#231 From: "criguada@..." <criguada@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) criguada
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi,
> >> Noone is allowed to charge money for Linux, thats what I want.
> >Thats simply not true, everybody is allowed to charge money for Linux,
> >read and understand the GPL.
> >
> For unmodified Linux sourcecode ??
I'm getting really tired about all this.
The point is only one:
- you want to help building an OS/2 clone
- you don't want to help
I'm not interested in the reasons because a persons doesn't want to
help, and I'm not interested in all this legal questions (that BTW are
absolutely moot points since we all come from different countries with
different laws).
We are talking about cloning OS/2. We are talking about gathering and
doing it _cleanly_.
If there is someone afraid because someone other has looked in OS/2
sourcecode, well then realx: as it turns out there are LOTS of persons
who looked into it, mostly illegally.
If you don't want to develop for an open, clean system simply because
someone "dared" to publicly upload a distro that's probably not legal,
then you can stop buying/getting OS/2 software, because LOTS of
developers peeked at that source.
I'll repeat: here we want to do the right (clean) thing. You either
- want to help building an OS/2 clone
- don't want to help
The thing really boils down to that.
Bye
Cris
Part 8 - Feb 22 2002
Re: Part 8
#232 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: NewOS mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:46:02 +0100, criguada@... wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>reading the OpenBeOS FAQ I found out this one: http://newos.sourceforge.net.
>
>Please, those knowledgeable in kernel coding look through it, and report
>how good it would be to base an OS/2-compatible kernel upon.
>This seems a fresh implementation, without unix heritage.
>
>Here are a few lines from the website:
>
>Implemented Features
>
> * Multithreaded
> * Multiprocessor
> * Fully reentrant kernel
> * Protected memory
> * Separate user and kernel space
> * Text-based console
> * Full locking primitives
> * Kernel debugging support with installable debugger commands and
>remote gdb support
> * Modern VM design (demand paging, swapping, memory mapping), with
>support for full filesystem cache integration
> * Dynamically loadable kernel modules: drivers, filesystems, generic
>modules
> * Full virtual filesystem layer, device file system
> * Initial support for iso9660 and ext2fs filesystems
> * Full user space shared lib support
> * Kernel based network stack (UDP/IP for now)
> * Remote block device
> * Basic VESA mode support with generic framebuffer console
>
Did a quick look at their page and it sounds quite good.
PLEASE, can people with kernel knowledge download it, build it and so how
well it would fit.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: NewOS mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:46:02 +0100, criguada@... wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>reading the OpenBeOS FAQ I found out this one: http://newos.sourceforge.net.
>
>Please, those knowledgeable in kernel coding look through it, and report
>how good it would be to base an OS/2-compatible kernel upon.
>This seems a fresh implementation, without unix heritage.
>
>Here are a few lines from the website:
>
>Implemented Features
>
> * Multithreaded
> * Multiprocessor
> * Fully reentrant kernel
> * Protected memory
> * Separate user and kernel space
> * Text-based console
> * Full locking primitives
> * Kernel debugging support with installable debugger commands and
>remote gdb support
> * Modern VM design (demand paging, swapping, memory mapping), with
>support for full filesystem cache integration
> * Dynamically loadable kernel modules: drivers, filesystems, generic
>modules
> * Full virtual filesystem layer, device file system
> * Initial support for iso9660 and ext2fs filesystems
> * Full user space shared lib support
> * Kernel based network stack (UDP/IP for now)
> * Remote block device
> * Basic VESA mode support with generic framebuffer console
>
Did a quick look at their page and it sounds quite good.
PLEASE, can people with kernel knowledge download it, build it and so how
well it would fit.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 8
#233 From: "JMA" <mail@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:25 pm
Subject: Re: Legalesse mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:17:21 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>
>It's illegal in every country if you want to create
>a product which compeeds with the original.
>All part of WIPO laws/treaties.
>
Yes, no doubt.
But if TPE was build using disassembled sources and clearly
stated you MUST be a licencee of IBM OS/2 Warp to use it
then where is the competition.
Each TPE would then need a IBM OS/2 Warp licence for you
to run it. Thats more like an extension of the product to fix bugs
than a new competivie product.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:25 pm
Subject: Re: Legalesse mailjmase
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:17:21 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>
>It's illegal in every country if you want to create
>a product which compeeds with the original.
>All part of WIPO laws/treaties.
>
Yes, no doubt.
But if TPE was build using disassembled sources and clearly
stated you MUST be a licencee of IBM OS/2 Warp to use it
then where is the competition.
Each TPE would then need a IBM OS/2 Warp licence for you
to run it. Thats more like an extension of the product to fix bugs
than a new competivie product.
Sincerely
JMA
Development and Consulting
John Martin , jma@...
==================================
Website: http://www.jma.se/
email: mail@...
Phone: 46-(0)70-6278410
==================================
Re: Part 8
#234 From: "raprapand" <andersand666@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: Laws, legal raprapand
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
Hejsan JMA
> Btw, according to swedish laws downloading from Napster would not
> give you any punisment.
Are you sure? It is illegal in Denmark, even though noone yet has been
taken to court here for downloading (it is the copyright owner, not
the police that has to do this). Anyway, it is illegal to "uploade" or
give away copyrighted material to others without permission from the
copyright owner.
> Laws are different in different countries.
Not that different. Almost every country on Earth has signed the
Berner Convention which deals with copyright.
Why not just remove the binaries, until the people behind it proove it
is legal. You will gain respect/help from the people that will not be
involved with questionable material. And I don't think you will loose
anyone from not having the binaries on the server. Those who wants it
already has it, or they can find it elsewhere.
Regards Kim Ludvigsen
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: Laws, legal raprapand
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
--- In osFree@y..., "JMA" <mail@j...> wrote:
Hejsan JMA
> Btw, according to swedish laws downloading from Napster would not
> give you any punisment.
Are you sure? It is illegal in Denmark, even though noone yet has been
taken to court here for downloading (it is the copyright owner, not
the police that has to do this). Anyway, it is illegal to "uploade" or
give away copyrighted material to others without permission from the
copyright owner.
> Laws are different in different countries.
Not that different. Almost every country on Earth has signed the
Berner Convention which deals with copyright.
Why not just remove the binaries, until the people behind it proove it
is legal. You will gain respect/help from the people that will not be
involved with questionable material. And I don't think you will loose
anyone from not having the binaries on the server. Those who wants it
already has it, or they can find it elsewhere.
Regards Kim Ludvigsen
Re: Part 8
#235 From: "ShadoW" <ShadoW.FmC@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: NewOS shadow_fmc
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi,
- the developer wants to keep control of the project (-> branch)
- proprietary driver interface?
Sebastian
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: NewOS shadow_fmc
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi,
- the developer wants to keep control of the project (-> branch)
- proprietary driver interface?
Sebastian
Re: Part 8
#236 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:23:13 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>> Noone sells Linux. They sell the media, the services, the manuals,
>> sometimes additional software, but noone can seel Linux itself.
>>
>Of course you can there is no part in the GPL which
>forbids this. You have to provide the sources and your
>customer can freely give them on. So the question is
>if you can make a buisnes case just selling it.
>And if you sell something shrinkwraped you always have a
>media ...
>
Markus is quite right... it is OK to sell GNU software
but the catch is that you must provide all source code,
hence anyone else can sell it too (or make available in
another way).
Michal
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: Re: license issues (GPL or not) michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:23:13 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>> Noone sells Linux. They sell the media, the services, the manuals,
>> sometimes additional software, but noone can seel Linux itself.
>>
>Of course you can there is no part in the GPL which
>forbids this. You have to provide the sources and your
>customer can freely give them on. So the question is
>if you can make a buisnes case just selling it.
>And if you sell something shrinkwraped you always have a
>media ...
>
Markus is quite right... it is OK to sell GNU software
but the catch is that you must provide all source code,
hence anyone else can sell it too (or make available in
another way).
Michal
Re: Part 8
#237 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: What do you need to participate ? michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:17:21 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>It's illegal in every country if you want to create
>a product which compeeds with the original.
>
Ah, I think we're getting to the crux of the matter.
I would like to know how osFree is competing with IBM
OS/2 when IBM is clearly not interested in OS/2 at all
and would be much happier if OS/2 just went away and
disappeared?
And just a comment - the world is a pretty fucked up
place, pardon me saying so, if no one is exactly sure
what is legally allowed and what isn't.
Michal
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Unable to help: What do you need to participate ? michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:17:21 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>It's illegal in every country if you want to create
>a product which compeeds with the original.
>
Ah, I think we're getting to the crux of the matter.
I would like to know how osFree is competing with IBM
OS/2 when IBM is clearly not interested in OS/2 at all
and would be much happier if OS/2 just went away and
disappeared?
And just a comment - the world is a pretty fucked up
place, pardon me saying so, if no one is exactly sure
what is legally allowed and what isn't.
Michal
Re: Part 8
#238 From: "Michal Necasek" <michaln@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:48:25 -0800 (PST), Lynn H. Maxson wrote:
>"That's exactly what I don't believe. Because the computing scene
>is evolving far faster than you seem to realize. Experiences from
>20 years ago are quite possibly completely useless today. User
>requirements are changing constantly. That is the problem."
>
>User requirements change constantly. That's not the problem. The
>problem lies in responding to those changes as quickly as they
>occur, not allowing them to pile up in a backlog.
>
OK, let's go back to our civil engineering parable. If someone
wants to build a two-story house and when the project is 80% done
decides that no, they'd actually much rather have a five-story
house, would you blame the engineers for "not responding quickly
enough"? I guess you would.
>With this we have the opportunity of a true manufacturing process
>based on reusable assemblies of reusable source statements (raw
>material).
>
Since I obviously can't keep up with your formidable typing
skills, I'll keep it brief. What makes you think it is even
possible to apply manufacturing processes to software?
>Before this assumes book form let me assure you that it is not I,
>but the OO advocates, who are locked into yesterday's
>technology.<g> It is not I who says you cannot compile an entire
>application or operating system as a single unit of work. I say
>the system should automatically support statement reuse. The
>programming languages should support it. The tools that support
>the programming languages should support it. When they do then
>software engineering will have the same manufacturing processes as
>other engineering disciplines.
>
I would like to know how you imagine the statement reuse would
work. When I have a statement like this:
A = B + 1;
it is evidently NOT reusable - because it cannot stand on its own.
This statement is ambiguous until it is clearly defined what A and
B actually is. If this is not the kind of statement you had in mind,
I'd like to hear what it is.
>>The fact of the matter is that the client is entitled to the least
>cost system using the least system resources with the least errors
>(highest quality) executing in the least time. It is our job as
>software engineers to have tools and processes that provide this
>for our clients. The problem with OO is not that it doesn't work,
>because it does, but that it moves us further from what we should
>be providing our clients than what it replaced.
>
I don't necessarily agree that OO "works" (sometimes it does,
sometimes it doesn't) but I do agree that on the whole it's not
a step in the right direction, at least not as currently practiced.
Michal
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: OSFree and our future michalnec
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:48:25 -0800 (PST), Lynn H. Maxson wrote:
>"That's exactly what I don't believe. Because the computing scene
>is evolving far faster than you seem to realize. Experiences from
>20 years ago are quite possibly completely useless today. User
>requirements are changing constantly. That is the problem."
>
>User requirements change constantly. That's not the problem. The
>problem lies in responding to those changes as quickly as they
>occur, not allowing them to pile up in a backlog.
>
OK, let's go back to our civil engineering parable. If someone
wants to build a two-story house and when the project is 80% done
decides that no, they'd actually much rather have a five-story
house, would you blame the engineers for "not responding quickly
enough"? I guess you would.
>With this we have the opportunity of a true manufacturing process
>based on reusable assemblies of reusable source statements (raw
>material).
>
Since I obviously can't keep up with your formidable typing
skills, I'll keep it brief. What makes you think it is even
possible to apply manufacturing processes to software?
>Before this assumes book form let me assure you that it is not I,
>but the OO advocates, who are locked into yesterday's
>technology.<g> It is not I who says you cannot compile an entire
>application or operating system as a single unit of work. I say
>the system should automatically support statement reuse. The
>programming languages should support it. The tools that support
>the programming languages should support it. When they do then
>software engineering will have the same manufacturing processes as
>other engineering disciplines.
>
I would like to know how you imagine the statement reuse would
work. When I have a statement like this:
A = B + 1;
it is evidently NOT reusable - because it cannot stand on its own.
This statement is ambiguous until it is clearly defined what A and
B actually is. If this is not the kind of statement you had in mind,
I'd like to hear what it is.
>>The fact of the matter is that the client is entitled to the least
>cost system using the least system resources with the least errors
>(highest quality) executing in the least time. It is our job as
>software engineers to have tools and processes that provide this
>for our clients. The problem with OO is not that it doesn't work,
>because it does, but that it moves us further from what we should
>be providing our clients than what it replaced.
>
I don't necessarily agree that OO "works" (sometimes it does,
sometimes it doesn't) but I do agree that on the whole it's not
a step in the right direction, at least not as currently practiced.
Michal
Re: Part 8
#239 From: "Ulrich Moeller" <djmutex@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. Dont accuse Kris for this ! umoellerde
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:51:28 +0100, JMA wrote:
>>And finally you don't need patents to protect source code. It is an
>>interlectual property like a book/song when it has reached a certain level.
>>And thus protected by the same laws, and yes I talk about europe here again.
>>So stop posting this BS here.
>>
>DO NOT ACCUSE Kris for posting BS !
>
>You may not agree with his stand on using "leaked source" but dont
>say he is wrong on legal matters unless you are able to prove it.
I am sorry, John, but I have to jump in here. Kris is wrong
on almost all points.
"Copyright" is one way of protecting intellectual property.
Patents and trademarks are two others. WRT copyright, in
continental Europe, the author of a piece of work (be it
software, a piece of music, or a book, or whatever) has the
_sole_ and _exclusive_ right to determine what can be done
with that piece of work. If you don't have either the
permission of the author or the law does not explicitly say
you're allowed to do what you're doing, you are _not_
permitted to do anything.
The details vary according to what kind of work it is --
i.e. the laws make a difference in what is allowed with
software and with music. For example, German law says it is
allowed to make private copies of music recordings (� 53
Urheberrechtsgesetz -- UrhG), but that is not allowed to
the same extent with software. (This is to correct another
posting that said it is allowed to make copies of software
CDs, which is plain wrong too.)
Kris is wrong when he draws conclusions from what is
allowed with music and applies these to software. The
regulations are simply different. His example of
Renaissance music wasn't terribly helpful either because
copyright expires 70 years after the author's death (� 64
UrhG, your country's regulation may vary).
[As a side note, your country's regulation may vary in
details, but since copyright law is based on international
treaties, the end result shouldn't differ much -- at least
in those countries that have signed those treaties.
Apparently Russia is an exception, but I know no details
there. If you believe your country is different, I guess it
will only be a question of time until the U.S. government
declares a trade war on your country until it helps raising
Microsoft's revenues too. Finally, Belgium is definitely no
exception because in the EU, copyright law has been largely
harmonized by EC directives.]
Now, with software this comes down to the following:
Without the authors explicit permission, you are _not_
allowed to do _anything_ with the software. That's why you
need a licence which tells you what is allowed and what is
not. The licence is simply a contract between the author
and the user of the software: the author grants you a right
to do certain things. If you do something that is not
covered by either the licence or explicitly by law, you are
acting illegally. (See � 69 c UrhG.)
Kris is also wrong when he says copyright is only about
binaries. Already the source code is copyrighted. If Kris
had looked at _any_ of the Netlabs source code, he'd soon
realize that for some reason there is normally a copyright
statement at the top of each file. Even compilation is
protected (see � 69 c UrhG).
Actually, things are very simple here. IBM has not allowed
anyone on this list to have or copy the source code, let
alone compile it and redistribute copies of binaries
compiled from that source code. So everyone who has OS/2
source code on his hard disk is acting illegally already
because he made a copy when he saved the attachment to his
hard disk, or when he downloaded a zip file from the
Internet. Everyone who is compiling that source code, even
without distribution, is acting illegally, because there is
no permission to compile the code either. It is especially
illegal to distribute either the sources or compiled
binaries on the Internet.
This has two consequences.
1) If IBM can prove that someone has a copy of the sources,
they can sue that person for a) destruction of all copies
of the sources and b) damages that IBM might have suffered
from the possession of the sources (whatever that may be in
the concrete case I will not comment on now). In Germany,
see � 97 UrhG. If IBM can prove that this person possesses
the sources, it is up to that person to prove that he has
IBM's explicit permission to do what he did. Of course he
can't.
To make this clear, the highest German civil court
(Bundesgerichtshof) has repeatedly stated that downloading
or installing software already counts as "copying". This is
in compliance with � 96 c UrhG, which translates into "As
far as loading, displaying, running, transferring or
storing the computer program involve copying it, these
actions require the permission of the copyright holder,
too."
So I am not kidding here, and it is simply wrong to say
"only binaries" or "only sources" are affected, or
"possessing is OK". Anyone who has downloaded even the
"osFree" binaries could theoretically be sued, period.
2) In addition, copyright violations are criminal offenses.
In Germany, see � 106 UrhG, which states that unauthorized
copying or distribution are to be punished with either a
fine or up to three years (!) in prison. Note that the
latter is not very probable on the first offense, but it is
possible. I spent the last three months with a prosecutor
who did nothing but, day after day, confiscate computers
with illegal software and bringing people to court. And
believe me, the prosecutors are quite efficient in that
area, even over here in Berlin, where the justice
department is in a complete mess normally.
Finally, all the above was only about copyright. I haven't
even talked about patent violations yet, which are a
completely different can of worms.
I hope this made a few points clear. So please, everyone
here: don't spread legal misinformation if you have no clue
what you're talking about. Everyone on this list who is
saying "it is legal to rip" or "let's hurt IBM, they have
left us alone" is actually urging people to commit crimes.
--
Ulrich M�ller (Berlin, Germany)
djmutex@...
http://www.xworkplace.org
+49 179 49 060 58
"They misunderestimated me."
George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. Dont accuse Kris for this ! umoellerde
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:51:28 +0100, JMA wrote:
>>And finally you don't need patents to protect source code. It is an
>>interlectual property like a book/song when it has reached a certain level.
>>And thus protected by the same laws, and yes I talk about europe here again.
>>So stop posting this BS here.
>>
>DO NOT ACCUSE Kris for posting BS !
>
>You may not agree with his stand on using "leaked source" but dont
>say he is wrong on legal matters unless you are able to prove it.
I am sorry, John, but I have to jump in here. Kris is wrong
on almost all points.
"Copyright" is one way of protecting intellectual property.
Patents and trademarks are two others. WRT copyright, in
continental Europe, the author of a piece of work (be it
software, a piece of music, or a book, or whatever) has the
_sole_ and _exclusive_ right to determine what can be done
with that piece of work. If you don't have either the
permission of the author or the law does not explicitly say
you're allowed to do what you're doing, you are _not_
permitted to do anything.
The details vary according to what kind of work it is --
i.e. the laws make a difference in what is allowed with
software and with music. For example, German law says it is
allowed to make private copies of music recordings (� 53
Urheberrechtsgesetz -- UrhG), but that is not allowed to
the same extent with software. (This is to correct another
posting that said it is allowed to make copies of software
CDs, which is plain wrong too.)
Kris is wrong when he draws conclusions from what is
allowed with music and applies these to software. The
regulations are simply different. His example of
Renaissance music wasn't terribly helpful either because
copyright expires 70 years after the author's death (� 64
UrhG, your country's regulation may vary).
[As a side note, your country's regulation may vary in
details, but since copyright law is based on international
treaties, the end result shouldn't differ much -- at least
in those countries that have signed those treaties.
Apparently Russia is an exception, but I know no details
there. If you believe your country is different, I guess it
will only be a question of time until the U.S. government
declares a trade war on your country until it helps raising
Microsoft's revenues too. Finally, Belgium is definitely no
exception because in the EU, copyright law has been largely
harmonized by EC directives.]
Now, with software this comes down to the following:
Without the authors explicit permission, you are _not_
allowed to do _anything_ with the software. That's why you
need a licence which tells you what is allowed and what is
not. The licence is simply a contract between the author
and the user of the software: the author grants you a right
to do certain things. If you do something that is not
covered by either the licence or explicitly by law, you are
acting illegally. (See � 69 c UrhG.)
Kris is also wrong when he says copyright is only about
binaries. Already the source code is copyrighted. If Kris
had looked at _any_ of the Netlabs source code, he'd soon
realize that for some reason there is normally a copyright
statement at the top of each file. Even compilation is
protected (see � 69 c UrhG).
Actually, things are very simple here. IBM has not allowed
anyone on this list to have or copy the source code, let
alone compile it and redistribute copies of binaries
compiled from that source code. So everyone who has OS/2
source code on his hard disk is acting illegally already
because he made a copy when he saved the attachment to his
hard disk, or when he downloaded a zip file from the
Internet. Everyone who is compiling that source code, even
without distribution, is acting illegally, because there is
no permission to compile the code either. It is especially
illegal to distribute either the sources or compiled
binaries on the Internet.
This has two consequences.
1) If IBM can prove that someone has a copy of the sources,
they can sue that person for a) destruction of all copies
of the sources and b) damages that IBM might have suffered
from the possession of the sources (whatever that may be in
the concrete case I will not comment on now). In Germany,
see � 97 UrhG. If IBM can prove that this person possesses
the sources, it is up to that person to prove that he has
IBM's explicit permission to do what he did. Of course he
can't.
To make this clear, the highest German civil court
(Bundesgerichtshof) has repeatedly stated that downloading
or installing software already counts as "copying". This is
in compliance with � 96 c UrhG, which translates into "As
far as loading, displaying, running, transferring or
storing the computer program involve copying it, these
actions require the permission of the copyright holder,
too."
So I am not kidding here, and it is simply wrong to say
"only binaries" or "only sources" are affected, or
"possessing is OK". Anyone who has downloaded even the
"osFree" binaries could theoretically be sued, period.
2) In addition, copyright violations are criminal offenses.
In Germany, see � 106 UrhG, which states that unauthorized
copying or distribution are to be punished with either a
fine or up to three years (!) in prison. Note that the
latter is not very probable on the first offense, but it is
possible. I spent the last three months with a prosecutor
who did nothing but, day after day, confiscate computers
with illegal software and bringing people to court. And
believe me, the prosecutors are quite efficient in that
area, even over here in Berlin, where the justice
department is in a complete mess normally.
Finally, all the above was only about copyright. I haven't
even talked about patent violations yet, which are a
completely different can of worms.
I hope this made a few points clear. So please, everyone
here: don't spread legal misinformation if you have no clue
what you're talking about. Everyone on this list who is
saying "it is legal to rip" or "let's hurt IBM, they have
left us alone" is actually urging people to commit crimes.
--
Ulrich M�ller (Berlin, Germany)
djmutex@...
http://www.xworkplace.org
+49 179 49 060 58
"They misunderestimated me."
George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
Re: Part 8
#240 From: "Ulrich Moeller" <djmutex@...>
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. Not legal to use IBM source umoellerde
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:44:11 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>Well the IP laws are quite clear, you loose the right
>to call something your IP if you don't enforce enfringements of the
>IP. Thats why companies like
>adidas sue webpages which offer their logo as a mobil logo download.
>They have to they are legaly bound to
>do so. So what would IBM loose, nothing much just complete IP to OS/2.
>And remember IBM makes money with
>this even when not selling OS/2. OLE in windows is based
>on OS/2 IP and MS pays IBM for the rigth to use it.
That applies to trademarks, but not to IP in general,
especially not copyrights.
--
Ulrich M�ller (Berlin, Germany)
djmutex@...
http://www.xworkplace.org
+49 179 49 060 58
"They misunderestimated me."
George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
Date: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. Not legal to use IBM source umoellerde
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:44:11 -0000, drittervonfuenf wrote:
>Well the IP laws are quite clear, you loose the right
>to call something your IP if you don't enforce enfringements of the
>IP. Thats why companies like
>adidas sue webpages which offer their logo as a mobil logo download.
>They have to they are legaly bound to
>do so. So what would IBM loose, nothing much just complete IP to OS/2.
>And remember IBM makes money with
>this even when not selling OS/2. OLE in windows is based
>on OS/2 IP and MS pays IBM for the rigth to use it.
That applies to trademarks, but not to IP in general,
especially not copyrights.
--
Ulrich M�ller (Berlin, Germany)
djmutex@...
http://www.xworkplace.org
+49 179 49 060 58
"They misunderestimated me."
George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000