Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may
legally redistribute these works:
- In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of
the tar.gz
- In regards to GPL 3b, Dell does *NOT* provide a written offer as part of
the tar.gz
- In regards to GPL 3c, Dell does *NOT* provide information regarding an
offer to the source code as part of the tar.gz
- Lastly, Dell does *NOT* provide equivalent access to the source code
from the same ftp site
I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not
intend to provide the source code to these binary works. He explained
that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by
Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to
be open source products."
If they don't want to honor the GPL with their fixes, why do they
continue to claim to take Linux seriously and why does RedHat continue to
back them?
This is not the first time I have run into Dell trying to mislead
customers in regards to open source. Dell continues to distribute their
ESM kernel module under an "open_src" directory and a license which
redistricts use, modification and redistribution. I'm not sure how it
could ever qualify as an OSI approved license but it is clear that Dell is
trying to pass it off as such.
I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce
that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do
anything about it.
Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of
requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems
to be treating it?
Thanks
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 22:51, Fluke wrote:
> Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
> modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
>
> The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may
> legally redistribute these works:
>
> - In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of
> the tar.gz
Stop right there. Yes they do. Mount those images and you'll find boot
disks identical to the RedHat-provided ones, except that the vmlinuz
kernel image is different. The difference is produced by applying the
'serverworks.patch' file that is ALSO included right along with the disk
images.
Source and binaries, all wrapped up in one nice package. Please do your
research before accusing vendors of not following GPL. It shines a bad
light on our community.
--Josh
Joshua Penix <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 22:51, Fluke wrote:
> > Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
> > modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
> >
> > The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may
> > legally redistribute these works:
> >
> > - In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of
> > the tar.gz
>
> Stop right there. Yes they do. Mount those images and you'll find boot
> disks identical to the RedHat-provided ones, except that the vmlinuz
> kernel image is different. The difference is produced by applying the
> 'serverworks.patch' file that is ALSO included right along with the disk
> images.
AIUI, they need to supply full source, not just a patch against code
you get from someone else.
-Doug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
l?rdag 28. juni 2003, 17:05, skrev Doug McNaught:
> AIUI, they need to supply full source, not just a patch against code
> you get from someone else.
Now that's just silly.
The kernel is *how* many megabytes?
And it's very easily available. You may be right, but if you are it's for very
legalistic reasons that don't matter in real life.
Personally I'd rather download a small patch than a multi-megabyte kernel
nearly identical to the one I have in /usr/src.
- - Svein Ove Aas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+/bBN9OlFkai3rMARAno/AKCGYu9TuxujsubVZNiHuTxjeZChHACgoxpJ
UCYcGhSL9MXTui3xTTfimP8=
=58hh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Svein Ove Aas <[email protected]> writes:
> l?rdag 28. juni 2003, 17:05, skrev Doug McNaught:
> > AIUI, they need to supply full source, not just a patch against code
> > you get from someone else.
>
> Now that's just silly.
But legally required by the GPL.
> The kernel is *how* many megabytes?
> And it's very easily available. You may be right, but if you are it's for very
> legalistic reasons that don't matter in real life.
You're right that it's not likely to be a problem in this case.
-Doug
On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 17:18, Doug McNaught wrote:
> Svein Ove Aas <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > lørdag 28. juni 2003, 17:05, skrev Doug McNaught:
> > > AIUI, they need to supply full source, not just a patch against code
> > > you get from someone else.
> >
> > Now that's just silly.
>
> But legally required by the GPL.
GPL requires the "prefered form" which one can argue is a patch in this
case ;)
On Sad, 2003-06-28 at 06:51, Fluke wrote:
> Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
> modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
and a patch file of the relevant diff, which btw Dell engineers actually
did a lot of work in figuring out why the serverworks stuff was a
problem and fixing most of the bug, and sent to me.
> I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not
> intend to provide the source code to these binary works. He explained
> that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by
> Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to
> be open source products."
Dell support are a bit random and in my experience completely clueless
when faced with anything which isnt on the script. Much like most
support people.
> I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce
> that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do
> anything about it.
Firstly they are supplying the patch in question. Secondly they are
making sure people actually get it.
> Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of
> requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems
> to be treating it?
Red Hat takes all its license compliance seriously.
What Dell do is their business - they've given you the patch, and yes
you might want to have a discussion about getting the entire SRPM
package, but do it with the right bits of Dell, and with the FSF
perhaps. The FSF has no business attachments to muddy waters.
There are better people to raise these issues with than Dell support
personnel.
Alan
First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL
unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to
Dell. So get your facts first.
If there is a GPL issue with Dell and it involves my work, my lawyers will
contact Dell.
Cheers and have a good day.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Fluke wrote:
> Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
> modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
>
> The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may
> legally redistribute these works:
>
> - In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of
> the tar.gz
> - In regards to GPL 3b, Dell does *NOT* provide a written offer as part of
> the tar.gz
> - In regards to GPL 3c, Dell does *NOT* provide information regarding an
> offer to the source code as part of the tar.gz
> - Lastly, Dell does *NOT* provide equivalent access to the source code
> from the same ftp site
>
> I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not
> intend to provide the source code to these binary works. He explained
> that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by
> Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to
> be open source products."
>
> If they don't want to honor the GPL with their fixes, why do they
> continue to claim to take Linux seriously and why does RedHat continue to
> back them?
>
> This is not the first time I have run into Dell trying to mislead
> customers in regards to open source. Dell continues to distribute their
> ESM kernel module under an "open_src" directory and a license which
> redistricts use, modification and redistribution. I'm not sure how it
> could ever qualify as an OSI approved license but it is clear that Dell is
> trying to pass it off as such.
>
> I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce
> that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do
> anything about it.
>
> Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of
> requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems
> to be treating it?
>
> Thanks
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
No Silly is talking out of your acehole when you do not understand the
scope of the document and have not paid your lawyers to review and explain
the issues.
Everyone here forgets, GPL is WORTHLESS without a "REGISTERED" copyright.
You have no means for litigation in a court of law, without the registered
copyright. Additionally, if you get to court you have to prove the value
of the item in question. The general test is providing an alternative
commerial version which people have paid for in the past and today.
Without a value and proof you got ZERO, just a few facts from reality.
See it is a rubber duck document, all symbol and no life.
Later.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> l?rdag 28. juni 2003, 17:05, skrev Doug McNaught:
> > AIUI, they need to supply full source, not just a patch against code
> > you get from someone else.
>
> Now that's just silly.
>
> The kernel is *how* many megabytes?
> And it's very easily available. You may be right, but if you are it's for very
> legalistic reasons that don't matter in real life.
>
> Personally I'd rather download a small patch than a multi-megabyte kernel
> nearly identical to the one I have in /usr/src.
>
> - - Svein Ove Aas
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+/bBN9OlFkai3rMARAno/AKCGYu9TuxujsubVZNiHuTxjeZChHACgoxpJ
> UCYcGhSL9MXTui3xTTfimP8=
> =58hh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Sul, 2003-06-29 at 05:22, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Everyone here forgets, GPL is WORTHLESS without a "REGISTERED" copyright.
Wrong, thats a weird US copyright law flaw that applies only to US
citizens. The Berne convention gives everyone else rights.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
> Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL
> unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to
> Dell. So get your facts first.
Ok. Here is my facts:
- binary code resulting from the GPL work "modutils" was redistributed
without the source code or written offer of source code
- binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "knfs" was
redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code
- binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "usb-storage" was
redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code
- binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "ext2fs" was
redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code
- binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "initrd" was
redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code
- binary code resulting from ....
I fail to see how this only violates the copyright on ATA unless your
"facts" include the myth that the only source code that needs to be
provided is the portion changed. The actual wording of the GPL requires a
minimum of passing along a written offer for the *complette* source code
for all work redistributed.
I would have accepted a README that stated that they provided a patch
*and* equivalent access to the rest of the source code was available at
ftp://ftp.dell.com/... but there is no equivalent access to the complette
source code (even across multiple files) on Dell's ftp site. Since this
is non-commerical redistribution, I would have accepted a README that
stated they provide a patch *and* a pointer to RedHat's SRPM. But there
is *NO* written offer to the complette source code.
This redistribution appears to violate the license terms on more than
just ATA including my contributions, since it is more than just ATA which
is covered by the GPL and provided in binary only form without a written
offer of source code. This includes my contributions to ide-cdrom of
which I never signed copyright control over to anyone else.
And as long as we are now taken to giving flippant advice, before you
respond again you might want to "get your facts first." Or should I say
get your facts *straight* first.
Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> Everyone here forgets, GPL is WORTHLESS without a "REGISTERED" copyright.
> You have no means for litigation in a court of law, without the registered
> copyright.
Fortunately, you can register copyright at any time, even after the
infringement occurred, without any negative consequences. 8-)
>> Everyone here forgets, GPL is WORTHLESS without a "REGISTERED" copyright.
And the border of the whole universe is defined by Mexico and Canada.
> Wrong, thats a weird US copyright law flaw that applies only to US
> citizens. The Berne convention gives everyone else rights.
Indeed. Those people don't realise that their "copyright" law is different to
the almost the rest of the world. In most of Europe there in no "The
Copyright", but "authors' or moral rights" ("derechos de autor", "droit
d'auteur") and "exploitation rights" (or economic rights). Author/moral
rights cannot be jeopardized. And authors don't _have_ to register their work
to claim it's theirs or to win in court.
About registration, the copyright rule in Alan's country (Copyright, Design
and Patent Act, DCPA 1998, UK):
- Requires _no_ registration.
- Arises as soon as the work is _produced_.
- Cost _nothing_ to obtain protection.
- Lasts 70 years in EU.
--
ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34
On 28 Jun 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2003-06-28 at 06:51, Fluke wrote:
> > Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
> > modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
>
> and a patch file of the relevant diff, which btw Dell engineers actually
> did a lot of work in figuring out why the serverworks stuff was a
> problem and fixing most of the bug, and sent to me.
Yes, this situation is an improvement from modifying the Courier email
package and redistributed it in binary only form without any source code
at all. At least this time they are distributing the modification. But
neither that or doing a lot of work should be an exception to the
obligation to provide a written offer for the complette source code.
They are again violating the redistribution terms on a lot more work than
went into a single patch.
> > I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not
> > intend to provide the source code to these binary works. He explained
> > that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by
> > Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to
> > be open source products."
>
> Dell support are a bit random and in my experience completely clueless
> when faced with anything which isnt on the script. Much like most
> support people.
According to Dell's Brent Schroeder, information regarding the GPL is now
in the Dell's support knowledge base so Dell support is aware of it. So,
either Brent Schroeder or Dell support is providing misleading
information.
> > I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce
> > that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do
> > anything about it.
>
> Firstly they are supplying the patch in question. Secondly they are
> making sure people actually get it.
Yes, I'm glad they are making an effort to support their customer's needs.
Now back to the subject of supporting their obligations to the GPL: the
patch does not contain the *complette* source code to the GPL works being
redistributed and does not contain a written offer for the complette
source code.
> > Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of
> > requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems
> > to be treating it?
>
> Red Hat takes all its license compliance seriously.
Oh, come on! RedHat's Mark Webbink declaired Dell in compliance with the
GPL in Sept. 2002. Even Dell's Brent Schroeder admitted that in October
they where still shipping RH 7.2 + courier email in binary only form
without a written offer provided at the time of redistribution.
I'm not going to fall for RedHat's "compliance" by Jedi mind trick ("you
see no GPL violation") twice.
Would you like me to post Mark Webbink and Brent Schroeder's emails to
clearly show how seriously they take it when they violate the GPL?
> What Dell do is their business - they've given you the patch, and yes
> you might want to have a discussion about getting the entire SRPM
> package, but do it with the right bits of Dell, and with the FSF
> perhaps. The FSF has no business attachments to muddy waters.
I don't want the entire SRPM. If Dell want to continue to do the bare
minimum then fine. It is the on-going trend of not even doing the bare
minimum and at the same time mislead their customers by declairing
themselves to be GNU/Linux friendly that I find frustrating. The bare
minimum requirement when performing non-commerical redistribution of a GPL
work in binary only form is to pass along a written offer for the source
code. Since their website is freely accessable without charge, if they
want to include an offer for the source code from RedHat's ftp site then
great. If they want to redistribute in binary only form with no written
offer at all, then I'm upset. I don't think it is too much to ask to
provide a written offer in return for what they are getting from us.
> There are better people to raise these issues with than Dell support
> personnel.
Who? Matt Domsch? Sandra Sanders? Mark Webbink? Who should I report to
that isn't just going to sit on it for 3 or 4 months and make excuses or
declair that everything is just great?
On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 19:47, Fluke wrote:
>
> Who? Matt Domsch? Sandra Sanders? Mark Webbink?
Including Mark Webbink sounds totally useless since he doesn't work for
Dell.
Raising it on the poweredge mailinglist might be a good idea; in the
past the Dell folks there have fixed mistakes pretty fast there
Ricardo Galli wrote:
> Indeed. Those people don't realise that their "copyright" law is different to
> the almost the rest of the world.
> In most of Europe there in no "The Copyright", but "authors' or
> moral rights" ("derechos de autor", "droit d'auteur") and
> "exploitation rights" (or economic rights).
> Author/moral rights cannot be jeopardized.
Except when the work is a computer program. Check the law sometime!
I recall there is a special exception for computer programs in either
UK or EU law - I forget which, perhaps both. This exception means
that if I compose some music for a publisher, I cannot give up moral
rights to the work - which means I always have a right to be credited
as author or something like that, and nobody can take that away.
However, if I compose a computer program for a publisher, my moral
right to be credited _is_ taken away.
This _only_ applies to computer programmers. Bah!
-- Jamie
On Sunday 29 June 2003 21:50, Jamie Lokier shaped the electrons to shout:
> Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > Indeed. Those people don't realise that their "copyright" law is
> > different to the almost the rest of the world.
> >
> > In most of Europe there in no "The Copyright", but "authors' or
> > moral rights" ("derechos de autor", "droit d'auteur") and
> > "exploitation rights" (or economic rights).
> >
> > Author/moral rights cannot be jeopardized.
>
> Except when the work is a computer program. Check the law sometime!
>
> I recall there is a special exception for computer programs in either
> UK or EU law - I forget which, perhaps both. This exception means
> that if I compose some music for a publisher, I cannot give up moral
> rights to the work - which means I always have a right to be credited
> as author or something like that, and nobody can take that away.
> However, if I compose a computer program for a publisher, my moral
> right to be credited _is_ taken away.
>
> This _only_ applies to computer programmers. Bah!
IANAL, but I cant read:
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26027.htm
--------------
Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of
computer programmes.
3.1 Obligation on Member States to protect computer programmes, by copyright,
as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
...
3.3 In general, the author of a computer programme is the natural or legal
person or group of natural persons who created it. Where collective works are
recognized by the legislation of a Member State, the person considered by the
legislation of that Member State to have created the work is deemed to be its
author. In the case of a programme created by a group of natural persons, the
exclusive rights are owned jointly. Where a computer programme is created by
an employee in the execution of his duties or following the instructions
given by his employer, the employer alone will be entitled to exercise all
economic rights in the programme, unless otherwise provided for by contract.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note that it only mentions "economic rights".
--
ricardo galli GPG id C8114D34
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 08:50:03PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > Indeed. Those people don't realise that their "copyright" law is different to
> > the almost the rest of the world.
>
> > In most of Europe there in no "The Copyright", but "authors' or
> > moral rights" ("derechos de autor", "droit d'auteur") and
> > "exploitation rights" (or economic rights).
>
> > Author/moral rights cannot be jeopardized.
>
> Except when the work is a computer program. Check the law sometime!
You have mixed that with PATENT law.
Bis denn
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:58:52 +0200, Ricardo Galli said:
> exclusive rights are owned jointly. Where a computer programme is created by
> an employee in the execution of his duties or following the instructions
> given by his employer, the employer alone will be entitled to exercise all
> economic rights in the programme, unless otherwise provided for by contract.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is no different than the US concept of "work for hire" -except under US
law, essentially everything done for the employer (software, white papers,
music, graphic design, etc) is covered by "work for hire".
Ricardo Galli wrote:
> 3.3 In general, the author of a computer programme is the natural or
> legal person or group of natural persons who created it. Where
> collective works are recognized by the legislation of a Member
> State, the person considered by the legislation of that Member State
> to have created the work is deemed to be its author. In the case of
> a programme created by a group of natural persons, the exclusive
> rights are owned jointly. Where a computer programme is created by
> an employee in the execution of his duties or following the
> instructions given by his employer, the employer alone will be
> entitled to exercise all economic rights in the programme, unless
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> otherwise provided for by contract.
>
> Note that it only mentions "economic rights".
I was thinking of UK law. Excerpts from the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988:
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:--
...
Chapter IV
Moral Rights
Right to be identified as author or director
...
Section 79: Exceptions to right.
79.--(1) The right conferred by section 77 (right to be
identified as author or director) is subject to the
following exceptions.
(2) The right does not apply in relation to the following
descriptions work of--
(a) a computer program;
(b) the design of a typeface;
(c) any computer-generated work.
...
Right to object to derogatory treatment of work
...
Section 81: Exceptions to right.
81.--(1) The right conferred by section 80 (right to object to
derogatory treatment of work) is subject to the following
exceptions.
(2) The right does not apply to a computer program or to any
computer-generated work.
...
Moral rights
Section 94: Moral rights not assignable.
94. The rights conferred by Chapter IV (moral rights) are not
assignable.
So, in the UK, you lose some (non-transferable) moral rights by virtue
of it being a computer program, but not all moral rights. In
particular you don't have the moral right to be identified as author
or director of the work, or the right to object to derogatory
treatment of the work.
-- Jamie
On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 21:50, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> I recall there is a special exception for computer programs in either
> UK or EU law - I forget which, perhaps both. This exception means
Probably only UK (if any).
> that if I compose some music for a publisher, I cannot give up moral
> rights to the work - which means I always have a right to be credited
> as author or something like that, and nobody can take that away.
> However, if I compose a computer program for a publisher, my moral
> right to be credited _is_ taken away.
At least in Austria (and Germany, which has quite similar law in this
part) this is called "Urheberrecht" (one cannot translate it since it is
fundamentally different from what other call copyright)
And no, there is no way of getting rid of the "Urheberrecht" -
independent of if you want or not. All you can do is cease the right of
use your works _but not more_.
Ans this applies to allwritten or otherwise created works, be it natural
languages or artificial ones.
Actually that's the most problematic part of "porting the GPL to the
rest of the world".
> This _only_ applies to computer programmers. Bah!
No, there is no difference - in that field - between computer programs
written in C (or perl or whatever) and poems written in German (or
Esperanto or whatever).
Bernd
> So, in the UK, you lose some (non-transferable) moral rights by virtue
> of it being a computer program, but not all moral rights. In
> particular you don't have the moral right to be identified as author
> or director of the work, or the right to object to derogatory
> treatment of the work.
Now go back and read the URL Richard posted:
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26027.htm
particularly (7). Next, you need to find out what happened when this
later piece of law got passed through parliament:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923233_en_5.htm
Note that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 seems to have
been ammended.
--
Russell King ([email protected]) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
Russell King wrote:
> > So, in the UK, you lose some (non-transferable) moral rights by virtue
> > of it being a computer program, but not all moral rights. In
> > particular you don't have the moral right to be identified as author
> > or director of the work, or the right to object to derogatory
> > treatment of the work.
>
> Now go back and read the URL Richard posted:
>
> http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26027.htm
>
> particularly (7).
This says nothing about moral rights.
> Next, you need to find out what happened when this later piece of
> law got passed through parliament:
>
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923233_en_5.htm
>
> Note that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 seems to have
> been ammended.
The sections I quoted about moral rights are from the amended Act:
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm
-- Jamie
> First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.
> Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL
> unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to
> Dell.
False. He downloaded the object file from Dell's web site, so Dell
distributed it to him. This entitles him to the source code.
> So get your facts first.
Facts?
> If there is a GPL issue with Dell and it involves my work, my lawyers will
> contact Dell.
Glad to hear it.
DS
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:45:35 -0700
>From: David Schwartz <[email protected]>
>To: Andre Hedrick <[email protected]>, Fluke <[email protected]>
>Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
>Subject: RE: Dell vs. GPL
>
>
>> First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
>> You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
>
> False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.
>
As I understood it, only the copyright holder of the code could pursue GPL
violations. I believe the FSF will give help to anyone who wishes to
pursue such action for 'the little guys' out there.
>> Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL
>> unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to
>> Dell.
>
> False. He downloaded the object file from Dell's web site, so Dell
>distributed it to him. This entitles him to the source code.
>
Did anyone ever ask for the source code ? Vendors don't have to make it
available unless you ask if I recall correctly, if this os truly GPL I'm
sure they'll cough up if you want it.
Cheers,
Al
Where is Dell's Head Quarters?
Please goto your local justice and get a UK ruling for a US Corporation.
What gives you the right to pursue in court GPL for materials you do not
have copyright ownership? I use this loose in this case because you now
have copyright context in the material in question.
Third party defense will be laughed out of court.
I know first hand that I can not take "RAIDZONE" to court yet to sue for
GPL violation to get the code back into the community and monetary
damages, until I fully file a registered copyright and not the halfassed
crap of just sticking you name and email address in a file.
I am in the process of getting the formal registered copyright.
I will take GPL to court and will not settle out of court.
GPL will live or die in this case, I do not give a damn which way it
falls.
GPL wins great.
GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then it gets
serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas of open source.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On 29 Jun 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2003-06-29 at 05:22, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > Everyone here forgets, GPL is WORTHLESS without a "REGISTERED" copyright.
>
> Wrong, thats a weird US copyright law flaw that applies only to US
> citizens. The Berne convention gives everyone else rights.
>
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> >Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:45:35 -0700
> >From: David Schwartz <[email protected]>
> >To: Andre Hedrick <[email protected]>, Fluke <[email protected]>
> >Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> >Subject: RE: Dell vs. GPL
> >
> >
> >> First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> >> You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
> >
> > False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.
> >
>
> As I understood it, only the copyright holder of the code could pursue GPL
> violations. I believe the FSF will give help to anyone who wishes to
> pursue such action for 'the little guys' out there.
BAWHAHAHAHA
Only if you assign copyright to FSF and they control you works, correction
"their works" now.
Been there, got burned and no tshirt.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
"entitles", again take that to court as the third party.
Hell I can not get back my sources from companies and I own copyright.
Oh and it usually takes a letter of discovery, and time for them to wash
the materials away. I have one advantage over the rest, I can do media
forensics and recover erased data and materials.
I am finding out just how impossible it is to enforce GPL, because we all
believe in the idea and concept but execution to maintain its existance is
not easy nor are the processes simple. If Dell has a reason to exploit
GPL and can defend it for a while to gain a market edge they are fools not
to do so. Time to Market is the key, and there is no means to date for
the maintainers of today and yesterday to receive compensation for such
violations. Obviously when money is involved
people/organizations/corporations tend to do wacky things and then
apologize later.
So please list for me all the briefs, rulings, filings where GPL has set a
legal position to make hold its claim to promote and FORCE openness.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> > You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
>
> False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.
>
> > Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL
> > unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to
> > Dell.
>
> False. He downloaded the object file from Dell's web site, so Dell
> distributed it to him. This entitles him to the source code.
>
> > So get your facts first.
>
> Facts?
>
> > If there is a GPL issue with Dell and it involves my work, my lawyers will
> > contact Dell.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> DS
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> >> First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> >> You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.
> > False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.
> As I understood it, only the copyright holder of the code could pursue GPL
> violations. I believe the FSF will give help to anyone who wishes to
> pursue such action for 'the little guys' out there.
There could be some unusual quirk of the law that I'm not aware of. But it
would be unbelievably unusual if you could be a named third-party
beneficiary of a contract that specifically stated that you were entitled to
something and yet you still couldn't sue to enforce that entitlement.
There are sections of the GPL that specifically state that those who
receive copies of covered works are intended beneficiaries. Like this
section:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights."
It is quote clear that this entitlement is specifically intended to benefit
the recipients and not to benefit the copyright holder.
DS
Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> I know first hand that I can not take "RAIDZONE" to court yet to sue for
> GPL violation to get the code back into the community and monetary
> damages, until I fully file a registered copyright and not the halfassed
> crap of just sticking you name and email address in a file.
>
> GPL wins great.
> GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then it gets
> serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas of open source.
Even if you are right about the need to register (I have no idea, though
everyone else seems to say otherwise), this seems like a bizarre
conclusion. If the problem is the lack of proper copyright
registration, how would changing the license make the least bit of
difference?
-Miles
--
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
>BAWHAHAHAHA
>
>Only if you assign copyright to FSF and they control you works, correction
>"their works" now.
>
>Been there, got burned and no tshirt.
>
>
>Andre Hedrick
>LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
>
Well, I couldn't possibly comment on that, but my original point stands;
that pursuit of GPL violation must be pursued by the copyright _holder_,
unless they assign that copyright to subsequent third-party beneficiaries.
which technically I don't think they do, they merely grant a right to make
copies in perpetuity, subject to the conditions of the GPL (or something
like that)
right ?
Everyone else general talks out of their hat and not from a truly informed
position. I will qualify the statement, having paid for legal advise from
lawyers who specialize in the field of technology, copyright, and patent
law.
When they tell you they will not open a case on your behalf until a
registered copyright is in hand, that point real hard.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On 30 Jun 2003, Miles Bader wrote:
> Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> > I know first hand that I can not take "RAIDZONE" to court yet to sue for
> > GPL violation to get the code back into the community and monetary
> > damages, until I fully file a registered copyright and not the halfassed
> > crap of just sticking you name and email address in a file.
> >
> > GPL wins great.
> > GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then it gets
> > serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas of open source.
>
> Even if you are right about the need to register (I have no idea, though
> everyone else seems to say otherwise), this seems like a bizarre
> conclusion. If the problem is the lack of proper copyright
> registration, how would changing the license make the least bit of
> difference?
>
> -Miles
> --
> `...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
> that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
> less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]
>
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> There are sections of the GPL that specifically state that those who
>receive copies of covered works are intended beneficiaries. Like this
>section:
>
>"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
>you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
>source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
>rights."
>
> It is quote clear that this entitlement is specifically intended to benefit
>the recipients and not to benefit the copyright holder.
I interpret this to mean 'distribute a copy of the GPL with all
distributions of the source code, and make sure that it's followed', kind
of a recursive inheritance thing...
I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)
I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation?
They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.
Or am I missing something here ?
(not being argumentative here by the way, this is really interesting
discussion)
Cheers,
Al
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 07:57, [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
> I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
> the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)
From what I gathered, people were irritated because Dell only supplied a
patch of what modifications they had made, against a known RedHat
kernel.
IANAL, but I think they have matched what the GPL required them to by
doing so. There is a relatively easy way to recreate exactly what they
did. A correctly worded request to the right place inside Dell should
perhaps even yield the SPM they used.
> I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation?
> They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
> only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.
It was not clear, but it appeared that the source was not asked for.
There was a whole lot of complaining that it wasn't distributed without
being asked for though.
> Or am I missing something here ?
>
> (not being argumentative here by the way, this is really interesting
> discussion)
It is interesting, but it would be nice to have a professional legal
opinion on the matter.
/A
> I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
> the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)
> I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation?
> They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
> only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.
> Or am I missing something here ?
Where in the GPL does it say what you are claiming it says? My copy of the
GPL says:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Now, since we're talking about commercial distribution, 'c' doesn't apply.
Since you can't accompany a web download with a written offer, 'b' doesn't
apply. That leaves only option 'a'. Perhaps your understanding of the word
'accompany' is different from mine, but as I understand it, if something is
accompanied by something else, they travel together.
DS
> Well, I couldn't possibly comment on that, but my original point stands;
> that pursuit of GPL violation must be pursued by the copyright _holder_,
> unless they assign that copyright to subsequent third-party beneficiaries.
> which technically I don't think they do, they merely grant a right to make
> copies in perpetuity, subject to the conditions of the GPL (or something
> like that)
>
> right ?
If you phrase it as a pursuit of a license violation, yes. But that's not
what the suit would look like. You wouldn't be accusing them of violating
your copyright rights, you'd simply be accusing them of withholding from you
a benefit that was secured for you in a contract. That the contract involved
copyright rights is not important because you're not pursuing the copyright
rights.
In other words, you're not accusing them of a copyright violation, you're
accusing them of a contract violation. Specifically, they entered into a
contract (which named you as an intended beneficiary), took what the
contract offered them but failed to provide you the benefit the contract
secured you.
If I sell you my car, but the contract stipulates that you must let my
grandmother drive on the first Saturday of the month, and you don't let her
do that, she can sue you. She wouldn't be arguing that you stole the car or
defrauded me in the sale. She'd simply argue that you received valuable
compensation in exchange for a benefit you were to provide to her, and that
you failed to provide her that benefit, and thus you're liable for her
damages or must provide the benefit.
DS
Do not confuse contract and right to use license, they are legally
different. There is no contract law in GPL.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Well, I couldn't possibly comment on that, but my original point stands;
> > that pursuit of GPL violation must be pursued by the copyright _holder_,
> > unless they assign that copyright to subsequent third-party beneficiaries.
> > which technically I don't think they do, they merely grant a right to make
> > copies in perpetuity, subject to the conditions of the GPL (or something
> > like that)
> >
> > right ?
>
> If you phrase it as a pursuit of a license violation, yes. But that's not
> what the suit would look like. You wouldn't be accusing them of violating
> your copyright rights, you'd simply be accusing them of withholding from you
> a benefit that was secured for you in a contract. That the contract involved
> copyright rights is not important because you're not pursuing the copyright
> rights.
>
> In other words, you're not accusing them of a copyright violation, you're
> accusing them of a contract violation. Specifically, they entered into a
> contract (which named you as an intended beneficiary), took what the
> contract offered them but failed to provide you the benefit the contract
> secured you.
>
> If I sell you my car, but the contract stipulates that you must let my
> grandmother drive on the first Saturday of the month, and you don't let her
> do that, she can sue you. She wouldn't be arguing that you stole the car or
> defrauded me in the sale. She'd simply argue that you received valuable
> compensation in exchange for a benefit you were to provide to her, and that
> you failed to provide her that benefit, and thus you're liable for her
> damages or must provide the benefit.
>
> DS
>
> Do not confuse contract and right to use license, they are legally
> different. There is no contract law in GPL.
The terms 'contract' and 'license' are interchangeable. The GPL is a
contract that gives you a right to use certain copryighted works in a way
you wouldn't otherwise have in exchange for certain compensation. The terms
of the license act like a contract and can even grant rights not recognized
under copyright law itself. See, for example, Bowers v. Baystate and ProCD
Inc v. Zeidenberg.
Note that things may be very different outside the U.S.
DS
>
>
> > I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
> > the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)
<snip>
> GPL says:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
If you can supply source on a floppy, or CDROM, or DVD, in a different
form than the binary (which may be in a flash ROM, ...), then clearly
it doesn't have to be in the same form as the Program.
The URL of a website is a medium customarily used for software interchange.
> If you can supply source on a floppy, or CDROM, or DVD, in a different
> form than the binary (which may be in a flash ROM, ...), then clearly
> it doesn't have to be in the same form as the Program.
> The URL of a website is a medium customarily used for software
> interchange.
I think that offering a link to the source code every place one puts a link
to the object code would certainly be considered 'accompanying' the source
with the object. If they're in substantially the same place and accessed by
substantially the same procedure, I think they're accompanying each other.
Do I really want to be forced to download the linux kernel source just to
download a boot disk image?
DS
Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
> When they tell you they will not open a case on your behalf until a
> registered copyright is in hand, that point real hard.
Ok whatever, but what I don't understand is your comment that:
> GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then it gets
> serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas of open source.
The `copyright registration' requirements, whatever they are, would
seem to apply equally to the GPL and whatever other `OSL' you have, so
why on earth would some court loss related to copyright registration
have any effect on what license people choose?
-miles
--
Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:56:07 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> When they tell you they will not open a case on your behalf until a
> registered copyright is in hand, that point real hard.
The part you're missing here is the part where the offending vendor ends up
Doing The Right Thing, either because they've become enlightened or just
because they realize compliance is easier/cheaper than a lawsuit.
Remember *WHY* the GPL is still untested in court - things rarely progress that
far.
David Schwartz wrote:
> Do I really want to be forced to download the linux kernel source just to
> download a boot disk image?
You don't have to download the source. You are entitled to download
it _if you want to_.
-- Jamie
There is a lot riding on untested, and you assume the vendors of today
whom have gotten away with ripping off GPL since the beginning have any
fear. The very additude of don't go there gives them all the firepower
they need to never do the right thing unless ordered and fined.
Treat the GPL license as the Kernel, you trust what you have tested.
I have ZERO trust in GPL, given all the violations I personally know about
and have seen. All of these are still blocked from revealing until NDA's
expire.
These people need to pay the stupid tax now and not get a free ride any
longer.
Not you or anybody will stop me from taking GPL to court.
Win, Lose, or Draw -- I will find the line.
I do not give a damn period, what are you going to do now?
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:56:07 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
>
> > When they tell you they will not open a case on your behalf until a
> > registered copyright is in hand, that point real hard.
>
> The part you're missing here is the part where the offending vendor ends up
> Doing The Right Thing, either because they've become enlightened or just
> because they realize compliance is easier/cheaper than a lawsuit.
>
> Remember *WHY* the GPL is still untested in court - things rarely progress that
> far.
>
>
On Llu, 2003-06-30 at 05:07, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Where is Dell's Head Quarters?
> Please goto your local justice and get a UK ruling for a US Corporation.
> What gives you the right to pursue in court GPL for materials you do not
> have copyright ownership? I use this loose in this case because you now
> have copyright context in the material in question.
I don't need to. The US as a berne signatory allows non US citizens to
enforce copyright (regardless of US registration). Its one of the funny
cases where US citizens have less rights in their own country than
foreigners in some ways
Besides which if I wanted to sue Dell (and I don't) I'd do it in the UK,
our lawyers are cheaper 8)
Dell is not the issue, we both know Dell trys to do the right thing.
My issues are with all the other meatballs out there.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On 30 Jun 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2003-06-30 at 05:07, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > Where is Dell's Head Quarters?
> > Please goto your local justice and get a UK ruling for a US Corporation.
> > What gives you the right to pursue in court GPL for materials you do not
> > have copyright ownership? I use this loose in this case because you now
> > have copyright context in the material in question.
>
> I don't need to. The US as a berne signatory allows non US citizens to
> enforce copyright (regardless of US registration). Its one of the funny
> cases where US citizens have less rights in their own country than
> foreigners in some ways
>
> Besides which if I wanted to sue Dell (and I don't) I'd do it in the UK,
> our lawyers are cheaper 8)
>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:54:33 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> Treat the GPL license as the Kernel, you trust what you have tested.
> I have ZERO trust in GPL, given all the violations I personally know about
> and have seen. All of these are still blocked from revealing until NDA's
> expire.
I find it difficult to believe that the terms of the NDA actually prohibit you
from revealing illegal activity.
Try leaving the ivory towers of academics for the real world.
I did and it was a rude slap in the face. Most academics don't get the
real world of business, they can teach it but generally can not do it.
If they could do it, they would not be in academics. Except for the few
cases of people who just get off on teaching and that is wonderful.
Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:54:33 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
>
> > Treat the GPL license as the Kernel, you trust what you have tested.
> > I have ZERO trust in GPL, given all the violations I personally know about
> > and have seen. All of these are still blocked from revealing until NDA's
> > expire.
>
> I find it difficult to believe that the terms of the NDA actually prohibit you
> from revealing illegal activity.
>
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
> comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
most likely you never needed to violate a NDA in favor of the legal truth,
but be assured: nobody can force you to obey a contract which will make you
lie or keep illegal methods secret. Actually most often, you can be held
liable for knowning about it.
And this is totally unrlated to NDAs in academics vs. NDAs in commercial
business.
Greetings
Bernd
--
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:28:15 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> Try leaving the ivory towers of academics for the real world.
> I did and it was a rude slap in the face. Most academics don't get the
> real world of business, they can teach it but generally can not do it.
> If they could do it, they would not be in academics. Except for the few
> cases of people who just get off on teaching and that is wonderful.
> Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
> comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
Well.. I prefer to think of it as working at a large corporate data center with
a 10,000 square foot server room that provides central computing services for a
$400M/year organization that just happens to be in the business sector of
"higher education".
And does your NDA *REALLY* say "Thou shalt not go to the cops if
you find out about illegal activity"?
Now you are being silly, and I have to stop because your lack of
seriousness.
You can not talk about what you see or hear.
What is not clear?
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:28:15 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> > Try leaving the ivory towers of academics for the real world.
> > I did and it was a rude slap in the face. Most academics don't get the
> > real world of business, they can teach it but generally can not do it.
> > If they could do it, they would not be in academics. Except for the few
> > cases of people who just get off on teaching and that is wonderful.
> > Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
> > comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
>
> Well.. I prefer to think of it as working at a large corporate data center with
> a 10,000 square foot server room that provides central computing services for a
> $400M/year organization that just happens to be in the business sector of
> "higher education".
>
> And does your NDA *REALLY* say "Thou shalt not go to the cops if
> you find out about illegal activity"?
>
>
>
>
The best solution is to forget what you see and know, is how the game is
played. When things are sent to me outside of the scope of NDA's and they
effect my contributions is where I can free move.
Anything under NDA stays there regardless.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> > Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
> > comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
>
> most likely you never needed to violate a NDA in favor of the legal truth,
> but be assured: nobody can force you to obey a contract which will make you
> lie or keep illegal methods secret. Actually most often, you can be held
> liable for knowning about it.
>
> And this is totally unrlated to NDAs in academics vs. NDAs in commercial
> business.
>
> Greetings
> Bernd
> --
> eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
> Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 16:43, [email protected] wrote:
> Well.. I prefer to think of it as working at a large corporate data center with
> a 10,000 square foot server room that provides central computing services for a
> $400M/year organization that just happens to be in the business sector of
> "higher education".
>
> And does your NDA *REALLY* say "Thou shalt not go to the cops if
> you find out about illegal activity"?
>
I do not know about Mr. Hedrick's specifics, but in NDA's involved in
settlement negotiations there are often non-disclosure clauses that are
at least in effect until settlement is reached, and some times beyond.
I have also had to sign contracts that require I do not disclose
anything I learn on the job, except to law enforcement personnel.
Andre's situation may be like this. Sure, he can report it, but he
can't talk about it to anyone else!
Trever
--
First Law of System Requirements: "Anything is possible if you don't
know what you're talking about..." -- Unknown
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:44:29 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
>
> Now you are being silly, and I have to stop because your lack of
> seriousness.
>
> You can not talk about what you see or hear.
>
> What is not clear?
It's a general rule that clauses in a contract (which an NDA is) are null and
unenforcable if they compel you to do something illegal. In addition, clauses
can be held unenforcable if they are "unconscionable", i.e. if they compel you
to do something totally out of line and unreasonable. This is why almost all
contracts have a separability clause.
"Thou shalt not tell the ingredients of the secret sauce" is enforcable.
"Thou shalt not tell others that the secret sauce contains high levels of
dangerous carcinogens" is unconscionable.
Also, note that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides a lot of protection for
whistleblowers: http://www.workindex.com/editorial/expert/expview.asp
on top of the usual legal havens.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:55:56 -0400, "Trever L. Adams" said:
> I have also had to sign contracts that require I do not disclose
> anything I learn on the job, except to law enforcement personnel.
> Andre's situation may be like this. Sure, he can report it, but he
> can't talk about it to anyone else!
See? That's my point exactly - you *weren't* prohibited from reporting illegal
activity.
Stop, go away, you do not get the real world.
Sorry.
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:44:29 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> >
> > Now you are being silly, and I have to stop because your lack of
> > seriousness.
> >
> > You can not talk about what you see or hear.
> >
> > What is not clear?
>
> It's a general rule that clauses in a contract (which an NDA is) are null and
> unenforcable if they compel you to do something illegal. In addition, clauses
> can be held unenforcable if they are "unconscionable", i.e. if they compel you
> to do something totally out of line and unreasonable. This is why almost all
> contracts have a separability clause.
>
> "Thou shalt not tell the ingredients of the secret sauce" is enforcable.
> "Thou shalt not tell others that the secret sauce contains high levels of
> dangerous carcinogens" is unconscionable.
>
> Also, note that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides a lot of protection for
> whistleblowers: http://www.workindex.com/editorial/expert/expview.asp
> on top of the usual legal havens.
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:55:56 -0400, "Trever L. Adams" said:
> > I have also had to sign contracts that require I do not disclose
> > anything I learn on the job, except to law enforcement personnel.
> > Andre's situation may be like this. Sure, he can report it, but he
> > can't talk about it to anyone else!
>
> See? That's my point exactly - you *weren't* prohibited from reporting illegal
> activity.
>
>
On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 09:42:10PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > 3.3 In general, the author of a computer programme is the natural or
> > legal person or group of natural persons who created it. Where
> > collective works are recognized by the legislation of a Member
> > State, the person considered by the legislation of that Member State
> > to have created the work is deemed to be its author. In the case of
> > a programme created by a group of natural persons, the exclusive
> > rights are owned jointly. Where a computer programme is created by
> > an employee in the execution of his duties or following the
> > instructions given by his employer, the employer alone will be
> > entitled to exercise all economic rights in the programme, unless
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > otherwise provided for by contract.
> >
> > Note that it only mentions "economic rights".
>
> I was thinking of UK law. Excerpts from the Copyright, Designs and
> Patents Act 1988:
Laws passed by the EU stands over the national laws, hence the citizens
can always appeal, and have the national laws declared void. This has
happened a few times already in other areas, afaik.
[snip]
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
In the US, you cannot be made complicit by such an instrument. If you sign
an NDA, and your boss murders someone and this murder is, strictly speaking,
covered by the NDA, you're still guilty of being an accessory if you don't
report it. It's one of those little annoying differences between civil and
criminal law...
--
/"\ / For information and quotes, email us at
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / [email protected]
X AGAINST HTML MAIL / http://www.lrsehosting.com/
/ \ AND POSTINGS / [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Andre Hedrick
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL
Now you are being silly, and I have to stop because your lack of
seriousness.
You can not talk about what you see or hear.
What is not clear?
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:28:15 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> > Try leaving the ivory towers of academics for the real world.
> > I did and it was a rude slap in the face. Most academics don't get the
> > real world of business, they can teach it but generally can not do it.
> > If they could do it, they would not be in academics. Except for the few
> > cases of people who just get off on teaching and that is wonderful.
> > Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
> > comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
>
> Well.. I prefer to think of it as working at a large corporate data center
with
> a 10,000 square foot server room that provides central computing services
for a
> $400M/year organization that just happens to be in the business sector of
> "higher education".
>
> And does your NDA *REALLY* say "Thou shalt not go to the cops if
> you find out about illegal activity"?
>
>
>
>
Vald,
You have a strong grasp of the obvious, but you missed one major point.
I am an independent consultant and contractor, does that help with a
cluebat? Nobody got killed or murdered, you too rank up there in the
class if silliness.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> In the US, you cannot be made complicit by such an instrument. If you sign
> an NDA, and your boss murders someone and this murder is, strictly speaking,
> covered by the NDA, you're still guilty of being an accessory if you don't
> report it. It's one of those little annoying differences between civil and
> criminal law...
>
> --
>
> /"\ / For information and quotes, email us at
> \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / [email protected]
> X AGAINST HTML MAIL / http://www.lrsehosting.com/
> / \ AND POSTINGS / [email protected]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Andre Hedrick
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL
>
>
>
> Now you are being silly, and I have to stop because your lack of
> seriousness.
>
> You can not talk about what you see or hear.
>
> What is not clear?
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:28:15 PDT, Andre Hedrick said:
> > > Try leaving the ivory towers of academics for the real world.
> > > I did and it was a rude slap in the face. Most academics don't get the
> > > real world of business, they can teach it but generally can not do it.
> > > If they could do it, they would not be in academics. Except for the few
> > > cases of people who just get off on teaching and that is wonderful.
> > > Maybe you are different, and do not fit under the brush. However your
> > > comments about NDA's leaves me little faith in your knowledge base.
> >
> > Well.. I prefer to think of it as working at a large corporate data center
> with
> > a 10,000 square foot server room that provides central computing services
> for a
> > $400M/year organization that just happens to be in the business sector of
> > "higher education".
> >
> > And does your NDA *REALLY* say "Thou shalt not go to the cops if
> > you find out about illegal activity"?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 21:48, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> The best solution is to forget what you see and know, is how the game is
> played. When things are sent to me outside of the scope of NDA's and they
> effect my contributions is where I can free move.
>
> Anything under NDA stays there regardless.
Andre,
I can see where you are coming from on this, but nevertheless, the NDA
is not enforcable if illegal activities are taking place. Ask your legal
council and they should be able to confirm this. If what you are fearing
is economical retaliation from the companies that made you sign an NDA
to ensure your silence, the legal system of US should protect you from
that.
All I can say, if US law require you to cover up illegal/criminal
activity because you signed an NDA, get the f*ck out of US jurisdiction
as fast as you can.
I am living in the UK at the moment, and I can not thoroughly recommend
that as an alternative to living in the US. There are countries with
better legal systems in the EU than what UK has.
Just my two pennies worth.
/A
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:53:45AM +0100, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 21:48, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > The best solution is to forget what you see and know, is how the game is
> > played. When things are sent to me outside of the scope of NDA's and they
> > effect my contributions is where I can free move.
> >
> > Anything under NDA stays there regardless.
>
> Andre,
>
> I can see where you are coming from on this, but nevertheless, the NDA
> is not enforcable if illegal activities are taking place. Ask your legal
> council and they should be able to confirm this. If what you are fearing
> is economical retaliation from the companies that made you sign an NDA
> to ensure your silence, the legal system of US should protect you from
> that.
>
> All I can say, if US law require you to cover up illegal/criminal
> activity because you signed an NDA, get the f*ck out of US jurisdiction
> as fast as you can.
What Andre has neglected to state outright is that violating
a licence AGREEMENT is not a crime. It does not fall under
the jurisdiction of criminal law. It is a matter of
contract law. If you contend copyright violation, then you
may have a claim although that is largely handled as a tort
under civil, not criminal, jurisprudence.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
JW,
You just took away all the fun to show people what they do not know and
how most people talk out their hat.
Cheers!
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, jw schultz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 06:53:45AM +0100, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 21:48, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > > The best solution is to forget what you see and know, is how the game is
> > > played. When things are sent to me outside of the scope of NDA's and they
> > > effect my contributions is where I can free move.
> > >
> > > Anything under NDA stays there regardless.
> >
> > Andre,
> >
> > I can see where you are coming from on this, but nevertheless, the NDA
> > is not enforcable if illegal activities are taking place. Ask your legal
> > council and they should be able to confirm this. If what you are fearing
> > is economical retaliation from the companies that made you sign an NDA
> > to ensure your silence, the legal system of US should protect you from
> > that.
> >
> > All I can say, if US law require you to cover up illegal/criminal
> > activity because you signed an NDA, get the f*ck out of US jurisdiction
> > as fast as you can.
>
> What Andre has neglected to state outright is that violating
> a licence AGREEMENT is not a crime. It does not fall under
> the jurisdiction of criminal law. It is a matter of
> contract law. If you contend copyright violation, then you
> may have a claim although that is largely handled as a tort
> under civil, not criminal, jurisprudence.
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________
> J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
> email address: [email protected]
>
> Remember Cernan and Schmitt
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]> writes:
>most likely you never needed to violate a NDA in favor of the legal truth,
>but be assured: nobody can force you to obey a contract which will make you
>lie or keep illegal methods secret. Actually most often, you can be held
>liable for knowning about it.
... in Germany. In the U.S., a court might let you get away with the
NDA breach, but after that, you get sued for damages by your former
employers. And even if you come off clean, you're broke after some
years of paying laywers so that your case isn't dropped off the court.
Regards
Henning
You might want to watch some Ally McBeal to get the basic idea... ;-)
Unfortunately, in real life, you almost surely won't get SFL to defend
you... SCNR. (ducks, runs).
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[email protected] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
--- Quote of the week: "It is pointless to tell people anything when
you know that they won't process the message." --- Jonathan Revusky
Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
>Now you are being silly, and I have to stop because your lack of
>seriousness.
>You can not talk about what you see or hear.
>What is not clear?
Well, in Germany this would be illegal. The term is "sittenwidrig".
You could even get sued if you _know_ about a crime being committed
and do not tell the police.
However, there is also "Verh?ltnism??igkeit" and I'd think that
breaking an NDA because "uh, they're ripping off some non profit
organization that gives out their sources for free and don't put their
modifications back in the open" don't exactly qualify as a
court-relevant fact.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[email protected] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
--- Quote of the week: "It is pointless to tell people anything when
you know that they won't process the message." --- Jonathan Revusky
Anders Karlsson <[email protected]> writes:
>to ensure your silence, the legal system of US should protect you from
>that.
No. If there are, say, five companies in the market that might hire you
for top $$$ and in the course of one of these contracts, you break
an NDA for all the good reasons and even get away with it, the others will
never ever again touch you with a polestick. So this is economic retaliation
without even having to go to court. You can't force them to hire you.
Keeping your mouth shut even if you know something that is not legal?
Not nice, but normal. Immoral? Yes. But understandably if you have
mouth to feed and mortgages to pay.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[email protected] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
--- Quote of the week: "It is pointless to tell people anything when
you know that they won't process the message." --- Jonathan Revusky
Just for the record, US law does not work that way. No civil contract can
force you to do something illegal as Andre suggests. He's just flat wrong
about this.
--
/"\ / For information and quotes, email us at
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / [email protected]
X AGAINST HTML MAIL / http://www.lrsehosting.com/
/ \ AND POSTINGS / [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Anders Karlsson
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:54 AM
To: Andre Hedrick
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 21:48, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> The best solution is to forget what you see and know, is how the game is
> played. When things are sent to me outside of the scope of NDA's and they
> effect my contributions is where I can free move.
>
> Anything under NDA stays there regardless.
Andre,
I can see where you are coming from on this, but nevertheless, the NDA
is not enforcable if illegal activities are taking place. Ask your legal
council and they should be able to confirm this. If what you are fearing
is economical retaliation from the companies that made you sign an NDA
to ensure your silence, the legal system of US should protect you from
that.
All I can say, if US law require you to cover up illegal/criminal
activity because you signed an NDA, get the f*ck out of US jurisdiction
as fast as you can.
I am living in the UK at the moment, and I can not thoroughly recommend
that as an alternative to living in the US. There are countries with
better legal systems in the EU than what UK has.
Just my two pennies worth.
/A
> What Andre has neglected to state outright is that violating
> a licence AGREEMENT is not a crime. It does not fall under
> the jurisdiction of criminal law. It is a matter of
> contract law. If you contend copyright violation, then you
> may have a claim although that is largely handled as a tort
> under civil, not criminal, jurisprudence.
I have been wondering when someone would actually bother to explain it
in such detail. I don't know why I didn't bother to make that clear as
part of some of the crap I said about NDAs myself... probably just lazy.
Trever
--
"We want a few mad people now. See where the sane ones have landed us!"
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
[email protected] wrote:
> Just for the record, US law does not work that way. No civil contract can
> force you to do something illegal as Andre suggests. He's just flat wrong
> about this.
Thanks.
This entire thread is filled with misinformation; I've been trying to
restrain myself from correcting people who obviously have more opinion
than fact in hand.
For those who wish to understand copyright in the United States (and
learn that registration is *not* required), I suggest visiting:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 12:05, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> This entire thread is filled with misinformation; I've been trying to
> restrain myself from correcting people who obviously have more opinion
> than fact in hand.
>
> For those who wish to understand copyright in the United States (and
> learn that registration is *not* required), I suggest visiting:
>
> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
Correct, registration is not required. But there are certain
enforcements you will NEVER get if you don't. Not only that, but
registering does make it easier to enforce.
Trever
--
"I'm politically incorrect and damn proud of it. I love my country, but
I'm scared to death of it's government." -- Blackie Lawless
Correct and if you wish to pursue monetary damages beyond legal costs, you
have to follow the rules.
The misinformation is a result of people assuming while under NDA, I did
nothing to help these companies come clean and get onboard. The real
humor in the thread is the contempt and total mistrust people put on
others. Yeah I could have stopped the entertainment earlier, but why.
Any NDA I have is with companies who are clean or are in the process of
dotting the i's and crossing the t's to be squeaky clean.
Also Dell is one of the cleaner companies out there in Linux community and
for people to lash out at Dell is totally wrong. I tried to make the
point if there is an issue with Dell (which there is not) it will be
addressed.
The simple facts go, to protect yourself and to make a recovery under tort
you have to perform the simple task of registering your copyright. If
people will do this it will make things easier during enforcement.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On 1 Jul 2003, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 12:05, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
> > This entire thread is filled with misinformation; I've been trying to
> > restrain myself from correcting people who obviously have more opinion
> > than fact in hand.
> >
> > For those who wish to understand copyright in the United States (and
> > learn that registration is *not* required), I suggest visiting:
> >
> > http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
>
> Correct, registration is not required. But there are certain
> enforcements you will NEVER get if you don't. Not only that, but
> registering does make it easier to enforce.
>
> Trever
> --
> "I'm politically incorrect and damn proud of it. I love my country, but
> I'm scared to death of it's government." -- Blackie Lawless
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Hey Matt,
Sorry for pulling back out of your vacation to resolve the issue where one
never existed. You have to understand this is all about gemme gemme free
and do not want anyone or anything to get in people's way. Even to the
point of added excessive meaning to a simple copyright license.
>From what I see and had expected, DELL has/had met its obligations to GPL.
I hope everyone including "FLUKE" is happy about interrupting somebodies
vacation, and me have to burn personal capital to get a response from Matt
on this issue.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Matt Domsch wrote:
<snip personal note to me>
> To comply with the GPL, we made ISOs containing the SRPMS and patches for
> everything that's included on the Red Hat boot floppies / CDs - not a
> simple process to determine mind you. If you only download the boot
> floppy, you obviously don't get the other 200+MB of code, but it's all
> there on the same FTP site... Took one of my guys several days to
> decipher the boot images and figure out where all the source came from,
> when our contribution was a ~10 line fix to the serverworks.c file, and
> another ~5 line fix to the aic7xxx driver...
>
> ftp://ftp.us.dell.com/fixes/Dell-Boot-CD-RH9-v0.01.iso
> ftp://ftp.us.dell.com/fixes/Dell-Boot-CD-RH9-v0.02.iso
> ftp://ftp.us.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
>
> All of these files are in the same ftp site. The ISOs has source files.
>
> --
> Matt Domsch
> Sr. Software Engineer
> Dell Linux Solutions http://www.dell.com/linux
> Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com
>
[email protected] wrote:
> Just for the record, US law does not work that way. No civil contract can
> force you to do something illegal as Andre suggests. He's just flat wrong
He never said the NDA forced him to _do_ something _illegal_.
Instead it forces him to _not do_ something _legal_.
I once had a job where I wasn't to drive the company vehicle faster than
45 MPH. Even if the speed limit is 55 MPH, I could have been fired for
driving that fast.
Similar situation for Andre. Legaly he can distrubite the code in
question, but he would loose future work because of it. Nobody would
trust him, regardless of his reasons. He (would have) violated the NDA.
-Thomas
Miles Bader wrote:
> Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> writes:
>>GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then it gets
>>serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas of open source.
>
>
> The `copyright registration' requirements, whatever they are, would
> seem to apply equally to the GPL and whatever other `OSL' you have, so
> why on earth would some court loss related to copyright registration
> have any effect on what license people choose?
Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement. But the
_new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to defend", and stand up
in court since the GPL didn't. A new GPL might also come about that is
strong enough, but you still need the legal power to defend it.
-Thomas
Thomas Dodd <[email protected]> writes:
> > The `copyright registration' requirements, whatever they are, would
> > seem to apply equally to the GPL and whatever other `OSL' you have, so
> > why on earth would some court loss related to copyright registration
> > have any effect on what license people choose?
>
> Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement. But the
> _new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to defend", and stand up
> in court since the GPL didn't.
Why? If the court loss was due to a lack of registration, the content
of the license has no relevance -- _any_ license would lose in that
situation.
-Miles
--
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.
Miles Bader wrote:
> Thomas Dodd <[email protected]> writes:
>>Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement. But the
>>_new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to defend", and stand up
>>in court since the GPL didn't.
>
>
> Why? If the court loss was due to a lack of registration, the content
> of the license has no relevance -- _any_ license would lose in that
> situation.
Where did you get that the "loss was due to a lack of registration" ?
From Andre's 6/29 message:
> I am in the process of getting the formal registered copyright.
>
> I will take GPL to court and will not settle out of court.
> GPL will live or die in this case, I do not give a damn which way it
> falls.
>
> GPL wins great.
> GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then
> it gets serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas
> of open source.
Andre is formaly registering the copyright, so that the lawyers will
take the case. Without it, in the US at least, the case will never be
heard. Andre has stated this case will be heard, so the GPL will be
tested in court. The loss would not be related to registration.
-Thomas
On Thursday 10 July 2003 10:41, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>Miles Bader wrote:
>> Thomas Dodd <[email protected]> writes:
>>>Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement.
>>> But the _new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to
>>> defend", and stand up in court since the GPL didn't.
>>
>> Why? If the court loss was due to a lack of registration, the
>> content of the license has no relevance -- _any_ license would
>> lose in that situation.
What court loss?
This hasn't to my knowledge been exposed on /. I would have thought
it would be all over the front page, particularly if it was a loss
against the GPL.
>Where did you get that the "loss was due to a lack of registration"
> ?
>
> From Andre's 6/29 message:
> > I am in the process of getting the formal registered copyright.
> >
> > I will take GPL to court and will not settle out of court.
> > GPL will live or die in this case, I do not give a damn which way
> > it falls.
> >
> > GPL wins great.
> > GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then
> > it gets serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas
> > of open source.
>
>Andre is formaly registering the copyright, so that the lawyers will
>take the case. Without it, in the US at least, the case will never
> be heard. Andre has stated this case will be heard, so the GPL will
> be tested in court. The loss would not be related to registration.
>
> -Thomas
>
And where can a person view this 'replacement' GPL, called OSL?
--
Cheers, Gene
AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
99.26% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
I don't think anybody is going to be able to formally
register "OSL". Do a web-search.... It's in use everywhere!!
Whatever it's supposed to be,.... isn't.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2003 10:41, Thomas Dodd wrote:
> >Miles Bader wrote:
> >> Thomas Dodd <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement.
> >>> But the _new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to
> >>> defend", and stand up in court since the GPL didn't.
> >>
> >> Why? If the court loss was due to a lack of registration, the
> >> content of the license has no relevance -- _any_ license would
> >> lose in that situation.
>
> What court loss?
>
> This hasn't to my knowledge been exposed on /. I would have thought
> it would be all over the front page, particularly if it was a loss
> against the GPL.
>
> >Where did you get that the "loss was due to a lack of registration"
> > ?
> >
> > From Andre's 6/29 message:
> > > I am in the process of getting the formal registered copyright.
> > >
> > > I will take GPL to court and will not settle out of court.
> > > GPL will live or die in this case, I do not give a damn which way
> > > it falls.
> > >
> > > GPL wins great.
> > > GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then
> > > it gets serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas
> > > of open source.
> >
> >Andre is formaly registering the copyright, so that the lawyers will
> >take the case. Without it, in the US at least, the case will never
> > be heard. Andre has stated this case will be heard, so the GPL will
> > be tested in court. The loss would not be related to registration.
> >
> > -Thomas
> >
> And where can a person view this 'replacement' GPL, called OSL?
>
> --
> Cheers, Gene
> AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M
> Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M
> 99.26% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
> Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message
> by Gene Heskett are:
> Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
>
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
Hello Richard & All ,
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> I don't think anybody is going to be able to formally
> register "OSL". Do a web-search.... It's in use everywhere!!
>
> Whatever it's supposed to be,.... isn't.
...snip...
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network Engineer | P.O. Box 854 | Give me Linux |
| [email protected] | Coudersport PA 16915 | only on AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2003 10:41, Thomas Dodd wrote:
>
>>Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>>>Thomas Dodd <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>Either license would still reguire registration for enforcement.
>>>>But the _new_ license, like OSL, would "will have teeth to
>>>>defend", and stand up in court since the GPL didn't.
>>>
>>>Why? If the court loss was due to a lack of registration, the
>>>content of the license has no relevance -- _any_ license would
>>>lose in that situation.
>
>
> What court loss?
The hypothetical one that Andre was talking about. See below.
>>Where did you get that the "loss was due to a lack of registration"
>>?
>>
>>From Andre's 6/29 message:
>>
>>>I am in the process of getting the formal registered copyright.
>>>
>>>I will take GPL to court and will not settle out of court.
>>>GPL will live or die in this case, I do not give a damn which way
>>>it falls.
>>>
>>>GPL wins great.
>>>GPL loses, maybe better so it can be replaced with OSL and then
>>>it gets serious because we will have teeth to defend the ideas
>>>of open source.
Here Andre was discussing his current case. He is in the process of
registering his copyright. Once that done he plans to go to court. He
says he will not settle out of court, so the GPL _WILL BE_ tested in
this case.
The next 2 lines should have started with "If" to be correct, but it was
clear from context. He was discussing the 2 possible outcomes.
1) The GPL is enforcable, and he wins.
2) The GPL is not enforcable, he looses, and the GPL _will need to be_
replaced. He then suggests the OSL as a more enforcable license.
> And where can a person view this 'replacement' GPL, called OSL?
Already answered, but here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
-Thomas
On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 15:04, Thomas Dodd wrote:
> > And where can a person view this 'replacement' GPL, called OSL?
> Already answered, but here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl.php
Is it just me or does the OSL do a worse job of
defining "derivative work" than the GPL does?
Am I missing something here?
Dana Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada
I sent the following information below to both the Dell Linux PowerEdge
and the Linux Kernel mailing lists back in June. Since then Dell has done
nothing to add the required written offer or any other corrective steps.
This is not the first time that Dell has choosen to violate the terms of
the GPL when performing binary only redistribution. Back in 2002, I was
told that steps where taken at Dell to ensure that they would strictly
honor the GPL. It took several *MONTHS* for these steps to be taken
during which they continued to violate the GPL.
When I posted the message below, one of the responces was that raising
it on the poweredge mailinglist might be a good idea since it has been his
expierence that Dell folks fix mistakes pretty fast there. I had already
done exactly that by sending the original message to there. Rather than a
quick fix (again, two weeks later they still haven't fixed it), I got an
auto-responce that the message is being delayed due to a suspicious
header. It appears that the report of the GPL violation is still being
delayed or has been willfully discarded. The mailinglist maintainer has
choosen not to respond as to what about the header is suspicious or why
the posting still has not appeared.
I firmly believe that Dell will either again take several months to
address honoring the conditions of the GPL or continue to disregard their
obligations. Personally, I consider this to be unacceptable behavior on
the part of Dell. I am looking for anyone that is aware of any law office
which is willing to provide discounted legal services in regards to
enforcing the GPL. I am not confortable with signing the copyright on my
contributions over to the FSF and don't have enough money to pay the
normal rate for seeking a court injuction.
Thanks
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Fluke wrote:
> Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the
> modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
>
> The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may
> legally redistribute these works:
>
> - In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of
> the tar.gz
> - In regards to GPL 3b, Dell does *NOT* provide a written offer as part of
> the tar.gz
> - In regards to GPL 3c, Dell does *NOT* provide information regarding an
> offer to the source code as part of the tar.gz
> - Lastly, Dell does *NOT* provide equivalent access to the source code
> from the same ftp site
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Jan Harkes wrote:
> Did you even read any of the messages in the long thread you started?
> This is probably the one you missed,
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105716363117866&w=2
Yes, I missed this one. I was just as quick to dismiss Andre Hedrick as
he was to dismiss the copyright I hold on my contributions to the kernel.
** AND YET THE VIOLATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE BY DELL CONTINUES **
The ISO does provide the source code to the kernel and true to character
it appears that Andre Hedrick is declairing that honoring the GPL on his
ATA driver is honoring all things GPL'd--I don't share this view of Andre
Hedrick's.
Dell **ALSO** distributes a derived work of the kernel modutils
resulting in a GPL'd executiable called "loader" The ISO images that
Andre/Matt provide links to do not have the source code to this GPL'd
work.
> Might I suggest following up your unfounded accusations with a public
> apology.
Yes--I'm sorry for being so quick to believe Dell technical support's
statement that they wheren't providing or intending to provide any of the
source code at all. I'm sorry for assuming if Dell was honoring the GPL,
they would have included a referrence to where to get the source code in
the README, instead there is no referrence to Dell-Boot-CD-RH9 in
boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz. And I am sorry that Matt was pulled out of his
vacation to respond to the issue (since it appears no one else at Dell can
speak to why they continue to violate the GPL).
I will also apologize for my accusations being complettely unfounded when
it is shown that they are complettely unfounded. As I stated in the
accusation, the code from modutils was provided in binary only form in
boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
Despite Andre Hedrick's declairing that "DELL has/had met its obligations
to the GPL." He has *NOT* shown that any one of the following is true:
- the complette source code to the GPL'd executiable "loader" was provided
as part of the time of distribution of boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz
- a written offer for the complette source code to the GPL'd executiable
"loader" was provided at the time of distribution
- a written offer from a third party for the complette source code to the
GPL'd executiable "loader" was provided at the time of distribution
- equivalent access to the source code to the GPL'd executiable "loader"
from the same ftp site
I agree with you that only *ONE* of the clauses must be honored. But if
DELL is distributing a derived work of modutils in binary only form
without honoring ANY of the above four conditions then is it unfounded to
state that Dell is again violating the GPL?
Oh, and Andre Hedrick... if you want me to be "happy" about you burning
"personal capital" to declair that "DELL has/had met its obligations to
the GPL" then please follow your own advice and "get your facts first."
Feel free to *PROVE* that DELL had honored **ALL** GPL obligations in
regards to distributing boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz Until someone does so, I
will continue to promote the idea that Dell is continuing again on it's
trend of violating the General Public License.