On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane interpretation.
If it has been made public it has been published. The real question here is _who_ did the publishing.
{{citationneeded}}
"For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil make it to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century. The basic meaning has been around for a long time.
Ec
On 7/13/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
On 7/11/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
It's not just the fact that the distribution is taking place on the Internet, though. The fact that everyone is an editor and every bit of content is a constant work in progress makes for a reasonable argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all. The more I think about it the more I see this as the most sane interpretation.
If it has been made public it has been published. The real question here is _who_ did the publishing.
{{citationneeded}}
"For he bat wil pupplische ony thing to make it openly knowen, he wil make it to ben cryed and pronounced in the myddel place of a Town" - John Mandeville, "Travels", 14th century. The basic meaning has been around for a long time.
Ec
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that.
Anthony
On 7/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that.
Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the definition of "publication".
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 7/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that.
Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the definition of "publication".
I don't doubt that this is a part of US law. The point really is does the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words) in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/13/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
And FWIW, the US Code defines "publication" as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."
Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that.
Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the definition of "publication".
I don't doubt that this is a part of US law. The point really is does the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words) in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it. The old bible tracts given away back in the 60's by the Baptist churches in the South for "free" and the Gideon bibles in every hotel room in the South are another example of pre-GFDL activities with "free" published works (check the case law on several litigations in the 70's over copyright issues with some of these works -- they are viewed as "publications".)
Jeff
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does). And may qualify as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT. People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If you grant someone unlimited RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be transferred on the back of a bubble gum wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
Jeff
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does). And may qualify as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT. People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If you grant someone unlimited RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be transferred on the back of a bubble gum wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
Jeff
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY". I think you can see the logic. If folks want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES" and the words "RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
Jeff
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does). And may qualify as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT. People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If you grant someone unlimited RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be transferred on the back of a bubble gum wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY". I think you can see the logic. If folks want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES" and the words "RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
It's more subtle than that. It's free distribution not free contents. Free is an adjective, and as such does not stand in isolation. If someone gives you a new hat with a logo on it the right to reproduce the logo does not come with ownership of the hat. Intangible properties such as rights are not treated the same way as tangible properties such as hats.
GFDL allows for downstream reuses by all persons, not just for educational purposes. It is also not an unconditional granting of rights. It requires users to pass those same conditions on to subsequent users, and provides that derivative works also be licensed in the same way. In simple terms a user who does not do this is in breach of license.
Ec
It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to live like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people because he just liked it that much.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple terms like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what Wikipedia is all about.
On 7/16/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there
is no
rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every
person
that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of
ownership.
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does). And may qualify as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT. People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the
licence. If
you grant someone unlimited RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be transferred on the back of a bubble gum wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY". I think you can see the logic. If folks want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES" and the words "RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
It's more subtle than that. It's free distribution not free contents. Free is an adjective, and as such does not stand in isolation. If someone gives you a new hat with a logo on it the right to reproduce the logo does not come with ownership of the hat. Intangible properties such as rights are not treated the same way as tangible properties such as hats.
GFDL allows for downstream reuses by all persons, not just for educational purposes. It is also not an unconditional granting of rights. It requires users to pass those same conditions on to subsequent users, and provides that derivative works also be licensed in the same way. In simple terms a user who does not do this is in breach of license.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Hare wrote:
It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to live like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people because he just liked it that much.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple terms like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what Wikipedia is all about.
I agree with all of this. "Free" is fine with me and I agree I don't think anyone cares about copyright issues on GFDL text.
Jeff
Right... we tell the people that our encyclopedia is free -- for use, and for distribution. When they're interested in distribution -- that's when they're basically asking for legal terminology.
On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
James Hare wrote:
It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to
live
like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people
because
he just liked it that much.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple
terms
like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what Wikipedia is all about.
I agree with all of this. "Free" is fine with me and I agree I don't think anyone cares about copyright issues on GFDL text.
Jeff _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Hare wrote:
Right... we tell the people that our encyclopedia is free -- for use, and for distribution. When they're interested in distribution -- that's when they're basically asking for legal terminology.
Well, I am distributing it, and making lots of money off of it promoting it, and I am keeping it free (the knowledge and software part, anyway -- hardware always costs money). :-)
Jeff
On 7/17/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
James Hare wrote:
It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to
live
like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people
because
he just liked it that much.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple
terms
like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what Wikipedia is all about.
I agree with all of this. "Free" is fine with me and I agree I don't think anyone cares about copyright issues on GFDL text.
Jeff _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Hare wrote:
It also should be noted we shouldn't have to inundate common people with complex logical arguments about something as boring as copyright law.
I don't find it boring.
Jimmy Wales was from Alabama, he had a thirst for knowledge. He studied finance at Auburn University -- that's where options trading caught his eyes. After a bout of that and Internet porn, he realized: he wanted to live like common people; he wanted to live and drink with common people. So he decided to dump a lot of money in a website -for- the common people because he just liked it that much.
Bringing all the bio stuff up says more about you than about him.
All in all, Wikipedia is for common people, and they'd prefer simple terms like "free encyclopedia" than "GFDL general and specialized knowledge provider licensed for free and educational use." Common people is what Wikipedia is all about.
That's very pious of you.
We still need to Free the Law.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is no rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition *nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a court would agree with that...."
Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person that receives it.
Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets transferred? Bits?
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does). And may qualify as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT. People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If you grant someone unlimited RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be transferred on the back of a bubble gum wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY". I think you can see the logic. If folks want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES" and the words "RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."
It's more subtle than that. It's free distribution not free contents. Free is an adjective, and as such does not stand in isolation. If someone gives you a new hat with a logo on it the right to reproduce the logo does not come with ownership of the hat. Intangible properties such as rights are not treated the same way as tangible properties such as hats.
GFDL allows for downstream reuses by all persons, not just for educational purposes. It is also not an unconditional granting of rights. It requires users to pass those same conditions on to subsequent users, and provides that derivative works also be licensed in the same way. In simple terms a user who does not do this is in breach of license.
Ec
The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been following the FSF and their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt away like chaff in the wind on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch GPL code then use it.
They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think they know if this thing got in front of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up ... just a theory.
Jeff
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been following the FSF and their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt away like chaff in the wind on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch GPL code then use it.
They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think they know if this thing got in front of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up ... just a theory.
A few points to note here.... The biggest known "abuser" of GPL'd software is Tivo (the set-top real-time video recorder). The company openly admits to be using Linux as the OS for their products but doesn't give copies of "modified" software they have been using within the devices that they sell. The problem here is, are they selling devices that happen to have GPL'd software "embedded" in the device, not re-selling software. The GPL is ambiguous if this is even a violation, and other companies that you are talking about also view pinching GPL'd code under the same light. I guess this is one of the "classes" of violators you are talking about. Some of this is also a mistaken belief that the GPL requires "giving back to the community" any changes to software that you make. It does not, and Tivo has decided to keep their changes as trade secrets.
The other known major abuser of copyleft software was none other than Microsoft itself, who copied the TCP/IP software from BSD Unix for the Windows NT operating system network routines. The problem here is that it was not the GPL, but rather the BSD license that this software was released under, and the FSF has no copyright claim on any of these routines either.
BTW, the exact opposite view is sometimes applied, where you will not be hired by some software development groups if you have ever been exposed to GPL'd software source code. The reason is that they don't want to have their software "contaminated" by GPL'd software specifically because they don't want to deal with the viral nature of the GPL and being forced to release all of their software under the GPL.
Of course the most famous court case for testing the GPL is SCO vs. IBM, where it was originally seen as a major test of the GPL (with IBM backing of the GPL in a weird twist of events). Instead it looks as if the case is going to spin into a stock fraud case and turn from civil litigation into a criminal matter. Where the SEC will take this, I'm not sure, but I'm certain that the GPL will be the least of the problems for the CEO of SCO. This case did air out some of the legal issues regarding the GPL in court and did deal with many copyleft issues in general, but it doesn't look like the GPL will be significant for any precedence to use this case in future GPL-related litigation.
I'm curious what other major copyright violators of the GPL that you are talking about that the FSF didn't litigate against? The real issue that the FSF has been facing is that major violators of the GPL havn't necessarily been violating the use of GNU/Hurd software or anything else with a copyright claim by the FSF. I guess this is another "class" of GPL violations, but if they don't have a copyright claim, the FSF can't really file as a plaintiff and enforce the copyright. There is also the issue of statutory vs. actual damage claims that I raised earlier that also apply to software under the GPL, making even a positive judgement (for the GPL) something that is essentially a moot point and effectively unenforcable.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been following the FSF and their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt away like chaff in the wind on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch GPL code then use it.
They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think they know if this thing got in front of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up ... just a theory.
A few points to note here.... The biggest known "abuser" of GPL'd software is Tivo (the set-top real-time video recorder). The company openly admits to be using Linux as the OS for their products but doesn't give copies of "modified" software they have been using within the devices that they sell. The problem here is, are they selling devices that happen to have GPL'd software "embedded" in the device, not re-selling software. The GPL is ambiguous if this is even a violation, and other companies that you are talking about also view pinching GPL'd code under the same light. I guess this is one of the "classes" of violators you are talking about. Some of this is also a mistaken belief that the GPL requires "giving back to the community" any changes to software that you make. It does not, and Tivo has decided to keep their changes as trade secrets.
The other known major abuser of copyleft software was none other than Microsoft itself, who copied the TCP/IP software from BSD Unix for the Windows NT operating system network routines. The problem here is that it was not the GPL, but rather the BSD license that this software was released under, and the FSF has no copyright claim on any of these routines either.
BTW, the exact opposite view is sometimes applied, where you will not be hired by some software development groups if you have ever been exposed to GPL'd software source code. The reason is that they don't want to have their software "contaminated" by GPL'd software specifically because they don't want to deal with the viral nature of the GPL and being forced to release all of their software under the GPL.
Of course the most famous court case for testing the GPL is SCO vs. IBM, where it was originally seen as a major test of the GPL (with IBM backing of the GPL in a weird twist of events). Instead it looks as if the case is going to spin into a stock fraud case and turn from civil litigation into a criminal matter. Where the SEC will take this, I'm not sure, but I'm certain that the GPL will be the least of the problems for the CEO of SCO. This case did air out some of the legal issues regarding the GPL in court and did deal with many copyleft issues in general, but it doesn't look like the GPL will be significant for any precedence to use this case in future GPL-related litigation.
I'm curious what other major copyright violators of the GPL that you are talking about that the FSF didn't litigate against? The real issue that the FSF has been facing is that major violators of the GPL havn't necessarily been violating the use of GNU/Hurd software or anything else with a copyright claim by the FSF. I guess this is another "class" of GPL violations, but if they don't have a copyright claim, the FSF can't really file as a plaintiff and enforce the copyright. There is also the issue of statutory vs. actual damage claims that I raised earlier that also apply to software under the GPL, making even a positive judgement (for the GPL) something that is essentially a moot point and effectively unenforcable.
Novell, Microsoft, and HP.
Jeff
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
The way it's worded in GPL2 (and GPL3) its ambiguous. I've also been following the FSF and their litigation strategy over the years, and to be honest they wilt away like chaff in the wind on a certain class of GPL violators -- big software companies who pinch GPL code then use it.
They onyl go after folks with little or no litigation resources. I Think they know if this thing got in front of a court and someone bankrolled 20 mil into costs, it may not stand up ... just a theory.
I'm sure that there's a strong element of truth to this. In the long run tactics analogous to guerilla warfare tend to be more effective against massive power.
Of course the most famous court case for testing the GPL is SCO vs. IBM, where it was originally seen as a major test of the GPL (with IBM backing of the GPL in a weird twist of events). Instead it looks as if the case is going to spin into a stock fraud case and turn from civil litigation into a criminal matter. Where the SEC will take this, I'm not sure, but I'm certain that the GPL will be the least of the problems for the CEO of SCO. This case did air out some of the legal issues regarding the GPL in court and did deal with many copyleft issues in general, but it doesn't look like the GPL will be significant for any precedence to use this case in future GPL-related litigation.
Sigh! Stock fraud, the refuge of high quality scoundrels.
I'm curious what other major copyright violators of the GPL that you are talking about that the FSF didn't litigate against? The real issue that the FSF has been facing is that major violators of the GPL havn't necessarily been violating the use of GNU/Hurd software or anything else with a copyright claim by the FSF. I guess this is another "class" of GPL violations, but if they don't have a copyright claim, the FSF can't really file as a plaintiff and enforce the copyright. There is also the issue of statutory vs. actual damage claims that I raised earlier that also apply to software under the GPL, making even a positive judgement (for the GPL) something that is essentially a moot point and effectively unenforcable.
I agree, and GFDL hasn't been touched at all. For the most part I think that the strategic thinking necessary for dealing with these complex issues is missing from WMF. This is unfortunate because vested interests are going to fight like hell to maintain their advantages, even as the underlying social fabric of copyright is changing. In the nearly three centuries since Queen Anne's Law the ones who have had the ears of the politicians have been the ones who stood to do well with improved protections. For most of that time those who would benefit from any different were mostly scattered, and never in any position to mount an effective lobby.
Perhaps WMF's greatest disadvantage is that it has become so big. Being big can mean having more to lose in a knock down legal street scrap.
Ec
On 7/14/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Looking further, "To perform or display a work "publicly" means— (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
Seems 2) fits in closer with what Wikipedia is doing than the definition of "publication".
I don't doubt that this is a part of US law. The point really is does the Code have the same definition of "publish" (and its related words) in the context of copyright law as it does in the context of defamation law, or any other branch of law where the definition may be an issue?
Well, this thread was talking about the term "publish" in terms of the GFDL. I said that there was "a reasonable argument that these works are in fact not yet published at all" in that context. You responded that "If it has been made public it has been published. The real question here is _who_ did the publishing."
I don't think it's a given that "it has been published". I think there's a reasonable argument that Wikipedia is a joint work of authorship that is still a work in progress, and that the original publisher is whoever first takes that content and produces a work which can legitimately be seen as a single GFDL document.
It's like if RMS and ESR get together and work on a novel. They wouldn't have to add a line in the history section every time they pass a working copy back and forth. No, they'd finish the novel, put both their names on it as co-authors, and then publish it as the original publication.
This doesn't fit nearly as neatly for Wikipedia, but neither does any other interpretation.
Anthony
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org