, read, modify, and share software. Copyright law grants the right to control copying and distribution of software to its copyright holders. How very true Hymen -- exclusive rights for an author's original works as long as that control is exercised in contractual *privity* with those who are licensed: A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not create exclusive rights.. . . But whether a particular license is generous or restrictive, a simple two-party contract is not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright and therefore may be enforced.; ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). The GPL is a contract (a creature of state common law) that requires that all third parties to be licensed under GPL terms: 2(b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Take a deep breath Hymen and ask yourself if a contract that requires all third parties to be licensed under its terms is a simple two-party contract. (see ProCD above) The GPL is a contract written to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works that involves all third parties. As such it involves rights in rem that affects all persons. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control: Preemption of State Law. The intention of section 301 is to preempt and abolish any rights under the common law or statutes of a State that are equivalent to copyright and that extend to works coming within the scope of the Federal copyright law. The declaration of this principle in section 301 is intended to be stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language possible, so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of itsunqualified intention that Congress shall act preemptively, and to avoid the development of any vague borderline areas between State and Federal protection.; HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (1976). The GPL is an instrument of copyright law, and it maintains the author's right of control, granting others permission for copying and distribution under limited conditions. Limited yes -- to contractual privity: It goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty; EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002). Those conditions are meant to insure that any user who obtains software under the GPL has the ability to run, read, modify, and share the software. While the FSF may have opinions about how an ideal society would deal with trademarks, copyrights, and patents, their actions through the GPL are meant to insure only the freedom of users who obtain GPLed software. The GPL is not about freedom -- it's all about control. Control is granted by copyright law to rights holders. The GPL maintains that control, for the benefit of users, not for the benefit of software developers, and especially not for software developers who seek to deny users the four freedoms. It is time for you to admit that you resent the tantalizing aspect of free software - that it is tempting but out of reach to developers who do not want to offer their own software on the same terms that they receive the software they want to use. It is time for you to admit that Congress writes the copyright laws and not socialist zealots like Richard Stallman. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message news:gnv0cu$28j...@colin2.muc.de... In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious a...@sti.net wrote: Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote in message news:gnujma$19h...@colin2.muc.de... Well, thanks, and all that, yet again! I'm happy for people to learn about my code, and modify it. I would NOT be happy about somebody starting off from my code and building their own proprietary stuff based on it. I'm just not keen on being taken advantage of, of being exploited, thank you very much. However, if that somebody contributes his enhancements back to the project, we all win. It would seem to me that anyone wanting to be of service to the world, as the FOSS advocates claim that they want to be, would not be so resentful of the rest. Speaking for myself, I'm not resentful of the rest as such. As a taxpayer, though, I am resentful of people who take advantage of what tax provides, without themselves contributing their fair bit. Tax avoidance is the usual euphemism for it, but swindling is what it is. In just the same way, I'd resent people abusing my blood, sweat and tears, by taking my stuff as their own and not giving anything back. Surely you can undertand this attitude? I don't see where being a taxpayer has anything to do with this, but clearly you are resentful as in I would NOT be happy about somebody starting off from my code and building their own proprietary stuff based on it After all you are happy that you have been of service teaching someone something by means of your source code. Why would you suggest that someone who, having learned how to do something useful, improves upon it is a swindler? Ingrate, perhaps, although that is a stretch, too, but not a swindler. If you resent someone else making money, what is the solution? That no one make any money? I don't resent the making of money. That is not good in the long term in a society where the money keeps the economy strong. Hahahaha! That's a good one! It's probably truer to say that we both live in a society where money has made the economy weak, very weak indeed. The president of the USofA said that the economic crisis was primarily due to the tightness of money and vowed 750 billion to loosen it up. Do you know more than he does? I asked you a while back to consider why the GPL is such a popular licence for free software. The above is one answer. Hackers are happier contributing their skills when they're confident they're not being used as unpaid labour for Megabucks Incorporated. I do not know of any opportunity for anyone to take an open source product and convert it to commercial, proprietary use. Really? Apple saw fit to take the BSD kernel and use it as the basis of OS/X. But they really do not sell it on the open market like Windows. Well no, but that was the conversion of OS to proprietary use, exactly as you stipulated three paragraphs up. Also, having taken BSD licensed open source, they are trying to stop Psystar making use of it, despite Psystar being prepared to pay hefty licensing charges. That kind of stinks. They sell a comprehensive solution that is dependent on their hardware, just like Actiontec sells a router as a comprehensive functional device. No, actually, OS/X isn't dependent on Apple's hardware. It will run happily on a Psystar box. But not legitimately, I understand. However, that was not the crux of the argument. The main point is that freeBSD is not very useful to anyone who does not have a hardware business that can use it. Very few, if any, have that advantage. What is under the hood is not important, rather it is just part of the package. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. The freeBSD in a proprietary can only be sold profitably along side of a suitable hardware platform. Also, this is not much of an opportunity. I'm sure using BSD saved Apple hundreds of millions of dollars development costs. Which is an opportunity limited solely to Apple. If you own an extensive hardware manufacturing company such as Apple, you can avail yourself of the freeBSD and save some RD bucks for your overall product. But that is a very limited opportunity as opportunities go. Doesn't seem that limited to me. What would count as a sizable opportunity in this context? There are billions of people in the world and only Apple can capitalize on this item. They saw it as a great opportunity, no doubt, but it is not open to anyone else. Very few have such a resource to use to leverage success. Certainly Red Hat and other Linux suppliers of commercial distributions took similar advantage of the free as in beer cost of Linux, too, but you have to invest a couple of billion overall in infrastructure in order to tap that well of opportunity and they are essentially competing as a low price provider in the Unix server market, which is not such a wonderful place to be. I believe Red Hat
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rjack u...@example.net wrote in message news:gnidnunzui7ukz7unz2dnuvz_guwn...@giganews.com... Peter Köhlmann wrote: Rjack wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: That is something else entirely. You neglected that little tidbit that they distributed GPLed binaries. By not distributing the source, they were breaching the sole licence which allowed them to distribute the binaries in the first place And *that* is every little bit grounds to sue them And *that* is 100% bullshit. You can't just make up your own copyright contract containing legal gibberish and then claim it gives you legal grounds to sue someone. Idiot I might plead to foolish, silly, mad, crazy, insane, dense, brainless, moronic, half-witted or slow-witted. But IDIOT? NEVER! You have deeply wounded my psyche. I am *devastated*. If I promise never to criticize again will you drop the idiot label and whisper sweet nothings in my ear? Sweet or sour, they are sure to be nothings. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rjack wrote: 2(b) This provision is not in GPLv3, for what that's worth. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control For some unfathomable reason, you keep pointing to the preemption clause as if it means something to the incorrect ideas you propose. It doesn't. In any case, the fallback provisions of the GPL are that if you cannot distribute under its terms, then you may not distribute at all, so no user will be denied his freedoms because of this. It is time for you to admit that Congress writes the copyright laws and not socialist zealots like Richard Stallman. Even socialist zealots are given the exclusive right to control how their copyrighted works are copied and distributed. Your bitterness and resentment of largess in which you may not participate must be gnawing at you painfully. I suggest that since you are incapable of dealing with GPLed software, just pretend it doesn't exist. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: 2(b) This provision is not in GPLv3, for what that's worth. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control For some unfathomable reason, you keep pointing to the preemption clause as if it means something to the incorrect ideas you propose. It doesn't. In any case, the fallback provisions of the GPL are that if you cannot distribute under its terms, then you may not distribute at all, so no user will be denied his freedoms because of this. Unfortunately your fallback provision, that a failed contract cannot supply grounds for claims of promissory estoppel, is a figment of Richard Stallman's fertile imagination -- the same imagination that conjured up the idea that a copyright license was not a contract. http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html The GPL is a public contract of adhesion and will be interpreted strictly against the drafter. It is time for you to admit that Congress writes the copyright laws and not socialist zealots like Richard Stallman. Even socialist zealots are given the exclusive right to control how their copyrighted works are copied and distributed. So long as the control is restricted by contractual privity. Your bitterness and resentment of largess in which you may not participate must be gnawing at you painfully. Oh goody! Oh boy! Now you're a friggin' psychotherapist. I suggest that since you are incapable of dealing with GPLed software, just pretend it doesn't exist. I suggest that since you are incapable of accepting legal reality, you should probably avoid intellectual property discussions and become a vegetable farmer. Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rjack u...@example.net writes: A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties... ... The GPL is a contract... As such it involves rights in rem that affects all persons. Congress forbid this kind of copyright control... [ various other arguments omitted ] Here's the big problem with all these arguments: None of the defendants seem to be making them. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: Unfortunately your fallback provision, that a failed contract cannot supply grounds for claims of promissory estoppel, is a figment of Richard Stallman's fertile imagination... How do you get promissory estoppel without a promise? Ummm. . . do you *really* believe that: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above . . . doesn't offer a promise of copyright permissions? Hmmm. . . Sincerely, Rjack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
Peter Köhlmann peter.koehlm...@arcor.de writes: amicus_curious wrote: ... Yep, you get dumber by the second. Heavy ingestion of alcoholic beverages? Drug abuse? Excessive Windows use? -Miles -- Would you like fries with that? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message news:87iqn153fs@blp.benpfaff.org... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote in message news:87myce5s72@blp.benpfaff.org... amicus_curious a...@sti.net writes: No one takes apart complex applications in order to change them, there is no value in having all those restrictions as posed by the GPL. What a bizarre, incorrect claim! I spend a lot of time taking apart complex applications in order to change them. The Linux kernel is one example of a complex application that I spend a lot of time hacking. -- Perhaps you do, but the other 10,000 people nearest you do not. The half-a-dozen people who sit nearest to me at my office can, and sometimes do. My point is that your assertion that no one does these things is egregiously ill-informed, and I think that I have made that point. Would you believe next to no one then? If Actiontec were to sell a million routers to Verizon and Verizon shipped them to a million of their customers, how many would ever be interested in the source? My belief is that number is either zero or close to it. Anyone who wanted to enhance the features of the router would want the source. I don't know how many people that is. It could be hundreds, it could be zero. The important feature of the GPL is that it gives everyone the opportunity to get that source, should they want it. Are you one of the kernel developers? It is hard to interpret the Google information around your name. I doubt any of the kernel developers would recognize my name. I've made a few small kernel contributions, but none recently. I've been doing a lot of Linux kernel work in at the office. We haven't yet tried to contribute it upstream. Perhaps later this year. -- That is extremely unusual, you will have to admit, but, even so, where do your get your Linux source? From Actiontec or some other company using Linux and complying with the GPL distribution requirements or directly from Linus' project site? Our product works on many versions of the Linux kernel, so we get sources from many places. That includes Linus's upstream distribution, so that we can be compatible with upstream Linux kernels, but we also get sources from Red Hat and Citrix, among other places, to ensure that we are compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux kernels and XenServer kernels, which are companies using Linux and complying with the GPl distribution requirements. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
