The part of the picture which I think you're missing is this: the copies may be missing information that the originals contain. This is certainly the case if WikiLeaks is editing them (redacting text) before releasing them. If the files have been tampered with, they may not be admissible as evidence in a court, or they may not be as compelling to a jury, even if they are. There are legal standards for admitting digital evidence, and then there are the forensic experts, of course. Telling a court, "here's a file I downloaded from bittorrent, and it looks pretty legit" isn't going to cut it. If the pentagon manages to get the originals back, they might just save Cheney, Powell, Rice, Bush, Wolfowitz, etc. from a public hanging.

Quick Julian! Get a copy of those files over to The Hague ASAP. Then you can hand back the originals to avoid the full force of the US government coming at you. Don't worry - the statute of limitations for war crimes never expires. If there is justice in this world, everyone who's touched the US's dirty wars - from Colin Powell to Barack Obama, will be imprisoned for life (or worse - I'm looking at you Herr Cheney!).

As far as I'm concerned, this is the biggest news of my week. Bigger than Old Spice guy. Bigger than jive. I support the GPL and the developers of WordPress, but I also feel some sympathy for those who want to get paid to come up with beautiful styles for WordPress blogs. I think Mark's post addresses that pretty well, though.

What I'm wondering, though, is this: do WP theme developers such as the Thesis folks have any other protection for their product? That is, can they argue that their code is GPL, but the visual result is something they own the copyright on? Or, can the resulting aesthetic effect be looked at as an unregistered trademark, which only the creator can license for re-use, regardless of whether the html / css / js code is freely redistributable under the GPL?

Anyone get what I mean? Bruce, you there? ;)

Hey, look! It's Javascript!

Dammit, I wish I had mod points to give you for that one. "+1 Explaining human nature to a geek"

I just posted this Brian Krow's blog, but it's caught in moderation:

I agree with a lot of your perspective here. I somewhat have to given your own contributions to the code ecosystem. But I don't see how this is incompatible with what KEI is arguing. Their letter is about a specific event with a specific company, whereas you are discussing general notions of what is better.

I don't see how RMS et al suffered from a lack of imagination. They are making a very credible case about the likely outcome of what is going to happen here and how that might impact end users, i.e. the general public, i.e. EU citizens. I'm not as close to the issue as you might be, but their case sounds right to me. And I hope the EU takes this into consideration. KEI is arguing that what was once MySQL AB can continue as an entity - whether a subsidiary or independent company - just not fairly under ownership by Oracle.

While their letter doesn't pass judgement on the MySQL project's choice of license, I read their case as a warning for people like you and I who care about software freedom: taking out the "and future versions" clause while offering the code under another licence will inhibit future contributions from the community at large. As others have noted, many were vaguely reluctant to trust MySQL's model from the beginning.

But, that's where the project now is, and that's where the company now is, and the decision to be made isn't about whether this is a cathedral or a bazaar - it's over whether Oracle should own that company and its assets (i.e. code copyright).

To which I would add: KEI's letter says nothing about a copyright holder's right to re-issue code under multiple business licenses, nor about any interpretation of a license's suitability for any business or community organizing model.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet: adherence to PCI-DSS does not necessarily guarantee that your system cannot be cracked or broken into. PCI-DSS provides a set of guidelines - created by the banks and cc companies themselves - which must be met in order to be considered safe enough to be allowed to process transactions. Now, if the auditor was negligent or deceptive in certifying the system as compliant, this seems like a no-brainer lawsuit. However, it is entirely possible that the system *was* compliant, but got cracked anyway.

I'm no fancy expert like this guy, but here are two obvious problems that invalidate the theory as far as I'm concerned:

1. It's impossible to measure. Ergo, it's useless.

2. There is value in potential uses, not just actual transactions. For example, how much is 911 service worth? Zero until you break your arm? No. There is a value in knowing that you can reach 911, regardless of whether you use it. Similarly, networks provide value by creating opportunity, even if that opportunity is unrealized.

Reading the review, I have to wonder whether the author has any first-hand experience with Zembly. I certainly do not. But this review reads like part standard review commentary, part press release, near-zero insight.