Slashdot Log In
Cphack, the GPL, And So Much More
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 29, 2000 10:32 AM
from the stuff-to-read dept.
from the stuff-to-read dept.
yankeehack writes: "This is a new article by Declan McCullagh (Wired Magazine) describing the confusion swirling around the CPHACK ruling of Monday, March 27th. What exactly does Mattel have rights to? And what about those who own a copy of the cphack program currently? Read the opinions of some prominent legal scholars on this issue." ery worth reading.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Cphack, the GPL, And So Much More
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 183 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why does software need a licence anyway? (Score:3)
I think there's a place in the market for software totally devoid of licences. Provide decent manuals and support for people that actually buy it, but otherwise just sell a damn product.
There, I feel better now.
Re:Is the GPL Revocable? (Score:3)
The author of a GPL program receives consideration in the form of a promise by the licensee to disclose any improvements or modifications to the software in source code form, when the improved software is distributed in any form.
Such disclosements of valuable intellectual property would not be required in the absence of the GPL.
As anyone who's ever read an NDA knows, program source code, as developed by a company, is generally considered to be valuable goods, and an agreement to reveal what would otherwise be considered trade secrets should count as consideration.
what is considered writing? (Score:3)
The law requires "a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed."
because if all this is the case, then why can people be accountable for email that they have written?
I realize that these are in some sense disjoint subjects, but I think that there is a connection between them. if electronic means can't be used to give the rights of a program to someone, then why can email be used as evidence in court? If the courts are going to "grow up" digitally and use email in court, then they sure as hell should allow the use of granting rights and permissions over electronic means.
I know this is somewhat off topic, but it doesn't seem like the court plays by all of the same rules. Either using an electronic means to do something is considered binding, or it isn't...make up your mind!
okay I'm done ranting now...kill my karma.
---
"Everybody knows the moon's made of cheese."
Public Domain: Safer than the GPL? (Score:3)
If you've explicitly waived your copyrights and placed the work in the Public Domain, then there's no question of you assigning your rights to anyone, so the reassignment of rights that took place here is not an issue.
Whilst the GPL gives an excellent defensive edge in terms of keeping proprietarists off our grass and doing an embrace and extend on our software, waiving copyright entirely seems to be the more powerful concept in terms of keeping the software free, especially if this "free licenses are revocable" quip has any truth to it. I mean think about it: any piece of software which is under the GPL or a BSD style license can potentially be changed retroactively to a non-free license. Maybe the current copyright owner can be trusted to keep it free, but what about future owners? If the copyright is owned by a company, then it can be purchased along with the company in a buy-out. The havoc that could be wreaked with this concept is unthinkable, and I'd like to believe that it's impossible, but when it comes to The Law, who the heck knows? Unthinkably daft stuff seems to be the rule rather than the exception in IPR laws at the moment.
Public Domain may not make any guarantees about derived works being free, but if making something Public Domain won't keep the original work free, then nothing will. Here's to the Public Domiain.
And yes, of course, this post is Public Domain (P) 2000.
End of "Free-as-in-Beer"? (Score:3)
Sounds like what our friendly, neighborhood Free-as-in-Speech licenses need is a strong shot of "Not-Free-as-in-Beer": more like "Cheap-as-in-Bad-Beer"? :) Seriously, suppose that our favorite licenses contained a clause similar to the following:
Consideration
In return for the rights assigned hereunder, licensee agrees to remit one of the following considerations to licensor:
I realize that this puts a dollar premium on "lurking" in the community -- but it also explicitly states in the license ways non-programmers can become involved... which in the long run is advantageous in-and-of-itself.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
Where will this all stop? (Score:3)
Let me offer an example: suppose I have a copy of the cphack source code (which I have extensively modified, but not released yet), which I accepted under terms of the GPL. Mattel has not notified me in writing that they believe they now own the rights to the original source code.
So I assign (still under the GPL) the rights to my heavily modifed code to the FSF.
This would appear to close the loophole mentioned in the article, but would it stop Mattel from threatening to shut down my site(s), have the justice system throw me in jail, etc. because a judge in a different state decided to issue a restraining order in such a way that I am vulnerable to the application of his ruling?
The problem is, there's no law that protects me from Mattel's legal department. Such as a "loser pays" requirement in lawsuits deemed to be harassment.
Re:Cute (Score:3)
Let's get to it, people.
========
Pointless Legal Wrangling (Score:3)
Given the treatment the authors of cphack and DeCSS have had, the authors security cracking programs of the future would be wise to take pains to hide thier identities. And then what will Big Brother do?
The next DeCSS could be distributed strictly by Napster/Wrapster/GNUtella/Usenet. Then there would not be any one person the Powers That Be can crucify as an example to the rest of us. There won't be a handful of mirrored sites to slap with subpeonas, there won't be a teenager to rake over the coals in the back room at the police station. The program would be everywhere, yet nowhere that's worth going after.
I just don't see what Mattel and the MPAA hope to achieve. They will probably win all the court battles, and yet they will gain nothing.
DMCA twist (Score:3)
The story:
Yesterday I was called into the Computing and Information Services dept at my school. They said that under the DMCA, in Copyright cases, they had to remove the materials immediately, as a "good faith effort" or they could be held liable. They further said that even if I was right, they would rather not fight a lawsuit. "We would rather use our money in other ways." So I took down my school mirror of the software, and put one up on Geocities (http://www.geocities.com/novalis_dt)
OK, but consider the implications of the DMCA - you *can't* choose to fight the man, 'cause if you do, they go for your ISP. And *everyone* has someone as their ISP.
Re:Cute (Score:3)
That way, the GPL could be viewed as two-way contract -- one party provides software, the other party provides testing services. (Which would certainly be of value to the author.)
This is all assuming that the GPL is, in fact, revocable. That still sounds kind of fishy to me.
Wait, hold up a second here (Score:3)
The spirit of the GPL is that the license is irrevocable. The authors of CPHack released it under the GPL with this spirit in mind. This is the best irrevocable free license available to my knowledge and the 'irrevocable' part is exactly what makes it work. I can't see how any judge or government can justify saying that such a license is not legally available in the US.
numb
Re:What Prevents... (Score:3)
Get a friend. Have freind read the source code
and write a review of it. In the review have
him talk about all the functions and what each
of them does and how it works in minute detail.
(nothing in copyright law, except maybe some of
the horrible new stuff, says you can't write
a reviw)
Then take his review...and use it to write
a new software program that does exactly the
same thing as cphack.
oops. New program...copyright by you...
contains no old code (you never saw the
code itself). Written from information in
the text of an article...where the article
itself is perfectly legal.
Just a thought.
FOR THE LAST TIME: IT'S NOT GPL'ed! (Score:3)
Don't believe me? Look at Matt's own site, http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala/ [islandnet.com]:
I did not put any GPL notices on the portions of the package that I wrote, I did not intend my work to be GPL, and I did not lie to the plaintiffs about what rights I owned or could assign to them.
Can we mark this entire news item as irrelevant? Can somebody in Slashdot-land research this issue a little better before perpetuating the theory that this code is GPL'ed? This will NOT be a test of the GPL. Period. Everybody needs to remove their head from the cranial-rectal position and RESEARCH WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT before posting.
The Wired reporter is wrong, as is anybody else who's claiming that the code is GPL'ed. Even if you wanted to claim that the one piece of code that contains the words "Released under the GPL" is GPL'ed, it is doubtful that the courts would agree that the license applies: none of the terms stated in the GNU GPL have been met (no displayed copyright notice, no disclaimer of warranty, no copy of the LICENSE text file).
IT'S NOT GPL'ED!!
Is the GPL Revocable? (Score:3)
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Re:GPL is revocable? (Score:3)
Why is consideration important? To distinguish real contracts that have been entered into from hypothetical ones.
Sally, a sceptic, exchanges email with Bob, a firm believer in UFOs and alien visits to this planet. Sally willingly grants that Bob can have any alien spaceships that crash land on her property. Lo and behold, an alien spacecraft, low on fuel, crashes in her backyard. Several spooky fellows come by and offer Sally $500,000 for the steaming pile of spacejunk and she jumps at the offer. Bob sues Sally under the theory that their emails constituted a contract for Sally to turn over any alien spacecraft to him. Sally's lawyer, having read Slashdot, says "Nuh huh! There's no consideration and hence no contract! Bob didn't pay Sally anything for the valuable residual rights to disabled alien spacecraft on her property." The Judge rules in favor of Sally and dismisses the case. Bob gets an anal probe by some very pissed off aliens.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Re:Is the GPL Revocable? (Score:3)
It means "most of the time". It means that there might be some specifics of an individual case that would made the statement untrue, but that, in the absence of some specifics, the statement is true. Generally, an arbitrary integer, n, is not prime. It could be prime if n has one of a specific set of values, but generally, integers are not prime.
About the validity of the GPL: I don't see what's the difference between it and a shrink-wrap-type license. So the DMCA (may it rot in hell) could for once be turned in our favor, adding weight to it.
Don't confuse the DCMA (Federal Copyright Law) with UCITA (the proposed Uniform state law that would govern shrinkwrap licenses).
About the revokability of the GPL: if (as stated by the DMCA) the GPL (being a shrink-wrap-type license) is fully binding, and since it doesn't have a termination clause (the only termination condition covers the case when the license's terms are violated), the copyright holder can do absolutely nothing to terminate it.
Assuming you mean UCITA and not the DCMA, the GPL is only enforcable as a contract if it meets the standard for a contract. I found this quote at this website [weblocator.com] on Minnesota contract law, but the concepts are general enough (that word again) to apply anywhere in the US.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Contract rights and Mattel's press release (Score:3)
The Mattel / MSI press release [cyberpatrol.com] states, "The company did not file the lawsuit to prevent publication of the CyberNOT filtering list". They also say, "Microsystems did not object to the essay or any of the other material posted by the defendants that was not obtained or derived by violating Microsystems' copyright.".
Since they have said that, I am asking the company if they have a problem if I publish the essay and the CyberNot list. If they are telling the truth in the press release, then they will authorize me to publish it.
The Path Forward seems clear to me... (Score:4)
- Take the cphack source
- Modify it so that it's only use is to display the CyberPatrol block list (to avoid accusations that this is a tool to allow children to access porn)
- Release it under the GPL **PROPERLY**, with the COPYING file, the copyright signed over to the FSF, and the other required hoop-jumping
And then stand and deliver when Mattel comes knocking.
The original CPhack authors have done their bit. Now it's the turn of the Big Boys.
What Does rms Say? (Score:4)
GPL is revocable? (Score:4)
And now for the rant: The logic of this line of argument is detestable, really. Why indeed should contracts be drafted around the concept of money. Whatever happened to quid pro quo? The GPL says: "Use this software as you like, change it as you like. But let's share that change." This is not a commercial transaction. The last time I heard, contracts/licenses covering non-monetary forms of compensation are legal and enforceable. Many free software programmers are NOT in it for the money.
Fighting a losing battle? (Score:4)
It seems to me that we are fighting large multi-national companies on their turf. Even worse it seems that national borders aren't very effective at stoping litigation.
I think this all steams from the fact that we are American centric on this issue. I wouldn't be suprised if the reason guys signed their soul to Mattel was because the ACLU didn't communicate with them.
More so, should the ACLU be in charge of this case? The A stands for American. Sure one of the guys was from Canada and that's pretty much the 51st state, but the other guy?
I think what this is comming down to is the geeks need an international legal/political organization.
Kind'a like the EFF but a lot larger.
Signed by hand? (Score:4)
Since you accept it by clicking and not signing...
Damn, all these evil thoughts keep popping up.
Please read Skala's Web page (Score:5)
This whole GPL thing is a tempest in a teapot. See what one of the authors has to say [islandnet.com].
It doesn't even matter... (Score:5)
The essay was written. The list was exposed. It is (and has always been) well known that CP is a piece of crap that doesn't do what it's supposed to and does other stuff behind your back if you let it.
Now, if they want to use this as a test case for the GPL, they are only going to wind up hurting the FSF and the Open Source community. The GPL had more teeth when companies took it at face value. To test it is to weaken it.
--Threed
Browsing at +2, or else on my Cell Phone. I see no trolls.
The Internet is Dead (Score:5)
Seriously, the "Internet" as I remember it from over a decade ago, was a small collection of a few thousands of interconnected Universities sharing EMail, a very small Usenet (in those days, one could actually read all of alt.sex... and enjoy actual conversations and discussions), and FTP.
It was mainly a closed system. No riff-raff public allowed in. Certainly no advertising or commercial business allowed. It was a community.
And then, all at about the same time, the Internet became open and Webified.
And that's when it died. When it became affordable, when Joe Moron could easily access it, when it became allowable to conduct commercial business...
One of the drawbacks to our computer age is a near-complete loss of history.
Almost everyone--and I mean that most literally: certainly there aren't more than a few hundred thousand people who date back to ARPANet days--has absolutely no clue why and how the Internet came to be.
All they are aware of is that it has pretty graphics, decent search engines, and you can buy porn from home.
They don't know that there are philosophical and moral battles being played out. They don't know about nor understand the EToy(s) issue; they don't blame the MPAA for wanting to stop theft of artist's songs; they want the government to put a stop to kiddypr0n; they've never known EMail without spam and don't even realize that it could be any different.
They watch network television, for cripes sake!
Face it: the lowest common denominator now has access to the Internet, and he actively *wants* the government to keep him safe and secure.
And those proles outnumber the geeks and old-timers ten thousand to one.
They demand a regulated net. They accept a commercially-driven net. They are afraid of freedom of expression.
They are afraid to step out of the tiny box they live their lives in and realize that when everyone pulls together, we can have a pretty damned special and hopeful world.
The Internet is dead.
Long live the Internet.
--
Re:Software was not GPLd (Score:5)
Not only is Mattel going after the program, it's also going after the ESSAY and the BLACKLIST. Wait a minute here! Is this ruling saying that while the government can't censor, private companies can censor people--even non-employees??? This is especially frightful considering the CyberPatrol practice of blacklisting sites critical of CyberPatrol even if the user is only filtering, say, porn or whatnot.
My personal take on things. (Score:5)
I thought I'd write a piece about this when it was all over, but now I feel the need to speak up a little. Let's see if I can clarify some things for you.
I've settled with Mattel, through my attorney.
Why we wanted to settle? Well, let's see... As far as I'm concerned, we did what we set out to do; to show that the hash used in CP was not secure, and that the banlist contains lot's of questionable items. Implicitly, we suggest they change to a real secure hash, and take the review-process of suggestions for bans a little bit more seriously. We included the software as proof of concept. Now we move on to other things.
About the licence, copyright and what not. First we must keep our perspective on things. I honestly didn't believe for a second that Mattel would go after us in the courts. At the most I thought that maybe they would contact us in email, requesting we withdraw the files, though I held for more probable that they'd simply update the encryption, making our software void and that'd be it. With hindsight, I guess I'm just really really naivë. I certainly never ment for this to hit the courts (as some seem to be suggesting). This explains in some way why things are so 'murky' as far as licenses go. I can speak only for myself, but my take was that our work would be free for anyone to do whatever they wanted with (I've gotten email saying it was used as a teaching aid, a perfect example of good use, IMHO). So, I wanted something in the essay about this, so I added the part about anyone being allowed to mirror it and so forth. This was a late addition and I informed Matthew about it. I did however make one big mistake, and that is that "GPL" string. You see, when I finished 'cphack' (which got it's name not because it's can be used to 'hack past' CP, but because it is a quick hack, basically written by me top down. I know it's a piece of crap as far as 'engineering' goes, but that is often the case with hacks, no?), anyway, I had finished the software and thought'd I'd write something in the header expressing my intentions as to it's use, distribution and so forth, and so I entered simply 'Released under the GPL'. Now, I made a mental note about speaking to Matthew, that maybe we should release the whole thing under the GPL. For one thing, part of the code was simply my translation of his c-code, so I had to ask him about it, right? Guess what? I forgot. It really didn't hit me until it made conversation on Slashdot, and now I'm not sure what, if anything, I can do about it. All I ever wanted was for people to use the (admittedly crappy) software in any way they saw fit, never having to wonder (or ask) if it was okay by me. As far as I'm concerned, the string weren't meant to be in the distribution, and Mattel got my rights to it.
Now for the titles I've gotten. I have never called myself a hacker. The press have. My sincere apologies to the real hackers out there. I do share most of the mentality, as described in the first third of Levy's _Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution_ and in the Jargon File, but I am not yet one myself. Some have called my a student. I am not a student (well, not officially, I'm on a never ending quest for knowledge, but I don't think that counts). Someone even referred to me -- or me and Matthew both -- as a cryptanalysts! I am not a cryptanalyst, but thanks for your faith in my abilities. If for some reason you have to call me something more than simply 'Eddy', you can use the term 'programmer'.
I am that, at least.
Cute (Score:5)
If true, this has huge consequences for the GPL and other open source licenses. I am sure FSF tried its best to make the license non-revokable, but it's up to courts to decide whether this effort succeeded. If there were to be a ruling that the copyright holder can revoke an open-source license granted previously -- oh, boy!
Kaa
Software was not GPLd (Score:5)
"The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it"
Given that, ANYONE can modify and claim copyright on the software. I see no legal way that Mattel could use copyright law to revoke anyone's use of this software for any reason. They really need the judge to rule that the software is illegal for some reason and thus give a justification for someone to pull it from a web site. As it stands now, Mattel has no leg to stand on.
Let's face it, they wrote a pathetically weak program, and they deserved to have it reverse engineered.
Re:First? Who cares.... looks like a test case to (Score:5)
be a partial test. Even if it fails to hold up
due to obscure US law...that does NOT mean that
other countries laws and court systems would
do the same.
As long as even one country fully honors the GPL,
almost all countries would honor mattels
copyright...which is why the GPL is important...
without the GPL mattel could stop mirrors in
justr about any country
All one has to do is put up a mirror in a free
country...then its all set. Now comes the
questions....
If a US citizen, residing in the US, puts up
something on a web server that is in another
country...is he bound by US law when that server
is distributing files to US residents?
I really could see arguments go both ways on this.
(somehow I think courts would rule that they
are...tho what would you expect? authoritarians
don't like to give up their illusions of power)
What about links? Would it be illegal for my web
page, in the US on a US server, to link a copy of
the program that is on a non-us server, in a
country where the distribution is deemed legal?