Re: FSF associate membership
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, a significant amount of the trolling here is spillover from
> uncalled-for crosspostings. comp.os.linux.advocacy is one group that is
> pretty much troll central: there is little enough content to be found
> above mud level.
Linux is what made it possible for Richard Stallman to pollute the
environment by countless aircraft travelling giving decades old speeches
as no other traveller/speaker before him. Without Linux nobody would
host/invite RMS. Without linux, nobody would donate significant money to
FSF/SFLC.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Kari Laine
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
On 07/25/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway, a significant amount of the trolling here is spillover from
>> uncalled-for crosspostings. comp.os.linux.advocacy is one group that is
>> pretty much troll central: there is little enough content to be found
>> above mud level.
>
> Linux is what made it possible for Richard Stallman to pollute the
> environment by countless aircraft travelling giving decades old speeches
> as no other traveller/speaker before him. Without Linux nobody would
> host/invite RMS. Without linux, nobody would donate significant money to
> FSF/SFLC.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
Alexander,
What have you exactly done in computer science?
I know you will jerk out and ask what I have done - I have not done
anything.
RMS is one of the best programmers there is. Linus is a very good
programmer but he is a good technical manager also.
RMS started the FSF in 19884/1985 with almost no money. He sacrificed
his big pay he could have received in salary and options by working in
some big software house.
RMS had an ideology which was very human and against capitalistic pigs
of software industry.
I have newer heard a speech of RMS but I will certainly try to attend if
he ever comes to Finland again.
Thank you for reminding me that I really should consider donating some
money to FSF.
Best Regards
--
Kari Laine
PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOLW08AAoJEPjW/Kjfref2RMAH/15AS5EXdmjP3onfgQp+vciV
qlJiZZK0JOWgNB3sCOSrvCAngvjBYGRScuyv1fnFDWIfJCwHFOlaR1nJr09K+gKw
VyrxwLfvTpP0zKRIpvl7L762VyulGnT4/Gh6/Ah1TJ85KEmUr6CtCGQJiTs7j/oy
NexkGL0EXAehRzwYuRg15pcDfcFkcyoqo/cID9qTVn3DpOvjh8xQfNZK3G4lQCsr
PTXhu3a0ZerCmHbZCBfLra5TVG7v1bMvW+OvkvANY7UvClHMjndNOG1BUToo/WXx
eM5WRfcDaozF7ETPEUaLt/caeT5l5ELtMqQNfCuWJbDGifOCTyc63EdNw8iLlNY=
=thpq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Kastrup
> Thank you for reminding me that I really should consider donating some
> money to FSF.
Like Alexander said, most of it will not go to programmers, but to
lawyers, clerks, system administrators. If your goal is to run a
hydroelectric plant, you'll find yourself paying architects and
engineers rather than watercarriers.
It is a matter of efficiency. On the plus side, the goal is to make the
average programmer more powerful, by giving him access to software.
That requires software being written, and access being kept available.
The GNU project is concerned with both, but thanks to a large grassroots
movement of programmers, much more free software gets written and made
available than the funds of the FSF could ever hope to support. So
nowadays, most of the donations go into maintaining access, technical
access (maintaining servers and services), legal access, politics, and
education. Stuff that the average programmer is happy to delegate.
When software actually gets funding (still happens), it is more or less
spent on spot-welding critical missing links.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Kari Laine wrote:
[... What have you exactly done in computer science? ...]
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html
"came up clever suggestion for implementing double checked locking using
thread local storage. Each thread keeps a thread local flag to determine
whether that thread has done the required synchronization. "
Later, I found that I was not the first to find the solution.
RJack
Just WTF does technical programming expertise have to do with Marxist
social engineering? I think you have category confusion.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
David Kastrup
If you manage well in programming expertise as well as social
engineering, you can apparently bring a programmer movement into being,
something you couldn't if you scored bad in either category.
Now you proud yourself in your expertise in social smearing. It is not
particularly effective but at least moderately distasteful. Nothing
that would make your grandchildren feel proud of you.
--
David Kastrup
RJack
Sniff.
Have a nice day DAK!
_ _
|R| |R|
|J| /^^^\ |J|
_|a|_ (| "o" |) _|a|_
_| |c| | _ (_---_) _ | |c| |_
| | |k| ||-| _| |_ |-|| |k| | |
| | / \ | |
\ / / /(. .)\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
() ()
|| ||
ooO Ooo
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Now you proud yourself in your expertise in social smearing. It is not
> particularly effective but at least moderately distasteful. Nothing
> that would make your grandchildren feel proud of you.
I have children (2), do you have children, dak?
Homer
> On 07/25/2011 02:38 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Linux is what made it possible for Richard Stallman to pollute the
>> environment by countless aircraft travelling giving decades old
>> speeches as no other traveller/speaker before him. Without Linux
>> nobody would host/invite RMS. Without linux, nobody would donate
>> significant money to FSF/SFLC.
[...]
> What have you exactly done in computer science? I know you will jerk
> out and ask what I have done - I have not done anything.
>
> RMS is one of the best programmers there is.
[quote]
It was in Math 55 that Richard Stallman began to cultivate a reputation
for brilliance. Breidbart agrees, but Chess, whose competitive streak
refused to yield, says the realization that Stallman might be the best
mathematician in the class didn't set in until the next year. "It was
during a class on Real Analysis," says Chess, now a math professor at
Hunter College. "I actually remember in a proof about complex valued
measures that Richard came up with an idea that was basically a metaphor
from the calculus of variations. It was the first time I ever saw
somebody solve a problem in a brilliantly original way."
For Chess, it was a troubling moment. Like a bird flying into a clear
glass window, it would take a while to realize that some levels of
insight were simply off limits.
[/quote]
http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf
Stallman would have been a brilliant speaker attracting audiences, with
or without Linux, despite what unaccomplished, insignificant right-wing
extremists like Terekhov seem to think.
--
K. | Thy name
http://slated.org | Shalt not
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Take the vein
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 63 days | Of my root
Homer
WTF does your fascist rhetoric have to do with open access to knowledge?
Alexander Terekhov
Homer wrote:
[...]
> or without Linux, despite what unaccomplished, insignificant right-wing
> extremists like Terekhov seem to think.
I would call myself a real, not left and not right.
David Kastrup
> Homer wrote:
> [...]
>> or without Linux, despite what unaccomplished, insignificant right-wing
>> extremists like Terekhov seem to think.
>
> I would call myself a real, not left and not right.
You would.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
I have children (2), do you have children, dak?
Could you please answer the question, dak?
Hyman Rosen
> I have children (2)
Are they ashamed of you?
Alexander Terekhov
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's a life.
I have children (2), do you have children, Hyman?
Could you please answer the question, Hyman?
Hyman Rosen
> I have children (2), do you have children, Hyman?
I have child (1).
Alexander Terekhov
Two (2) children, and more, if possible, is better.
Hyman Rosen
>> I have child (1).
> Two (2) children, and more, if possible, is better.
Nonsense. Obviously my (1) child is smarter and better looking
than your (2) children put together.
RJack
Ahhh... if you can't win the argument with the adults then stoop low and
attack the defenseless children.
How fuckin' low can you get Hymen?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
Hyman Rosen
> How fuckin' low can you get Hymen?
Your mother wears army boots.
Alexander Terekhov
"Because WD has not met its burden of demonstrating that its use of
the BusyBox software would not affect the value of plaintiffs'
copyright..."
What the FUCK Judge SCHEINDLIN is talking about regarding "affect the
value of plaintiffs' copyright..."?
Hey dak and Hyman, any ideas? &(%&^$%*^%#$@@#(PO(*_)^%&
David Kastrup
> http://terekhov.de/211.pdf
>
> "Because WD has not met its burden of demonstrating that its use of
> the BusyBox software would not affect the value of plaintiffs'
> copyright..."
>
> What the FUCK Judge SCHEINDLIN is talking about regarding "affect the
> value of plaintiffs' copyright..."?
>
> Hey dak and Hyman, any ideas? &(%&^$%*^%#$@@#(PO(*_)^%&
Sounds to me like the judge is talking about the value of plaintiff's
copyright here, namely the amount of money you could get if you sold all
your rights to parts of the code to somebody interested in them, for
example because he wants to create a proprietary product with it. Now
you can say that it would be likely hard to market because you need to
buy copyrights from a number of other people in order to arrive at a
useful piece of code. Quite possible to make a reasonably successful
argument along that line. But not tackling the question at all is not
going to fly. You can't say "there was no intent of selling, so there
was no damage". I could blow up a load of things using that argument.
--
David Kastrup
Hyman Rosen
> http://terekhov.de/211.pdf
>
> "Because WD has not met its burden of demonstrating that its use of
> the BusyBox software would not affect the value of plaintiffs'
> copyright..."
>
> What the FUCK Judge SCHEINDLIN is talking about regarding "affect the
> value of plaintiffs' copyright..."?
>
> Hey dak and Hyman, any ideas?&(%&^$%*^%#$@@#(PO(*_)^%&
Certainly. The copyright holders wish to use their exclusive
rights granted to them by copyright law to encourage growth
of free software. They do this by granting permission to copy
and distribute their copyrighted work only to those who comply
with the GPL, in the belief that such compliance accomplishes
what they wish. Copying and distributing BusyBox in violation
of the GPL will not, in the plaintiffs' opinion, encourage the
growth of free software, and therefore their copyright is being
devalued.
Homer
You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to understand
"value" in terms other than money, do you?
The "value" of Free Software is its freedom, including the Freedom to
make money from it, as Red Hat, Google and others have done, provided
the beneficiaries extend that same freedom to others. WD took all the
benefits, but didn't extend them to others, and so violated the GPL.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're the sort of thug
that drools over monopolistic subjugation, like Terekhov.
--
K. | "Everything that should be is working."
http://slated.org | ~ Vostok 1 designer and chief engineer,
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Sergei Korolev, to Yuri Gagarin, during
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 84 days | the first manned space mission.
Snit
> Verily I say unto thee that Hyman Rosen spake thusly:
>> On 8/15/2011 4:31 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> http://terekhov.de/211.pdf
>>>
>>> "Because WD has not met its burden of demonstrating that its use of
>>> the BusyBox software would not affect the value of plaintiffs'
>>> copyright..."
>>>
>>> What the FUCK Judge SCHEINDLIN is talking about regarding "affect the
>>> value of plaintiffs' copyright..."?
>>>
>>> Hey dak and Hyman, any ideas?&(%&^$%*^%#$@@#(PO(*_)^%&
>>
>> Certainly. The copyright holders wish to use their exclusive rights
>> granted to them by copyright law to encourage growth of free software.
>> They do this by granting permission to copy and distribute their
>> copyrighted work only to those who comply with the GPL, in the belief
>> that such compliance accomplishes what they wish. Copying and
>> distributing BusyBox in violation of the GPL will not, in the
>> plaintiffs' opinion, encourage the growth of free software, and
>> therefore their copyright is being devalued.
>
> You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to understand
> "value" in terms other than money, do you?
>
> The "value" of Free Software is its freedom, including the Freedom to
> make money from it, as Red Hat, Google and others have done, provided
> the beneficiaries extend that same freedom to others. WD took all the
> benefits, but didn't extend them to others, and so violated the GPL.
In other words: the IP restrictions were not upheld. OK.
> It's not a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're the sort of thug
> that drools over monopolistic subjugation, like Terekhov.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Alexander Terekhov
Homer wrote:
[...]
> You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to understand
> "value" in terms other than money, do you?
The entire point of copyright law is to give intangible work monetary
value by imposing monopoly on certain acts.
The German copyright law is very explicit in this respect:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__32.html
"Der Urheber hat für die Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten und die
Erlaubnis zur Werknutzung Anspruch auf die vertraglich vereinbarte
Vergütung. Ist die Höhe der Vergütung nicht bestimmt, gilt die
angemessene Vergütung als vereinbart. "
Back in 2000, 'free' software folks went to German Parliament asking to
add exemption to that rule (aka Linux-Klausel):
"Der Urheber kann aber unentgeltlich ein einfaches Nutzungsrecht für
jedermann einräumen."
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-Klausel
"Hintergrund und Geschichte [Bearbeiten]
Am 22. Mai 2000 hat das Bundesjustizministerium einen Gesetzesvorschlag
eingereicht, der das Urheberrecht modernisieren sollte. Dabei wurde in
den Bestimmungen zur angemessenen Vergütung des Urhebers festgelegt,
dass dem Schöpfer eines Werkes eine angemessene Beteiligung an den
Einnahmen gebührt.[2] In der Open-Source-Bewegung wurde dieser Vorschlag
stark kritisiert, da er das Geschäftsmodell von freier Software und
anderen auf Lizenzen wie der GPL beruhenden Werken unmöglich machen
würde. Dies führte dazu, dass auf Vorschlag des Instituts für
Rechtsfragen der Freien und Open Source Software die heute gültige
Bestimmung im Gesetzesentwurf vom 26. Juni 2001 von Fraktionen des
Bundestags aufgenommen wurde.[3] In der Begründung hieß es dazu:
„Der gesetzliche Vergütungsanspruch ist im Interesse des Urheberschutzes
im Voraus unverzichtbar, soweit der Urheber nicht jedermann
unentgeltlich ein einfaches Nutzungsrecht einräumt (Absatz 4 Satz 1).
Die aufgenommene Einschränkung beugt einer befürchteten
Rechtsunsicherheit für „Open Source“ Programme und anderem „Open
Content“ vor; im Bereich derartiger Lizenzbeziehungen, bei denen der
Urheber sein Werk der Allgemeinheit unentgeltlich zur Verfügung stellt,
kann weder eine zu Lasten des Urhebers gestörte Vertragsparität
vorliegen, noch sind insofern Missbrauchsmöglichkeiten denkbar.[4]“
Dieser Vorschlag wurde ins verabschiedete Gesetz aufgenommen. Er stellt
die Verwendung freier Lizenzen wie der GNU General Public License in
Deutschland auf eine rechtlich abgesicherte Basis."
RJack
The Court's ruling:
"v. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion to hold
WD in contempt of this Court's earlier injunction against WDE pursuant
to Rule 65( d) is granted. Counsel is ordered to submit information
regarding WD's ability to pay and plaintiffs' lost profits within
fifteen (15) days ofthe issuance of this Opinion and Order. Plaintiffs
are directed to submit a fee application by the same date. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to close this motion (docket # 172)."
Leaves Andersen to document his "lost profits". Do you suppose he will
lie about the lost profits like he did about the copyright registration?
To wit:
"[10] Plaintiffs made the same misstatements when moving for a default
judgment against Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC. See Dkt. 113 at
6, n 4, (“. . . since Mr. Anderson ‘is the owner of the copyright of
both the derivative and pre-existing work, the registration certificate
relating to the derivative work in this circumstance will suffice to
permit it to maintain an action for infringement based on defendants’
infringement of pre-existing work.”)” and Dkt. No. 115 at 1-2 (referring
to work beginning in 1999 and saying “I . . . retained all ownership of
the copyrights therein.”) Plaintiffs sought and obtained an injunction
and turnover order for “all articles containing BusyBox.” (Dkt. No. 113
at 9; and Dkt. No. 131 at 9, 15.) In doing so, they did not advise that
Mr. Andersen’s former employer, Lineo, had copyrights in Mr. Andersen’s
earlier work on BusyBox, that 25 other “authors” contributed to v.0.60.3
and that there are other, subsequent versions of BusyBox such as
v.1.2.1, which Mr. Kuhn claims he knew about in November, 2009, seven
months before moving for the default judgment. (See supra at 2-3; Dkt.
No. 166 at ¶ 9.)"
Now you know why Andersen moved to dismiss against Best Buy Inc. "WITH
PREDJUDICE" -- he didn't want the judge to read about his lying about
the facts upon which this travesty of a default judgment was based.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
RJack
"Mueller bases his opinion on the case of BusyBox, an embedded Linux
variant supplied with numerous commercial network products like routers
and firewalls. Lawsuits brought against manufacturers and distributors
of BusyBox-based products - including Cisco, Verizon, and retail chain
Best Buy - over their failure to provide access to products' source code
have resulted almost unanimously in guilty verdicts."
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/8/16/google-faces-gpl-breach-claims-over-android-code/
Sincerly,
RJack :)
Andrew Haley
>
> Homer wrote:
> [...]
>> You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to understand
>> "value" in terms other than money, do you?
>
> The entire point of copyright law is to give intangible work monetary
> value by imposing monopoly on certain acts.
>
> The German copyright law is very explicit in this respect:
>
> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__32.html
>
> Erlaubnis zur Werknutzung Anspruch auf die vertraglich vereinbarte
> angemessene Verg?tung als vereinbart. "
I'm not proficient in German, but does this really say that the only
purpose of copyright is to deliver remuneration to an author?
WIPO is clear: "The purpose of copyright and related rights is
twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning
value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic
existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for
the public."
Andrew.
David Kastrup
> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>> Homer wrote:
>> [...]
>>> You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to understand
>>> "value" in terms other than money, do you?
>>
>> The entire point of copyright law is to give intangible work monetary
>> value by imposing monopoly on certain acts.
>>
>> The German copyright law is very explicit in this respect:
>>
>> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__32.html
>>
>> "Der Urheber hat f?r die Einr?umung von Nutzungsrechten und die
>> Erlaubnis zur Werknutzung Anspruch auf die vertraglich vereinbarte
>> Verg?tung. Ist die H?he der Verg?tung nicht bestimmt, gilt die
>> angemessene Verg?tung als vereinbart. "
>
> I'm not proficient in German, but does this really say that the only
> purpose of copyright is to deliver remuneration to an author?
No. It says
"The author is entitled to the contractually agreed renumeration for the
grant and permission of usage rights. If the amount of renumeration is
not established, the appropriate renumeration is considered as agreed
upon."
"appropriate renumeration", "angemessene Vergütung" is something
established elsewhere in the law.
> WIPO is clear: "The purpose of copyright and related rights is
> twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning
> value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic
> existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for
> the public."
It's the governing principle but not the law itself. If a higher court
rules that the law does not embody the principles it needs to embody,
this usually means that it passes the law back to the lawmakers without
immediately putting it out of effect.
--
David Kastrup
Homer
> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Homer wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to
>>>> understand "value" in terms other than money, do you?
>>>
>>> The entire point of copyright law is to give intangible work
>>> monetary value by imposing monopoly on certain acts.
>>>
>>> The German copyright law is very explicit in this respect:
>>>
>>> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__32.html
>>>
>>> "Der Urheber hat f?r die Einr?umung von Nutzungsrechten und die
>>> Erlaubnis zur Werknutzung Anspruch auf die vertraglich vereinbarte
>>> Verg?tung. Ist die H?he der Verg?tung nicht bestimmt, gilt die
>>> angemessene Verg?tung als vereinbart. "
>>
>> I'm not proficient in German, but does this really say that the only
>> purpose of copyright is to deliver remuneration to an author?
>
> No. It says
>
> "The author is entitled to the contractually agreed renumeration for
> the grant and permission of usage rights. If the amount of
> renumeration is not established, the appropriate renumeration is
> considered as agreed upon."
>
> "appropriate renumeration", "angemessene Vergütung" is something
> established elsewhere in the law.
And if the "contractually agreed remuneration" is zero, as with, say,
Freeware (zero-cost proprietary software), would that then mean German
law does not recognise the value of the author's copyright?
Clearly copyright law is about more than just money, but then so is
remuneration (etymology: re = "back", munerari = "to give").
What the GPL requires one to "give back" is the corresponding source.
That source /is/ therefore the copyright's value.
Here's the actual point of copyright, from the same document:
[quote]
Subsection 2
Moral rights
§ 12 Publication of law
(1) The author has the right to determine whether and how his work is
published.
[/quote]
In the case of Busybox, the "whether and how" are determined by the
license. The license is GPLv2. The "contractually agreed remuneration"
specified in the GPLv2 is the corresponding source to derivative works.
/That/ is therefore the value of the author's copyright.
That source may well be of no value to Terekhov, but then fortunately
it's not his copyright, so he doesn't get to make that determination.
--
K. | "Everything that should be is working."
http://slated.org | ~ Vostok 1 designer and chief engineer,
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Sergei Korolev, to Yuri Gagarin, during
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 85 days | the first manned space mission.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> "appropriate renumeration", "angemessene Vergütung" is something
> established elsewhere in the law.
http://anwalt-im-netz.de/urheberrecht/angemessene-verguetung.html
"Angemessene Vergütung im Urheberrecht
Viele Künstler und Autoren, bzw. deren Verbände beklagen die
unzureichend erscheinende Vergütung der Urheber. Dafür wird das
Ungleichgewicht zwischem einem Urheber auf der einen Seite und eines
wirtschaftlich starken Verwertungsapparates auf der anderen Seite
verantwortlich gemacht. Oft genug ist der Urheber an bestimmte
Verwertungskanäle gebunden und muss, so scheint es, in den sauren Apfel
beissen.
Zum Ausgleich der gestörten Vertragsparität zwischen Urhebern und
Verwerten ( BT-Drucksache 14/6433 S. 20 f.) hat der Gesetzgeber mit den
§32 UrhG und §32a UrhG Grundsätze aufgestellt, welche die Interessen
sowohl der Urheberseite als auch der Verwerterseite berücksichtigen
sollen.
Ziel des Gesetzgebers ist somit nicht, dem Urheber ein möglichst hohes
Einkommen zu verschaffen. Ziel des Gesetzgebers ist die angemessene
wirtschaftliche Beteiligung des Urhebers oder des ausübenden Künstlers
an der Verwertung seiner Leistungen. Daher ist auch das wirtschaftliche
Risiko der Verwerter angemessen zu berücksichtigen, z.B. bei der
Erstverlegung eines Autors durch einen Verlag.
Üblichkeit und Redlichkeit der Vergütung
In §32 UrhG ist festgehalten, dass der Urheber einen gesetzlichen
Anpassungsanspruch erhält wenn die vertraglich festgelegte Vergütung
nicht angemessen ist. Hierbei gilt, dass gemeinsame Vergütungsregeln
oder Tarife, welche durch Urheber- und Verwerterverbände aufgestellt
wurden, stets als angemessen zu betrachten sind.
Eine Vergütung ist ersatzweise dann angemessen, wenn sie im Zeitpunkt
des Vertragsschlusses unter Berücksichtigung aller Umstände des
Einzelfalls üblich und redlich ist.
Branchenübung
Branchenüblichkeit ist daher ein Indiz, reicht aber nicht aus. Gerade so
genannte Buy-out-Verträge, bei denen mittels einer Einmalzahlung alle
Rechte abgekauft werden sollen, sind in einigen Branchen üblich, werden
aber dem Urheber nicht immer gerecht.
Redlichkeit
Das Ausfüllen der Begriffe Üblichkeit und Redlichkeit führt oft zu
erheblichen praktischen Schwierigkeiten. Oft ist weder eine
Branchenübung sichtbar, noch sind alle Umstände bekannt, die für die
Beurteilung der Redlichkeit einer Vereinbarung notwendig wären. Der
Arbeitsaufwand des Urhebers bei der Erstellung des Werks allein ebenso
wie die Schöpfungshöhe sollen für die objektive Bewertung des Merkmals
Redlichkeit keine Rolle spielen."
Alexander Terekhov
European concept of moral rights protects the personal and reputational,
rather than purely monetary, value of a work to its creator.
European concept of moral rights has nothing to do the GPL and computer
software.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
"What sources of law govern moral rights in the U.S.?
In the U.S., moral rights are primarily protected by VARA. Before VARA
was passed, courts and commentators struggled to find moral rights in
the "derivative work" provision of the Copyright Act, the laws of
defamation, the rights of privacy and publicity, the doctrine of
misappropriation, and especially the Lanham Act, which deals with
trademarks and unfair competition. Gilliam v. American Braodcasting Co.,
538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976); Flore Krigsman, Section 43(a) of the Lanham
Act as a Defender of Artists' "Moral Rights," 73 Trade-Mark Rep. 251
(May-June 1983).
Authors may seek moral rights protection from state moral rights laws
and art preservation statutes in California and New York, whose
provisions resemble those of VARA. Authors whose works are not covered
by VARA and the state statutes may also seek moral rights-type
protection from various other sources of law, as listed above. Examples
are provided below:
Who has moral rights, on what kinds of works, and how are they acquired?
Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of
visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings,
drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy
or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In
order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition
purposes only. VARA only protects works of "recognized stature;"
posters, maps, globes, motion pictures, electronic publications, and
applied art are among the categories of visual works explicitly excluded
from VARA protection.
The language of the Copyright Act excludes works-for-hire from the
definition of "works of visual art," thereby excluding such works from
VARA protection. (For a discussion of issues surrounding the moral
rights of works made for hire, see Colleen Creamer Fielkow, Clashing
Rights under United States Copyright Law: Harmonizing an Employer's
Economic Right with the Artist-Employee's Moral Rights in a Work Made
For Hire, 7 DePaul-LCA J. Art & Ent. L. 218 (Spring 1997).)
Moral rights are not transferrable, and end only with the life of the
author. Even if the author has conveyed away a work or her copyright in
it, she retains the moral rights to the work under VARA. Authors may,
however, waive their moral rights if do so in writing."
Peter Köhlmann
>> Moral rights
>
> European concept of moral rights
Idiot
Alexander Terekhov
I already knew that you are not smart, K�hlmann.
Please visit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)
"Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany, before they
were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works in 1928. Canada recognizes moral rights in its Copyright
Act, although the French translation of the phrase used in the
legislation is "droits moraux", not "droit d'auteur" (the latter refers
to copyright as a whole). While the United States became a signatory to
the convention in 1988, it still does not completely recognize moral
rights as part of copyright law, but rather as part of other bodies of
law, such as defamation or unfair competition.
Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights. In the United
States, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) recognizes moral
rights, but applies only to works of visual art."
See also:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726
"Article 6bis
Moral Rights:
1. To claim authorship; to object to certain modifications and other
derogatory actions;
2. After the author's death;
3. Means of redress
(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the
transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim
authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or
other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the
said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
(2) The rights granted to the author in accordance with the preceding
paragraph shall, after his death, be maintained, at least until the
expiry of the economic rights, and shall be exercisable by the persons
or institutions authorized by the legislation of the country where
protection is claimed. However, those countries whose legislation, at
the moment of their ratification of or accession to this Act, does not
provide for the protection after the death of the author of all the
rights set out in the preceding paragraph may provide that some of these
rights may, after his death, cease to be maintained.
(3) The means of redress for safeguarding the rights granted by this
Article shall be governed by the legislation of the country where
protection is claimed."
Alexander Terekhov
:-)
"AUG 15, 2011
Most Android vendors lost their Linux distribution rights, could face
shakedown or shutdown
Last week I read about an Android licensing issue that I wasn't
previously aware of. It's a pretty serious one, and it's not that hard
to understand. The short version is that
rampant non-compliance with the source code disclosure requirement of
the GPLv2 (the license under which Linux is published) -- especially but
not only in connection with Honeycomb -- has technically resulted in a
loss of most vendors' right to distribute Linux;
this loss of the distribution license is irremediable except through a
new license from each and every contributor to the Linux kernel, without
which Android can't run; and
as a result, there are thousands of people out there who could legally
shake down Android device makers, threatening to obtain Apple-style
injunctions unless their demands for a new license grant are met.
At first sight it may appear unthinkable that things could go so wrong
with the distribution license for the very foundation Android was built
upon. But I did my research and the above conclusions are just
consistent with legal positions taken recently by two of the most
renowned Free Software organizations -- the Software Freedom Conservancy
(SFC) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) -- in another context
involving GPLv2 (and software embedded in devices), the so-called
BusyBox lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case no. 1:09-cv-10155).
Just like those organizations forced a number of companies (most
recently Best Buy, previously some others including Cisco and Verizon)
to pay up, the situation surrounding most Android OEMs could become
quite uncomfortable if any Linux copyright holders driven by greed or
other motives team up with copyright lawyers (such as on a contingency
basis) and enforce their rights. There are thousands of Linux kernel
contributors besides Linus Torvalds. In some cases, it would probably be
easy to just replace the code they contributed if they seek to enforce
their rights, but in other cases, it would certainly take longer than
someone's ability to obtain a preliminary injunction somewhere on this
planet.
Now let's look at the legal issue more closely.
Two interesting posts on the official blog of the Brown Rudnick law firm
The law firm of Brown Rudnick has an Emerging Technologies group, and
last week one of its members, Brown Rudnick partner and IP litigator
Edward Naughton, published two blog posts on this issue. Here's a link
to that blog. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to link to a
particular post on that blog, but as I write this, those two posts are
the topmost ones.
Some will remember his Huffington Post article on another Android GPL
issue earlier this year. I, too, blogged about it. Back then he raised
interesting points, and contrary to popular misbelief, his concerns
weren't dispelled by the likes of Linus Torvalds, whose emotional
outburst indicated that Naughton had touched on a sensitive area for the
Linux community. None of those who contradicted Naughton stood up and
said that there was no reason for concern. Ultimately, the
interpretation of the GPL and of copyright law at large is in the hands
of the courts, not of luminaries like Torvalds. But that's the history,
and the new story is -- while also related to Android and the GPL -- a
different one.
I've been following Naughton on Twitter since then. He told me that one
his clients also got a letter from Lodsys.
Concerning today's topic (the loss-of-license issue), I really recommend
reading his posts, which explain the legal theory behind this and put
them into the context of open source practice. But I'll also provide
some more detail from my end in the remainder of this post.
Section 4 of GPLv2: the loss-of-license paragraph
This is what Section 4 of GPL version 2 says:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise
to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties
who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will
not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in
full compliance.
This is pretty easy to understand. The first sentence references all of
the obligations that licensees have under the GPL. One of them is the
source code disclosure obligation in Section 3. I won't quote that one
here because it's much longer than Section 4 and you can read it on the
Internet. With respect to what this discussion is all about, it says
that if you distribute software (such as Linux) under the GPLv2 for
commercial purposes, you must make its "complete corresponding
machine-readable source code" available (as Naughton points out on his
blog, even those willing to comply can easily run afoul of that
requirement) or provide a written offer to that effect.
The second sentence of that Section 4 then imposes a drastic sanction if
you do "otherwise" (meaning if you don't comply with all requirements,
including but not limited to Section 3). That sanction is that
non-compliance "will automatically terminate your rights under [the
GPLv2]". That's the situation in which virtually every Android OEM is
now: almost everyone was out of compliance at some point, and it doesn't
matter whether someone did the right thing 99% of the time --
non-compliance at just one point in time "will automatically terminate"
the license. Matthew Garrett, a well-known GPL activist, checked on the
compliance of Android tablet manufacturers with the source disclosure
requirement -- you can find the results here. There are various
well-known device makers who've been criticized over alleged
non-compliance. And as Naughton observed in a different article, the
compliance record is probably even worse in connection with Honeycomb,
an Android version for tablet computers that Google made available to
only a few select OEMs without publishing its source code.
In other words, it's hard to find an OEM who has always complied.
Unfortunately, those OEMs can't argue with any source code publications
by Google itself in the past. As Naughton points out on his blog, every
company distributing GPLv2-licensed code has that obligation and can't
use compliance by someone else upstream as an excuse for its own
non-compliance:
"Google's recent posting of some source code on the Android Open Source
Project (AOSP) site doesn’t protect OEMs: it’s quite clear that the
obligation to provide source code is personal to each and every person
in the supply chain, and a commercial entity cannot rely on others to
provide the relevant source code. In addition, because the source that
Google has posted is a blind dump without any manifest, it is very
difficult to determine whether it meets the 'corresponding source'
requirement of the GPLv2."
To finish this explanation of GPLv2 Section 4, its third (and last)
sentence just protects those who receive a program from a non-compliant
party that lost its license, as long as the recipients then act in
compliance.
SFC/SFLC position on license termination and remediability
Naughton published several filings from the aforementioned BusyBox
litigation, and those relate to a preliminary injunction that the SFLC
sought on the SFC's behalf against Best Buy. That motion was never
decided on by the court because the parties settled, and it's a safe
assumption that Best Buy had to cough up a significant amount of money
to resolve this matter.
This is what they tried to do: the SFC and SFLC teamed up with just one
contributor to the BusyBox projects. The developers of that one also
include Bruce Perens, who probably wrote most of the Busybox code but
did not participate in the SFC's and SFLC's enforcement actions.
BusyBox calls itself, according to Wikipedia, "the Swiss Army Knife of
Embedded Linux". Indeed, it appears to run on a lot of Linux-powered
devices. Best Buy got sued because it distributes one or more of those
devices. I personally believe that intellectual property rights should
usually be enforced against infringing publishers/manufacturers rather
than mere resellers, but that's a separate issue.
In the original complaint filed in late 2009, the legal allies of that
BusyBox contributor asked the court for "injunctive relief", more
specifically, that Best Buy (and all the other defendants) "be enjoined
and restrained from copying, modifying, distributing or making any other
infringing use of Plaintiffs' software". In January 2011, they asked for
a preliminary injunction against Best Buy and another company (Phoebe
Micro).
Obviously, Best Buy opposed that motion. In its opposition, Best Buy
pointed to the fact that it had addressed any potential compliance
issues. But in their reply brief to that one, SFC/SFLC asserted the
following:
"Further, once Best Buy made a distribution of BusyBox that did not
comply with the license terms, the license terminated, and therefore any
further act of copying or distributing BusyBox by Best Buy (even if in
compliance with the license) is without [a particular author's]
permission. [...] Thus, Best Buy's failure to comply with the license
has terminated any right it may have to make any copies or distributions
of BusyBox and its ongoing distribution of BusyBox therefore infringes
Andersen's copyrights regardless of whether the distributions today are
in compliance with the open source license."
That may sound tough, but that's the position of the Free Software
movement, and it's actually reasonable given that the language of GPLv2
Section 4 ("automatically terminates") is indeed very strict. The reply
brief I mentioned also stresses something that would apply to
smartphones and tablet computers:
"Compliance after the fact will not remedy that loss [of the license],
because consumer electronics like Blu-ray disc players fall into disuse
quickly, whether from malfunction or obsolescence."
Also, it's not sufficient to just comply with any future release of the
same open source software. If there's just one author whose contribution
hasn't even changed, he'll argue that by losing the original GPL-based
license grant, you're unlicensed and need to strike a new deal with him.
So what could remedy the loss of the license? According to the SFC/SFLC,
the only option is to secure a new license from each and every original
right holder (contributor). In the specific case of Linux, that means
(literally) thousands of people. And any one (or more than one) of them
could team up with lawyers like that litigious BusyBox contributor (who
isn't even the principal author of that particular program) and bring
the same kinds of claims against the vast majority of Android device
makers. Who knows, some of them might even pull an Apple.
If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other
intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed
(in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and
Google+."
http://www.brownrudnick.com/blog/emergingtech/
"Operating (system) without a license: Does Section 4 of the GPL leave
Google and Android device manufacturers unlicensed? (Part 2)
POSTED ON THURSDAY, AUG 11 2011
BY EDWARD J. NAUGHTON
In my previous post, I explained how Section 4 of GPLv2 plays a critical
role in GPL enforcement actions brought by the SFC and the SFLC. By
immediately terminating rights for non-compliance and requiring express
permission from the licensor to reestablish those rights, Section 4
provides a stout club that can be used against companies who rely on GPL
code in their products but fail to adhere to the complicated
requirements for that license. In this post, I want to examine what that
might mean for an Android ecosystem that is not a model of GPL
compliance."
<chuckles>
Alexander Terekhov
(FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 4)
"OPINION
FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 4
Print Version
E-Mail Article
Reprints
By Barbara Hudson
LinuxInsider
Part of the ECT News Network
09/09/11 5:00 AM PT
Sharing source code benefits everyone involved. However, heavy-handed
attempts to impose further restrictions on end-users beyond the license,
or to ask people to harass developers to switch, just come off as "sturm
und drang" by nitpickers. Hopefully this doesn't presage the rise of the
GNUstapo.
<previous: FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 3>
"Strike while the iron is hot" -- and the usual suspects have made
Android licensing a hot issue. However, the title of the FSF article,
"Android GPLv2 termination worries -- one more reason to upgrade to
GPLv3," gives the game away. This is about politics, not licensing.
About pushing a specific agenda. About promoting the GPLv3 license at
the expense of the GPLv2, Linux, Android and reality.
It's natural that there will be people and organizations engaging in bit
of opportunistic profile-raising when they see an opportunity.
Sometimes, as with the FSF GPLv2 FUD, they overreach and need to be
called on it. And sometimes they really put their foot in it, as the
Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin did when he recently labeled businesses
that don't contribute back code as "idiots."
One Size Does Not Fit All
If the GPLv3 were so wonderful, there would be no need to post articles
saying, "Companies that sell products that use Android can help out by
encouraging the developers of Linux to make the switch to GPLv3."
Especially when the reality is that releasing the decryption keys to
unlock mobile systems would kill Android on Linux, and the developers
are already on record as saying they have no problems with the current
license and have better things to do with their time.
The social and political objectives of the FSF (and by extension,
gnu.org) are not always the same as other members of the community. In a
world with various shades of grey and different needs and goals, the
reality is that one license does not fit all projects, and zealotry is
ugly.
What Isn't Free Software?
When I go to the Free Software Foundation home page, I see this:
you deserve to use software that is:
free from restriction
free to share and copy
free to learn and adapt
free to work with others
you deserve free software.
Critics have rightly pointed out that by this definition, the GPL does
not meet these standards. This doesn't make it a bad license -- sharing
source code benefits everyone involved. However, heavy-handed attempts
to impose further restrictions on end-users beyond the license, or to
ask people to harass developers to switch, just come off as "sturm und
drang" by nitpickers. Hopefully this doesn't presage the rise of the
GNUstapo.
Some Takeaways
1.If you are a coder, do not give up your control over your work by
assigning copyrights to an organization that says "trust us." They may
decide at some future date to "leverage" your code in ways you never
intended;
2.Remove any references to "or any later version" of the license. If you
wouldn't give them a blank check, don't give them the license
equivalent;
3.Keep in mind how a magician will always try to get you to focus your
attention on one hand, so you don't see what the other hand is doing.
The original article overemphasizes section 4 of the GPL to make a case
for "permanent" risk, in the hope that you won't notice the ease of
obtaining a new license without encumbrances in section 6, or ignore the
fact that take-it-or-leave-it licenses are always interpreted in the
recipients' favor;
4.Don't believe everything the license says. The GPL says that you have
no rights if you do not accept the license, which is simply not true.
The GPL (any version) only applies to the extent that copyright law
currently allows it. Post-Feist, there are more restrictions on what is
actually copyrightable. There is no "sweat of the brow" copyright, nor
other material that fails to meet, even slightly, the constitutional
basis for copyright -- to "promote the progress of science and useful
arts," aka encouraging creative expression;
5.If someone is particularly nasty, keep in mind that courts have also
held (Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata) that even the copying of
complete copyrighted programs without the copyright holders' permission
is allowed if the only way to extract non-protected data is to do so,
and that abusive copyright holders can lose their rights;
6.There are always alternatives, whether it's a particular program, a
toolchain, or an operating system.
The Ultimate Consequences
Casting doubt on Android and Linux licensing has two easily discernable
effects. Manufacturers, for their part, will be more likely to consider
other platforms, and who can blame them?
And it's a safe bet that Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) is working on a
BSD-hosted version of Android as a fallback. I know if I were them,
that's what I'd be doing, just in case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hudson's daughters and her dogs are a large part of who she is.
As for computers, she's been writing code for longer than she really
wants to admit. Now that she's returned to independent development, her
current focus is on creating simpler and more secure code libraries. Her
dream project? Creating the ultimate chess program."
Wow.
regards,
alexander.
--
http://web.archive.org/web/20090626051346/http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
Alexander Terekhov
"08/08/2011 211 OPINION AND ORDER: For the aforementioned reasons
earlier injunction against WDE pursuant to Rule 65( d) is granted.
Counsel is ordered to submit information regarding WD's ability to pay
application by the same date. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
on 8/8/2011) (js) Modified on 8/9/2011 (jab). (Entered: 08/09/2011) "
08/08/2011 211 OPINION AND ORDER:
http://terekhov.de/211.pdf
Now in 2012:
"01/05/2012 232 ORDER: The August 8, 2011 Order in this matter is
hereby vacated. The Clerk of the Court is directed to withdraw this
entry (Docket No. 211) from the docket. So Ordered (Signed by Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/5/2012) (js) (Entered: 01/06/2012)"
01/05/2012 232 ORDER:
http://terekhov.de/232.pdf
Hmmm... sounds not good for GNUtards...