!!!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nmset Jul 02, 2011 5:00 PM EDT |
Everything here is pollution : the guy, the case, the blogpost, this comment... You would be posting very often if you listen to fools, dumbs, mad people, and there are many well hidden ones !!! OK, this comment is as useless as the case and the blogpost ... |
| tuxchick Jul 02, 2011 5:10 PM EDT |
Your point is unclear, nmset, or I am having a dim sort of day-- do you think Harald Welte should not be writing about GPL violations? |
| gus3 Jul 02, 2011 6:11 PM EDT |
Or, we have a proprietary lock-in defender on our hands. |
| Fettoosh Jul 02, 2011 6:30 PM EDT |
I have the same opinion as this: http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2011-07-02-00... |
| nmset Jul 03, 2011 6:48 AM EDT |
@tuxchick I only meant that the plaintiff is making an unbelievable claim, it's just a guy that's expressing a crazy opinion and that's not worth turning the skies upside down. No sane mind would dare appropriate himself some other's work by just a declaration this way. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 03, 2011 6:54 AM EDT |
Lets Set nm Straight ... It's so nice to live an idealized, naive existence where the history of taking public domain code into a proprietary product and then denying access to the creator never happened. Ah, dream on. Why do you think Free software licenses were created? Pleasant dreams, YBT |
| Fettoosh Jul 03, 2011 11:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:any work which is derived from the open source software as conceptualized, created, installed and managed, by the Applicant becomes the ownership of the Applicant. So, if any one representing a US company makes such or similar claims, we just ignore it, don't take it seriously, and let them go on their merry way owning the copyright of any GPLed software and we don't challenge it? Are you kidding? What planet are you from? |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 11:21 AM EDT |
>we don't challenge it? Yup. "We" aren't a party to the suit and we really don't care what they say. The folks on the other side might have a thing or two to say, and maybe the EFF might care to submit an amicus curiae brief, but, seriously, it's a civil dispute between two parties. Claiming something in a court filing doesn't make it so. The real issue here has nothing to do with the GPL. It has to do with the NDA. That's the question before the court, and that's the question it will decide. Are you kidding? Not kidding at all. Why would I, even as part of some theoretical "We", care about what some yo-yo claims in a court filing? They're not going to change international copyright law. The court will decide on the merits of the case. Either the contractor violated the terms of the NDA or he didn't. Big whoop. What planet are you from? The planet that doesn't panic every time some yo-yo makes a stupid claim. |
| tuxchick Jul 03, 2011 12:24 PM EDT |
Thanks nmset, looks like I was having a dim day :) |
| Fettoosh Jul 03, 2011 12:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yup. "We" aren't a party to the suit and we really don't care what they say True we aren't part of the suit, but we (FOSS supporters, developers, FSF, LF, EFF, etc....) are better be concerned about what is said in courts. The challenge I expect is not necessarily a court challenge, but could be directed towards the party that would misinterpret the GPL or mislead another party about the GPL. Quoting:Why would I, even as part of some theoretical "We"... You or I, as individuals, wouldn't need to do anything about such things, but the organization(s) that are care takers of of the GPLor have interest a strong GPL would be interested in taking appropriate actions, otherwise, more such companies might start to belittle the GPL. I don't think this would be acceptable by some. Quoting:The planet that doesn't panic every time some yo-yo makes a stupid claim. No panic here, just making sure things don't escalate and become the norm to some. If one doesn't take own principles seriously, no one else would. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 1:33 PM EDT |
@fettoosh -- If somebody proposes to change copyright law, that's one thing. If the legality of the GPL is at issue, that's another thing. A contract dispute between a couple of people in a country with fewer people than San Antonio, TX? Not so much. |
| purplewizard Jul 03, 2011 1:55 PM EDT |
There didn't seem to be enough details of the case for me. I think sadly the claimant (plaintiff) in the case is right because 1/ They have taken something under an open source license 2/ paid a contractor to do work on it for them 3/ the contractor has released the work he's done If he's a work for hire situation the company hiring owns that copyright (to the modifications). If they (the company/claimant) are not releasing the PBX but just operating it themselves they have no obligation under most OSS licenses to release it or the changes. The contractor had no right to release the changes owned by the company. But like I began with there aren't enough details that I can be more than guessing this is the situation. In short without the context of the case it is hard to know if the statements are right in the context. |
| Fettoosh Jul 03, 2011 2:02 PM EDT |
Quoting: If the legality of the GPL is at issue, that's another thing @Dino, It is not the legality, which is backed up by the copyright laws. In my opinion, it is worse. It is the misunderstanding of the terms of the GPL license. Quoting:A contract dispute between a couple of people in a country with fewer people than San Antonio, TX? Not so much. Irrelevant what the disputes is about or the scale of the parties, it is a license and applies to all equally to all who use the software. Whether it is an individual, a small company, an enterprise, or a whole large nation, they all are, or should be treated equally. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 2:05 PM EDT |
@purple -- Based only on the information provided, that would be correct. Some details, however... They would own the copyright only to the changes made, not to the derived work and not to the work that was modified. And, of course, ownership of the copyright would depend on whether it was explicitly transferred as part of the agreement if the law in their law is like US law (and most countries are because of the Berne convention) : software is not considered a work for hire and transfer of IP rights in software must be made explicitly. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 2:07 PM EDT |
Fettosh -- Who cares if some plaintiff misunderstands the GPL? What matters (and only to the copyright holders) is whether they violate it. |
| Fettoosh Jul 03, 2011 2:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:What matters (and only to the copyright holders) is whether they violate it It is not so much the misunderstanding, it is the purpose behind the misunderstanding. Their objective is to prove to the court that they become the owners of the GPLed code just by merely modifying it, and consequently own both the Linux & Asterisk, which they falsely claim to have no copyright, along with the modifications made by the contractor. What they are citing are the terms of the BSD license but applied to Linux and Asterisk, which is illegal and in violation of the GPL since both Linux & Asterisk are covered by the GPL. It seems to be that, they are purposely confusing BSD with GPL in hope to win the case on that basis. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2011 3:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:Who cares if some plaintiff misunderstands the GPL? If they proceed to mis-represent the GPL, and then a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor is based on that mis-representation, and it goes down into case law... I certainly do care. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 3:48 PM EDT |
gus3 - It doesn't work that way. From the facts as represented, the GPL is not at issue. And... you're missing one rather important fact: Plaintiff's assertions about the GPL are not evidence. They are a pleading of the plaintiffs' claime. If anything pertaining to the GPL were to matter in the suit, the GPL itself would be consulted, not plaintiffs' second-hand claims about its meaning. My experience has been that judges know how to read. More than that, judges know how to read in the specific way the law expects contracts (and licences) to be read. |
| Fettoosh Jul 03, 2011 4:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:My experience has been that judges know how to read. More than that, judges know how to read in the specific way the law expects contracts (and licences) to be read. I can't argue with that since you are a lawyer, and I hope you are right. If the plaintiff wins the case, I am afraid I have the same concern like Gus3, it will be used as a legal precedent. |
| gus3 Jul 03, 2011 5:23 PM EDT |
@dino, the topic of the thread is precisely this kind of mis-representation. Plaintiffs[' lawyers] represented to the Supreme Court of Mauritius that the GPL denies authors their copyright. Yes, it is incumbent on the other side to present a rebuttal to such an assertion, and to present supporting evidence as necessary, but whether or not the court believes it is another matter. Side note: Assertions can be evidence, of counsel's dearth of ethics. I'm still waiting for the court to sanction BSF for their blatant lies in SCO v. Novell. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 9:01 PM EDT |
@gus -- It doesn't work that way. Assertions can, of course, be evidence, just like computers can run fuel injectors. A fuel injection computer probably isn't running WIndows and efforts to denigrate its ability to run Office would be plain silly. Likewise your concern about plaintffs' assertion. You are worrying about running Office on a fuel injector controller. Let it go, and put your brain to better use. It's a law thing, and, more to the point, it's an evidentiary rule thing, and this really is a Chicken Little story. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!