Who cares about GPL violations in Linux . What can anyone do about it anyway. The FSF
isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the money to do it. Most of this
banter and name calling people do about it is a waste of time. What punishment will
anyone get for it. A few people writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah --
this will really stop someone from doing it. If you give your code away GPL, or not
you have just done just that. Tigrian is correct in his statements.
Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The GPL is flawed
since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
for commerical use. This is the only way you will ever stop these people. So instead
of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language. Then anyone
who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you
can actually do something about it.
Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written. So
anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though
we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally
circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.
:-)
Jeff
On Friday 01 October 2004 12:40, [email protected] wrote:
> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux . What can anyone do about it
> anyway. The FSF isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the
> money to do it. Most of this banter and name calling people do about it is
> a waste of time. What punishment will anyone get for it. A few people
> writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah -- this will really stop
> someone from doing it. If you give your code away GPL, or not you have
> just done just that. Tigrian is correct in his statements.
>
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The
> GPL is flawed since it does not require people to go back to the copyright
> holders and demand a license for commerical use. This is the only way you
> will ever stop these people. So instead of being whinny babies about it,
> fix the GPL and add this language. Then anyone who uses the code in a
> commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you can
> actually do something about it.
>
> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL
> so you cannot re-release the code under another license unless the entire
> code base is re-written. So anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we
> never accepted the license even though we download and use the code. Guess
> what, this is legally valid to say and totally circumvents the GPL, they
> just have to leave your copyright notices in place.
>
> :-)
>
> Jeff
Anybody that has code in the kernel under GPL is CAN start a lawsuit for
compliance. But that doesn't mean they HAVE to do so.
But if they don't know it may be happening, how could they decide?
So "make a fuss". If someone DOES decide to go after them.. fine.
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:40:07 -0000, [email protected] said:
> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written. So
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though
> we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.
Umm.. It's OK to take the GPL'ed source and make your own fork for your own
amusement. Trying to distribute it without accepting the GPL on the parts
you're shipping copies of *is* a problem. As the COPYING file says:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
mail to start arriving.....
>Umm.. It's OK to take the GPL'ed source and make your own fork for your own
>amusement. Trying to distribute it without accepting the GPL on the parts
>you're shipping copies of *is* a problem. As the COPYING file says:
>
> 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
>signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
>distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
>prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
>modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
>Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
>all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
>the Program or works based on it.
>
>So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
>with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
>the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
>mail to start arriving.....
>
>
>
>
And the hate mail is the only thing that will arrive. The GPL doesn't
really seem
to protect anyone since the copyright holders really can't do much with
it. I've
got a bunch of people using GPL code I've put out there in all sorts of
commercial
products and Can't do anything to them for failing to return changes.
They can always
say they didn't accept the license then convert the code into their own IP .
Jeff
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > So you have three choices: You can accept the terms of the GPL, and comply
> > with them, or you can not ship those pieces covered by the GPL (basically
> > the entire kernel), or you can ship it in violation and wait for the hate
> > mail to start arriving.....
> >
> >
> And the hate mail is the only thing that will arrive. The GPL doesn't really
> seem
> to protect anyone since the copyright holders really can't do much with it.
> I've
> got a bunch of people using GPL code I've put out there in all sorts of
> commercial
> products and Can't do anything to them for failing to return changes. They
> can always
> say they didn't accept the license then convert the code into their own IP .
If they didn't accept the license, they fall back to standard copyright, and
are not allowed to distribute. End of story.
According to your reasonings, copyright holders cannot do anything neither for
other examples of copyright violation. Try distributing other copyrighted work
(non-free software or non-free music or non-free movies) on your website and
see what happens. You can always say `but I didn't accept the license' :-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:46:47 MDT, "Jeff V. Merkey" said:
> And the hate mail is the only thing that will arrive. The GPL doesn't
> really seem
> to protect anyone since the copyright holders really can't do much with
> it.
That's because usually, the guilty vendor realizes that their position is
untenable, although this may require escalating to having a lawyer send
a postal version of the hate mail. Digging back through the lkml archives
will show that with the possible exception of SCO, vendors *will* end up
Doing The Right Thing once prompted (and given a chance to get The Right
Thing through the pipeline)....
I've
> got a bunch of people using GPL code I've put out there in all sorts of
> commercial
> products and Can't do anything to them for failing to return changes.
There's no requirement they return changes to *you* other than politeness.
They're required to make your GPL code plus their changes available to
*their customers*, which is a different set of people.
Now, if your source isn't made available to their customers, *then* you
have an actionable situation....
> They can always
> say they didn't accept the license then convert the code into their own IP .
Nope, they *specifically* can't do that. Which is why SCO saying the GPL
is invalid but still distributing a Linux from their website is likely to
come back and haunt them grievously in their IBM lawsuit...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:40:07 +0000, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux .
Companies shipping Embedded Linux.
Most people working on devices which run Linux are not evildoers who
are hard bent on undermining the GPL and causing us all headaches.
They have legal teams and rediculously large chains of management,
project managers, etc. etc. All these people are interested in doing
the corporate making money thing but without being sued. Even the
notion that they might be able to be sued for something will be enough
to get most corporations to sit up and at least think about working on
that situation.
> What can anyone do about it anyway.
You could take legal action yourself. You're right, most people won't
bother to do anything and nothing more than a formal compliant would
get made - but then, much of the legal action in the world today
doesn't end up in court precisely because companies would usually like
to avoid this kind of thing from happening in public.
> What punishment will anyone get for it.
The threat of not being able to distribute an infringing product is
probably enough incentive for many companies to not want to be caught
breaking the GPL. They might try to conveniently ignore the license
until someone moans about it (I'm sure many would rather just send you
source when you moan about it) but I don't actually want to risk court
action.
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The GPL is flawed
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use.
This is a good thing from my viewpoint.
> This is the only way you will ever stop these people.
No. That's your reasoning and yours alone. Nobody else here has stood
up and agreed with you on this point and I doubt you'll find too many
who will.
> So instead of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language.
The GPL isn't broken. At least as far as I am concerned. Therefore it
doesn't need fixing :-).
> Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
> license, and you can actually do something about it.
They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.
Pretty cool stuff huh?
> So anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license
> even though we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid
You can say that, but you can't then distribute the code. You're
talking out of your arse ;-)
Jon.
Jon Masters wrote:
>>Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
>>license, and you can actually do something about it.
>>
>>
>
>They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
>by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
>
>
>
Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
with some of these big companies and their employees
will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all
GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically
stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They
will always come back to the table like foxes from the
henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the
chickens."
>>Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
>>re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written.
>>
>>
>
>Pretty cool stuff huh?
>
>
Yep.
Jeff
Jeff V. Merkey writes:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>
> >>Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a
> >>license, and you can actually do something about it.
> >>
> >
> >They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
> >by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
> >
> >
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world,
> all GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
> wiggle room for people to use.
Why don't you tell that to the netfilter core team? If only they knew
what you did, they might give up their court case. Except for the
minor fact that they already won.
US law addresses the conspiracy you suggest through several means.
However, *any* individual has problems seeking justice in US federal
courts unless they or their opponents have quite deep pockets. Your
arguments are in no way specific to the GPL -- one could substitute
any other license name for "GPL" (or any tort for "copyright
infringement") and throw about the same FUD.
> Alan Cox in a previous email basically
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to
> folks. They will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me
> the chickens."
That's not what he said at all. He said that they seem to be willing
to comply with the license, so it is a bad idea to beat them over the
head when one person (not even a copyright holder!) thinks he caught
them making a mistake.
Michael Poole
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 03:53:49PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all
> GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
> wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They
> will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the
> chickens."
You should have attended Harald Welte's "Enforcing the GPL" talk at
the Linux Kongress this year. There are plenty of worked examples
where Harald and the Netfilter kernel developers have successfully
taken commercial vendors to court and got them to either (a) release
their enhancements under the GPL, or (b) stop distributing the GPL'ed
code. It can and has been done in the real world, with multiple
vendors, and they haven't lost a case yet.
- Ted
[email protected] wrote:
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The GPL is flawed
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use. This is the only way you will ever stop these people. So instead
> of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language. Then anyone
> who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you
> can actually do something about it.
>
> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written. So
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though
> we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.
>
> :-)
>
> Jeff
>
You are incorrect here. If someone does not accept the GPL, the code is
then covered under normal Copyright laws, which means that they are not
allowed to make any copies of the work without prior consent of the
copyright owners. With some work that has taken input from many
different copyright owners, the only really workable solution is for
people to accept the GPL or just not use the work at all. If they then
use the copyright work, and don't comply with the GPL, it only takes one
copyright owner to complain, for them to be scared enough to back off.
For example, a company uses Linux in a set top box and sells 1 million
boxes. They choose not to comply with the GPL, and a copyright owner
complains. That copyright owner will win the case easily (There are many
examples of it.) forcing the company to recall all 1 million units,
resulting in the company going bankrupt.
Companys are making good money by using Linux and complying to the GPL
license in their boxes. Amstrad is a good example of doing it the right
way as there is currently no real evidence that they have broken the
GPL. ( Does anyone have the url to download the source code from
Amstrad? I can download the manual, just not the source code. )
James
On Gwe, 2004-10-01 at 22:53, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> will say whatever they have to. I've been there, in the real world, all
> GPL means is you are giving away your IP to whomever is running
> whatever effort and you have little recourse. The GPL is tough to
> enforce the way its worded for individuals. There's too much
The German counts didn't think so.
> wiggle room for people to use. Alan Cox in a previous email basically
> stated, " they are being nice and answering emails." Doesn't look
> like it takes much for these people to smooch and kiss up to folks. They
> will always come back to the table like foxes from the
> henhouse, with chicken feathers all over their lips saying "show me the
> chickens."
If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
"its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.
Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
advantages for them to cheat.
One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say
GPL v 2 blah bla
or you may choose to distribute the software without source
code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
value for damages....
Alan
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
> would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
> "its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
> mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.
Alan, you put the finger on the right thing : motivation.
People ask what motivation has this vendor not to show his code. But the
reality is different. The vendor waits for some motivation to show it.
It costs lost of time and sometimes even documentation to open some modified
code, and for various time-to-market reasons, vendors sometimes think they
will do it later. I've already been in such a situation : I packaged something
for a customer. Yes I used Linux kernel and GPL tools, and yes I patched some
of them, but considering the time it would take to package something clean
with lots of sources when I knew for sure that the customer does not even
care, I did not do it. Just told the customer that if he wanted, he could
have everything, but when he replies "no thanks", I have no motivation
loosing my time. So from time to time, I put together new patches on my
web site to stay compliant, but there's no urge in that. And the GPL only
says that you have to provide the code or a way to get the code. So when
the customer says that he does not want it, the best way for him to get
the code when he changes his mind is to ask where I finally put it, then
for me to check that everything is up to date.
There is a second level of motivation at not opening the code from the
beginning : there still are some customers who are afraid that they
will use some code that anybody can see ! One of my customers, for
example was very reluctant to use my reverse-proxy (haproxy) because
he felt that if anybody found a flaw in the code, he could exploit it.
So I had to start the long story again from the dinosaurs ;-)
As long as vendors are honnest, and respect their customers' rights, I
don't see any problem. The problem arises when vendors explicitly refuse
to open anything. But most of the time, I suspect it's just a matter of
time and cleanness, and we should not expect too much from vendors who
already acknowledge that they are using GPL software and that they are
doing their best to publish the code ASAP.
> Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
> advantages for them to cheat.
I sometimes wonder if it does not bring cheap advertisement. For example,
Linksys is known to sell linux boxes because of the GPL war they started.
Nowadays, many people buy their boxes because they are both the cheapest
and the most complete devices a linux kernel can run on.
> One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
> for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
> on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say
>
> GPL v 2 blah bla
>
> or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
>
> This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
> value for damages....
Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.
Willy
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> or you may choose to distribute the software without source
>> code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
>>
>>This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
>>value for damages....
> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.
Just on the off-chance of hyperinflation, I'd define that figure based
upon some base index. I also think it's a bad idea to have that :-).
Jon.
On Sul, 2004-10-03 at 12:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> care, I did not do it. Just told the customer that if he wanted, he could
> have everything, but when he replies "no thanks", I have no motivation
> loosing my time. So from time to time, I put together new patches on my
Which meets the GPL file. Customer can also be expected to work "diff"
unless you are doing daft stuff like obfuscating existing code.
> As long as vendors are honnest, and respect their customers' rights, I
> don't see any problem. The problem arises when vendors explicitly refuse
> to open anything. But most of the time, I suspect it's just a matter of
> time and cleanness, and we should not expect too much from vendors who
> already acknowledge that they are using GPL software and that they are
> doing their best to publish the code ASAP.
On the little embedded box side there is certainly a lot of systematic
abuse, especially in asian originated products. (And I justify the
otherwise apparently racist remark with the statistics).
> > GPL v 2 blah bla
> >
> > or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> > code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
> >
> > This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
> > value for damages....
>
> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal the
> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed code
> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.
Well I was thinking the $100,000 would just be for the bits I wrote in
that one file or that one driver, ....
Alan
On Oct 03, 2004, at 18:01, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2004-10-03 at 12:46, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hmmm interesting clause which would make them think before they steal
>> the
>> code. Perhaps they would take more time to separate open and closed
>> code
>> then. The problem is to define whom this money should be sent to.
>
> Well I was thinking the $100,000 would just be for the bits I wrote in
> that one file or that one driver, ....
Wow, that would quickly add up. $100,000 for John Smith's 20 line
patch,
$100,000 for Jane Hacker's 2 line patch, etc. Ok, under said
theoretical
conditions an infringer might owe a _lot_ of money:
$100,000 * 20 hackers * 200 copies sold = $400 million
Heh. At some point the court has to clamp the damages, but those kinds
of
numbers would definitely get some attention from the legal staff of said
hypothetical company.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
[email protected] wrote:
> Who cares about GPL violations in Linux . What can anyone do about it anyway. The FSF
> isn't going to sue anyone unless someone give them the money to do it. Most of this
> banter and name calling people do about it is a waste of time. What punishment will
> anyone get for it. A few people writing mean emails and finder pointing -- Yeah --
> this will really stop someone from doing it. If you give your code away GPL, or not
> you have just done just that. Tigrian is correct in his statements.
>
> Even if you review it and make a fuss it does nothing to stop people. The GPL is flawed
> since it does not require people to go back to the copyright holders and demand a license
> for commerical use. This is the only way you will ever stop these people. So instead
> of being whinny babies about it, fix the GPL and add this language. Then anyone
> who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required to get a license, and you
> can actually do something about it.
>
> Oops. Too late. Linux has a huge trail of everyone's code under the GPL so you cannot
> re-release the code under another license unless the entire code base is re-written. So
> anyone can fork it at any point and claim, "we never accepted the license even though
> we download and use the code. Guess what, this is legally valid to say and totally
> circumvents the GPL, they just have to leave your copyright notices in place.
This subject line seems to have attracted a bunch of odd legal
misinformation, which as noted has been refuted by the courts. However,
I do note that Microsoft is using the work Linux in their ads, and not
putting on the trademark symbol. It is probably good for someone to look
at that, because a trademark can be lost if it is not defended (think
Kleenex or Asprin). The ads just have a note in tiny print saying
something 'some of these words may be trademarks of their owners.' I
believe if the owner notifies them they have to add the MT or (R) symbol
and state the name of the holder.
Clearly I'm not a lawyer, but since there was a TV show about "lost
trademarks" I'm pretty damn sure it can happen.
The GPL is alive and well at the moment, I hope the trademark is as well.
--
-bill davidsen ([email protected])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
On Friday 01 October 2004 16:53, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> >>Then anyone who uses the code in a commerical enterprise will be required
> >> to get a license, and you can actually do something about it.
> >
> >They have a license. If they distribute products then they are bound
> >by the terms of the GPL and this is a pretty obvious license.
>
> Try enforcing it in court when they get a dozen of their engineers to
> lie and state they reviewed the code on one terminal and
> converted it by writing new code on another. There's no moral anything
> with some of these big companies and their employees
> will say whatever they have to.
And are now guilty of perjury. And when shown as such in court, will be/can
be put in jail for quite a time. Nope - won't do it. As SCO has found out.
Alan Cox wrote:
>If you look at the motivation you'd then have to ask yourself why they
>would want to do that given that a) They from the start said publically
>"its using Linux" and b) Are dropping custom (well probably bought in
>mostly) apps onto a generic reference platform.
>
>Not only they seem to be behaving but I can see no obvious game
>advantages for them to cheat.
>
>One thing that certainly would be interesting as a thought experiment
>for the legal bods (the real ones) would be what occurs if the license
>on a couple of essential bits of the kernel was to say
>
> GPL v 2 blah bla
>
> or you may choose to distribute the software without source
> code for $100,000 per product you ship it in.
>
>This would then also give both a Judge and the thief a clear crystalised
>value for damages....
>
>Alan
>
>
>
Alan,
The following is submitted based on your comment.
I was intrigued by your proposal for a binary license, so I
discussed it with my business associates.
We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
a single Linux version by release number. This offer must be
accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and this snapshot will
subsequently convert the GPL license into a BSD style license
for the code. In other words, what we are asking for is the ability
to snapshot kernel.org at 50K a pop for a license to each
2.<even number> release, then take any even number release
private. This allows all changes to a 2.<even number>
release to be used for a particular release per license without
returning changes. This money will be made payable to kernel.org
and must be accepted by everyone.
If you think this is a good idea, we are prepared to actually
execute on this proposal. This is for real, and let me know
who to make the check out to.
Please advise.
Jeff
>-
>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/
>
>
>
Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Oct 07, 2004, at 15:21, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>> This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and...
>
>
> This will never happen. Even if there is just _one_ GPL idealist who
> doesn't give a rat's ass about receiving money for their kernel code,
> you can't get your license. Given that, I know several people who
> wouldn't give you a license no matter how much you offered them
> for it.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett
Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who
were more
interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$.
That's easy.
Jeff
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
>> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
>> a single Linux version by release number. This offer must be
>> accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and this snapshot will
>> subsequently convert the GPL license into a BSD style license
>> for the code.
>
>
> For an unlimited use license of the linux tree, $50,000 USD is
> ludicrously tiny.
$50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only goes for
$100.00 a copy.
You guys should be flattered.
Let's see, 10,000 companies x $50,000.00 a pop = $500,000,000 / year in
license
fees. What a deal. 500,000,000 / 300 developers = 1.1 million per year
for each of you.
Sounds like good business to me.
Companies will line up to do this, and what's great is you will still
get new licensees every year,
so long as you keep ahead of the curve with innovation.
Jeff
>
> Think of the number of man-years of work invested in the current tree.
>
> Chris
>
>
>If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
>who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
>away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
>believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
We would spend the time or remove the code. OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
joke). OpenServer is not Linux.
If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP
secure email.
We will worry about who is no longer available. We need the core folks
whose names
appear as the original author in the master header of each file to sign
off. They will need to
certify which files are theirs and send a confirmation.
This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come
and give money as well.
It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just
those who
positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock
for .com stock market
Google style IPO scams. It can happen.
Jeff
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:17:25PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who
> were more
> interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$.
> That's easy.
If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
Dave
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
> a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP
> secure email.
I don't know what exactly you will recieve from Linus and Alan, but here's
a reply from me (and I do have code in quite a few places in the tree):
Sod Off.
If you need it in writing and notarized, that could be arranged. Is that
enough to close the discussion?
> $50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only
> goes for $100.00 a copy.
Sure, I think Linux community could sell you a copy with
*Windows* licenses and EULA. You get the binary of the kernel
and use it on one computer only. For multiple accounts pay more.
Of course, you get no source code or the ability to modify it. :)
> You guys should be flattered.
>
> Let's see, 10,000 companies x $50,000.00 a pop = $500,000,000
> / year in license fees. What a deal. 500,000,000 / 300 developers
> = 1.1 million per year for each of you.
> Sounds like good business to me.
>
> Companies will line up to do this, and what's great is you will still
> get new licensees every year,
> so long as you keep ahead of the curve with innovation.
Not good for Linux. Although I am not a conspiracy thoery person,
this "proposal" could be sponsored by M$ to bribe the whole community..
Hua
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
> >who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
> >away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
> >believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
>
> We would spend the time or remove the code.
'we' ?
> OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
> According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
> joke). OpenServer is not Linux.
nor did I claim it to be. I claimed that respecting the wishes of everyone
who didn't want a part of your 'vision' would mean you'd end with something
on a par feature-wise with some inferior UNIX.
> If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
> a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP
> secure email.
It's not a "Linus and Alan" thing, the copyrights on a bulk of the code
in the tree lies with other people.
> This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come
> and give money as well.
> It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just
> those who
> positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock
> for .com stock market
> Google style IPO scams. It can happen.
You seem to be under the deluded illusion that all kernel hackers
do what they do for the money[1].
Please, either cut down the dosage, or increase it.
Dave
[1] Whereas everyone knows, its all about the fast cars and chicks.
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
> > who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
> > away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
> > believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> We would spend the time or remove the code. OpenServer??? Gag?? Puke??
> According to Carl "Mad Dog" McBride Linux is already his "product" (What a
> joke). OpenServer is not Linux.
>
> If I receive a confirmation from A) Linus or B) Alan then we will profer
> a license agreement for everyone to review and sign off on via PGP secure
> email.
I can't speak for anyone except myself, and I'm not in any way a big time
kernel person, but personally I would prefer that what little code I've
contributed stays GPL. It was GPL code I contributed to, I expect it to
stay that way.
> We will worry about who is no longer available. We need the core folks whose
> names
> appear as the original author in the master header of each file to sign off.
> They will need to
> certify which files are theirs and send a confirmation.
>
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say you need more than just the core people. Even
the core people don't own the copyright to contributions made by
small-time contributers like myself. You could argue that very small
contributions don't qualify for copyright protection and you'd probably be
right, but where do you draw that line?
> This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can come and give
> money as well.
> It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work, and not just those who
> positioned themselves to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock for
> .com stock market
> Google style IPO scams. It can happen.
>
There are other rewards than money.
--
Jesper Juhl
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:41:08PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> You seem to be under the deluded illusion that all kernel hackers
> do what they do for the money[1].
>
> Please, either cut down the dosage, or increase it.
>
> Dave
>
>
> [1] Whereas everyone knows, its all about the fast cars and chicks.
I dunno about you, but I'm in it for the beer.
Jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jesper Juhl wrote:
Jeff>> This can be done, and if there is a process in place, others can
Jeff>> come and give money as well. It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded
Jeff>> for your hard work, and not just those who positioned themselves
Jeff>> to get fat stock options and IPO preffered stock for .com stock
Jeff>> market Google style IPO scams. It can happen.
| There are other rewards than money.
Al summed it up quite well earlier. Jeff probably wants to get the
lining on his tinfoil hat thickened to avoid the brain lazers getting in
any further. Check those bushes for Novell snipers too - you never know
when they'll pop out and come to get you, like everyone else everywhere.
50,000USD is a patheticly small amount to pay for the kernel, there's
nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and people already make
big bucks from Linux. Several of those aren't just dot-coms that went
tits up later either - and most of them emply core kernel hackers.
Cheers,
Jon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBZeZdeTyyexZHHxERAurwAKCdDbtVPMJjE5QNSod7hzc9iJfE9wCgoyaI
JKq2XMwszlT1KOUbq0XuZV0=
=AAMH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> $50,000 per copy -- that's a hell of a pricetag. Windows only goes for
> $100.00 a copy.
Um..you said BSD license. That gives you unlimited use to redistribute in
proprietary products. A similar Windows license would *not* be $100.
As an example, the windows media DRM license is $400,000 anually.
Chris
On Oct 07, 2004, at 17:17, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who
> were more
> interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$.
> That's easy.
Are you sure you can find and pay sufficient money to the thousands
upon thousands
of people who contributed code to the linux kernel? In some cases you
may not be
able to contact copyright owners of critical code, in which case you
can't distribute
those pieces at all. The whole point of "Open-Source" is that the
users are free to fix
the bug in the program you sent them, and that they're free to change
it however they
want.
In any case, Alan Cox's "offer" was for $100,000 per copy, not $50,000
for an eternal
license. :-D
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
> Are you sure you can find and pay sufficient money to the thousands
> upon thousands
> of people who contributed code to the linux kernel? In some cases you
> may not be
> able to contact copyright owners of critical code, in which case you
> can't distribute
> those pieces at all. The whole point of "Open-Source" is that the
> users are free to fix
> the bug in the program you sent them, and that they're free to change
> it however they
> want.
If they are unavailble, I am certain some other enterprising individual
will replicate similiar
code and get the $$$.
>
> In any case, Alan Cox's "offer" was for $100,000 per copy, not $50,000
> for an eternal
> license. :-D
In business, counter negotiation is allowed. We will pay $50,000.00 in
cold, hard cash to be
allowed to snapshot a single 2.<even number> release that allows GPL
conversion to a BSD
style license. This offer is real and we are ready to write a check today.
Jeff
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle Moffett
>
>
>
>
Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>
>>We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
>>license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
>>a single Linux version by release number.
>>
>>
>
>That would still be useless, since it doesn't give you any
>rights to the (GPL) bug fixes posted to this list on an
>almost daily basis.
>
>
>
Obviously, what would happen here is a release of 2.4 or 2.6 that is
stable would be snapshoted
and used. And yes, you are correct, bug fixes would not be allowed
unless they were applied
independently and without access to GPL code. However, this would allow
OSDL and kernel.org
to become self-sustaining and would not impact the GPL process -- just
let you guys peel
off releases and pocket some $$$ on the side. A lot of big companies
would line up to pay you.
So, who do I write the check to?
Jeff
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
> a single Linux version by release number.
That would still be useless, since it doesn't give you any
rights to the (GPL) bug fixes posted to this list on an
almost daily basis.
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
On Oct 07, 2004, at 15:21, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and...
This will never happen. Even if there is just _one_ GPL idealist who
doesn't give a rat's ass about receiving money for their kernel code,
you can't get your license. Given that, I know several people who
wouldn't give you a license no matter how much you offered them
for it.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> We offer to kernel.org the sum of $50,000.00 US for a one time
> license to the Linux Kernel Source for a single snapshot of
> a single Linux version by release number. This offer must be
> accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and this snapshot will
> subsequently convert the GPL license into a BSD style license
> for the code.
For an unlimited use license of the linux tree, $50,000 USD is ludicrously tiny.
Think of the number of man-years of work invested in the current tree.
Chris
On Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and
> this snapshot will subsequently convert the GPL license into
> a BSD style license for the code.
I'm suppose you have a plan to ask Leonard Zubkoff and
doubtless others to relicense their work?
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 03:51:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> We need the core folks whose names appear as the original
> author in the master header of each file to sign off.
You can plan on removing ide-cd.c and cdrom.c from your
little venture. :-)
> It's time ALL YOU GUYS got rewarded for your hard work,
Been there, done that.
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 20:40 -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 01:21:44PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > This offer must be accepted by **ALL** copyright holders and
> > this snapshot will subsequently convert the GPL license into
> > a BSD style license for the code.
>
> I'm suppose you have a plan to ask Leonard Zubkoff and
> doubtless others to relicense their work?
Obviously yes. And they seem to have a list of the ten of thousands of
Copyright/authors' rights ("Urheberrecht" as in Austria, Germany and
probably some other countries) with information to which parts of the
kernel they actually (may) have rights on.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 20:40 -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
>> I'm suppose you have a plan to ask Leonard Zubkoff and
>> doubtless others to relicense their work?
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:50:51AM +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Obviously yes. And they seem to have a list of the ten of thousands of
> Copyright/authors' rights ("Urheberrecht" as in Austria, Germany and
> probably some other countries) with information to which parts of the
> kernel they actually (may) have rights on.
The dead do not relicense code.
-- wli
* Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
> In business, counter negotiation is allowed. We will pay $50,000.00 in
> cold, hard cash to be allowed to snapshot a single 2.<even number>
> release that allows GPL conversion to a BSD style license. This offer
> is real and we are ready to write a check today.
all the politics aside, the Linux 2.6 kernel, if developed from scratch
as commercial software, takes at least this much effort under the
default COCOMO model:
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 4,287,449
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 1,302.68 (15,632.20) (Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months) = 8.17 (98.10)
(Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule) = 159.35
Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 175,974,824
(average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).
SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the FSF GPL.
Please credit this data as "generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'."
and you want an unlimited license for $0.05m? What is this, the latest
variant of the Nigerian/419 scam?
Ingo
On Iau, 2004-10-07 at 23:02, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> In any case, Alan Cox's "offer" was for $100,000 per copy, not $50,000
> for an eternal
> license. :-D
And for a specific piece of code not the entire system. It was
speculation on ways to assist the legal system in identifying
crystalised (ie cash value) damages for violations
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeff V. Merkey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In business, counter negotiation is allowed. We will pay $50,000.00 in
> > cold, hard cash to be allowed to snapshot a single 2.<even number>
> > release that allows GPL conversion to a BSD style license. This offer
> > is real and we are ready to write a check today.
>
> all the politics aside, the Linux 2.6 kernel, if developed from scratch
> as commercial software, takes at least this much effort under the
> default COCOMO model:
>
> Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 4,287,449
> Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 1,302.68 (15,632.20) (Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
> Schedule Estimate, Years (Months) = 8.17 (98.10)
> (Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
> Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule) = 159.35
> Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 175,974,824
> (average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).
> SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the FSF GPL.
> Please credit this data as "generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'."
>
> and you want an unlimited license for $0.05m? What is this, the latest
> variant of the Nigerian/419 scam?
The biggest problem I have with counting `code size' (yes, we use sloccount at
work), is that given more time and resources than needed to implement the
required functionality, code size usually shrinks due to clean ups. So it costs
_more_ money to decrease the #loc. Software is just like protocols design:
| In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing
| left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
| -- RFC1925: The Twelve Networking Truths
Of course this is less true for the Linux kernel than for proprietary
commercial software, since we don't care about deadlines and take our time to
clean up bad code ;-)
So please don't settle for less than $500000000 :-) ... and I actually prefer
500000000 EUR :-) Which is actually pretty close to $500000 for each of the
10000 monkeys...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
* Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > all the politics aside, the Linux 2.6 kernel, if developed from scratch
> > as commercial software, takes at least this much effort under the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > default COCOMO model:
> > Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 175,974,824
> The biggest problem I have with counting `code size' (yes, we use
> sloccount at work), is that given more time and resources than needed
> to implement the required functionality, code size usually shrinks due
> to clean ups. So it costs _more_ money to decrease the #loc. Software
> is just like protocols design:
nowhere do i mean to imply that this figure represents the true value of
Linux, or that it even comes close. It is just a minimum lower bound i
cited.
I believe the true market value of Linux (the kernel alone) is probably
in the billions of dollars range and that there's one rather big and
agressive company on this planet that would be happy to pay even more
just to make it go away. (But for many of us Linux is like freedom (or
fresh air), with no particular dollar amount attached to it.)
Ingo
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> I believe the true market value of Linux (the kernel alone) is probably
> in the billions of dollars range and that there's one rather big and
> agressive company on this planet that would be happy to pay even more
> just to make it go away. (But for many of us Linux is like freedom (or
> fresh air), with no particular dollar amount attached to it.)
>
> Ingo
To me, the true value of Linux is that there is no company that can take
over Linux and End of Life it as a product.
For that reason, Linux is the most risk free discision anyone can make.
1) The product will never "End of Life".
2) You don't have to "Request for feature" and wait for the supplier to
implement it in their own leasurely time. You can add it yourself or get
someone to add if for you in timescales you set.
3) Bugs are fixed faster, as there is a larger amount of developers than
any other product.
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:17:25PM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > Then their code could be removed from the snapshot, and the folks who
> > were more
> > interested in being smart rather than being right would get the $$$.
> > That's easy.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> If you want to spend god alone knows how many hours tracking down
> who wrote what and nuking the relevant bits, that's your time to throw
> away. If you want the same featureset a little faster however, I
> believe SCO are still selling Openserver licenses.
INAL, but some many years ago I was involved in intellectual property
rights goings on.
At least in New York and California the owner of intellectual
property has to defend his property. Otherwise it becomes
abandoned. (just like real property)
So similar to the license change for Mozilla, one simply announces
their intent suitably loud enough, waits a while, and then it
yours.
Basically, Jeff pays $50,000 for right X. Those who don't
want to participate have 1 year to announce their desire not
to participate and identify the code contribution that will
not be part of the license deal.
After a year everyone knows where they stand, and the untold
millions of contributors who did not stand up to be counted
are irrelavent.
(well not entirely irrelavent, they could after the year is up
file a claim, but they'd probably lose individually. On the other
hand, Jeff isn't going to get an injunction against them all
and litigating and winning a million IP cases is likely to be
quite a money loser, at least in the US)
As to international goings on I have no idea.
--
Brian Litzinger
On Sul, 2004-10-10 at 07:35, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> At least in New York and California the owner of intellectual
> property has to defend his property. Otherwise it becomes
> abandoned. (just like real property)
This sort of thing thankfully only applies to Americans for copyright,
foreigners have more rights in the USA here than US citizens do because
of international treaties.
You do lose certain abilities if you know about a violation for a long
time especially in trademark, to an extent in patent and very little in
copyright (you'd find it hard to argue you needed an injunction as
opposed to just damages if you let someone do infringe for two years).
Courts in europe at least also take a dim view of ambushing people (in
other words sitting on an infringement for a few years to rack up the
value).
Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan Cox wrote:
| On Sul, 2004-10-10 at 07:35, Brian Litzinger wrote:
|
|>At least in New York and California the owner of intellectual
|>property has to defend his property. Otherwise it becomes
|>abandoned. (just like real property)
| This sort of thing thankfully only applies to Americans for copyright,
| foreigners have more rights in the USA here than US citizens do because
| of international treaties.
Well that's pretty typical.
| Courts in europe at least also take a dim view of ambushing people (in
| other words sitting on an infringement for a few years to rack up the
| value).
What about those who cannot comment on the code, for example people who
have since died or dropped off the face of the Earth? Out of curiousity,
if anyone knows what view is held in that situation, I'd love to know.
This is of course purely academic. The day someone actually convinces
enough kernel developers to relicense under such terms is the day hell
freezes over and Darl personally calls each developer to apologise for
being an ass for the last few years.
Cheers,
Jon.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBabcEeTyyexZHHxERAlwUAJ4s0UjLidZfFgmqOYWCI02cfThj4wCcDYVk
sI9wA1TOwgSDEf4ex9VJLDg=
=Issb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Salut,
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:26:12PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> What about those who cannot comment on the code, for example people
> who have since died or dropped off the face of the Earth? Out of
> curiousity, if anyone knows what view is held in that situation, I'd
> love to know.
Their code is protected under the right of property for exactly 70
years from the moment they died. That is, you can't relicense it in
our case. The old licenses stay valid, as they agreed on them.
Tonnerre