The guys behind the Emerald viewer have filed copyright violations for people breaching the terms of the GNU license, included in this are the notorious Neil Life viewer, whom they've reported to google because apparently the full source code and binaries aren't available.
Do you think they have a case? I don't know enough about GNU to know if the terms have been breached or not.
The link to the announcement is here:
http://modularsystems.sl/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=emerald-tired-of-this-bullshit.html&Itemid=1
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Emerald file copyright violations |
|
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
11-08-2009 19:27
|
|
Sindy Tsure
Will script for shoes
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 4,103
|
11-08-2009 19:34
/me saw that the other day. Dunno if they have any legs to stand on but I hope RL gets serious for neil and his mom gets pissed off enough to force him to get a job and move out of the basement.
_____________________
Sick of sims locking up every time somebody TPs in? Vote for SVC-3895!!!
- Go here: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-3895 - If you see "if you were logged in.." on the left, click it and log in - Click the "Vote for it" link on the left |
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
11-09-2009 04:24
The "viral clause" of the GPL, which is what they're referring to (which specifies that "any work derived from a GPL work, must be GPL"
 , has never been tested in court. It would be kind of interesting if it was.However, their claim that "you have lost your rights under the GPL and can never get them back, even if you change your behavior" is - I am pretty sure - downright wrong, and could actually damage their case if they haven't actually checked it with a lawyer first. |
|
Innula Zenovka
Registered User
Join date: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 1,825
|
11-09-2009 05:06
However, their claim that "you have lost your rights under the GPL and can never get them back, even if you change your behavior" is - I am pretty sure - downright wrong, and could actually damage their case if they haven't actually checked it with a lawyer first. |
|
Ann Otoole
Registered User
Join date: 22 May 2007
Posts: 867
|
11-09-2009 05:41
The "viral clause" of the GPL, which is what they're referring to (which specifies that "any work derived from a GPL work, must be GPL" , has never been tested in court. It would be kind of interesting if it was.However, their claim that "you have lost your rights under the GPL and can never get them back, even if you change your behavior" is - I am pretty sure - downright wrong, and could actually damage their case if they haven't actually checked it with a lawyer first. You can revoke someone's right to a license for violating terms or just because the sky is blue. Just like LL can terminate your license to use SL for any or no reason at all. |
|
Yumi Murakami
DoIt!AttachTheEarOfACat!
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 6,860
|
11-09-2009 06:01
You can revoke someone's right to a license for violating terms or just because the sky is blue. Just like LL can terminate your license to use SL for any or no reason at all. Not in the case of the GPL, which actually restricts the license issuer. To whit: 8. Termination However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. 7. Additional terms All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. In other words, if the GPL is used verbatim, it explicitly states that the permissions it grants _must_ be restored to a violator provided it's a first-time violation and they fix it within 30 days, and additionally that the license can't be made more restrictive to remove this. |
|
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
|
11-09-2009 06:17
I love it when Yumi is right and doesn't require 4 pages to get there.
 _____________________
|
|
Ava Velde
Registered User
Join date: 17 Jan 2009
Posts: 310
|
11-09-2009 07:31
|
|
Veritable Quandry
Meddling kid.
Join date: 23 May 2008
Posts: 519
|
11-09-2009 08:03
There has been at least one case that was settled just short of trial on this issue, and it has been used to get makers of hardware that uses GPL software to release their source code. I'm afraid that in this case, nothing short of hiring an RL lawyer is going to stop Neil. After all, this is a viewer made with the explicit purpose of stealing other people's IP, so violating Emerald's IP is not something they will be concerned about.
|
