Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - Trouble with News Corp Australia

Submitted by Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace writes: News Corp’s worst story gets out

The existential crisis that has gripped Rupert Murdoch’s Australian arm began with a rude discovery just after 2pm on Wednesday afternoon. The Crikey news website had stumbled across some of News Corp’s most intimate lingerie, and had just put it all up on the the net. ... The 276-page document is called the Blue Book, a weekly and year-to-date rundown of results at June 30, 2013 for every News Corp business in the country. ... The great newspaper engine which was Rupert Murdoch’s original springboard to take over the world was already under stress. In 2013, 70 per cent of its earnings disappeared, leaving operating income precariously balanced at $87.6 million. As Crikey pointed out, trying hard not to gloat, another year even half as bad as 2013 could put News Australia into the red.

Crikey took the documents off line after legal threats, but it seems not before business reporters all over the world had a chance to download them.

Submission + - Crikey agrees to destroy leaked accounts

Submitted by Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace writes: Crikey agrees to destroy leaked accounts showing decline in News Corporation's Australian newspaper business

Crikey published what the Rupert Murdoch company calls internally "the blue book", the company's operating accounts for all its businesses. The documents, which date from last year, show News Corp's print and digital publications were suffering from large falls in revenue, with flagship paper The Australian losing $27 million. Late on Thursday afternoon Crikey removed hundreds of pages of the documents.

With any luck people downloaded them before Crikey took them down.

Submission + - Amazon doxx Hachette CEO's email address

Submitted by Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace writes: Evil goons at Amazon doxx Hachette CEO's email address, give talking points to trolls

Normally, I'm not one to defend CEOs, even in the relatively genteel world of publishing. But this is really scummy:

Amazon publishes Hachette CEO's email address in pricing spat New York (AFP) — Amazon revealed Saturday the email address of the American head of publishing group Hachette, urging readers to pressure him in writing to end the two groups' simmering dispute over book pricing.

It is also amazingly short sighted.

Submission + - Former Scientists Are Commandeering NASA Satellite From An Abandoned McDonalds (mtv.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: "Keith Cowing, a former NASA employee has assembled a team to bring a retired satellite called the ISEE-3 back to life. It’s the first time an external organization has ever taken control of a spacecraft, and they’re doing it with NASA’s blessing. I guess this is what happens when retired scientists get bored?But it gets better—their base for control center is an abandoned McDonlads that they’ve dubbed “McMoons” and they’re using “using old radio parts from eBay and a salvaged flat screen TV” to help run their operation."

Submission + - SpaceX Hit with Second Suit from Employees, Allege Unpaid Wages (law360.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Law360 (paywall — https://www.law360.com/article...) is reporting, for the second time in a week, employees of SpaceX are sueing the company for "failing to provide rest breaks or pay full wages." This follows another recent complaint "accusing the company of laying off up to 400 employees without proper notification. (http://law360.com/articles/564591; http://legalnewsline.com/issue...)

Submission + - Enforcing the GPL

Submitted by lrosen
lrosen writes: I am responding to the article in Opensource.com by Aaron Williamson, "Lawsuit threatens to break new ground on the GPL and software licensing issues."

I want to acknowledge Aaron's main points: This lawsuit challenges certain assumptions about GPLv2 licensing, and it also emphasizes the effects of patents on the FOSS (and commercial) software ecosystem. I also want to acknowledge that I have been consulted as an expert by the plaintiff in this litigation (Ximpleware vs. Versata, et al.) and so some of what I say below they may also say in court.

Let's be open about the facts here. Ximpleware worked diligently over many years to create certain valuable software. The author posted his source code on SourceForge. He offered the software under GPLv2. He also offered that software under commercial licenses. And he sought and received and provided notice of United States patent claims related to that software.

Unbeknownst to Ximpleware, Versata took that GPLv2 software and incorporated it into Versata products – without disclosing that GPLv2 software or in any other way honoring the terms of the GPLv2 license. The reason Ximpleware became aware of that GPLv2 breach is because some months ago Versata and one of its customers, Ameriprise, became embroiled in their own litigation. The breach of GPLv2 came out during discovery.

Ximpleware has terminated that license as to Versata. This is exactly what the Software Freedom Conservancy and others do when confronted by GPL breaches.

That earlier litigation is between two (or more) commercial companies; it is not a FOSS problem. These are mature, sophisticated, profitable companies that have the wherewithal to protect themselves. I know that in my own law practice, whether I represent software vendors or their commercial customers, we typically provide for some level of indemnification. Perhaps Ameriprise and the other customer-defendants can count on Versata defending them against Ximpleware. Such a commercial dispute between big companies – even if it involves the GPLv2 software of a small company and separate indemnification for copyright or patent infringement – is between them alone.

But as to Ximpleware and its GPLv2 copyrighted and patented software, there are a few misunderstandings reflected in Aaron Williamson's article:

1. The notion of "implied patent licensing" has no clear legal precedent in any software licensing. While it is true that goods that one purchases include a patent license under what is known as the "exhaustion doctrine," there is no exhaustion of patented software when copies are made (even though copying of the software itself is authorized by GPLv2). For example, a typical commercial patent license nowadays might include a royalty for each Android phone manufactured and sold. Companies that distribute Android phones and its FOSS software acquire patent licenses so that recipients of their phones are indeed free to use those phones. But that isn't because of some implied patent licenses that come with Android software, but because commercial companies that distribute phones pay for those patent rights, directly or indirectly. I think it is entirely reasonable to require that commercial companies get their patent licenses in writing.

2. Versata's customers who received the (in breach!) GPLv2 software all moved to dismiss Ximpleware's infringement claims against them, pointing to Section 0 of GPLv2, which says that "[t]he act of running the Program is not restricted." What that sentence actually means is just what it says: The GPLv2 copyright grant itself (which is all there is in GPLv2) does not restrict the act of running the program. Nor could it; that is a true statement because running a program is not one of the enumerated copyright rights subject to a copyright license (17 USC 106). The authors of the GPL licenses have themselves made that argument repeatedly: The use of software is simply not a copyright issue.

3. Because there are U.S. patent claims on this Ximpleware software, Section 7 of GPLv2 prohibits its distribution under that license in the United States (or any jurisdictions where patent claims restrict its use). If Ameriprise and the other defendants were outside the U.S. where the Ximpleware patents don't apply, then GPLv2 would indeed be sufficient for that use. But inside the U.S. those customers are not authorized and they cannot rely on an assumed patent grant in GPLv2. Otherwise GPLv2 Section 7 would be an irrelevant provision. Reread it carefully if you doubt this.

The Versata customers certainly cannot depend on an implied patent license received indirectly through a vendor who was in breach of GPLv2 since the beginning – and still is! Versata ignored and failed to disclose to its own customers Ximpleware's patent notices concerning that GPLv2 software, but those patents are nevertheless infringed.

Should we forgive commercial companies who fail to undertake honest compliance with the GPL? Should we forgive their customers who aren't diligent in acquiring their software from diligent vendors?

As Aaron Williamson suggests, we shouldn't ignore the implications of this case. After all, the creator of Ximpleware software made his source code freely available under GPLv2 and posted clear notices to potential commercial customers of his U.S. patents and of his commercial licensing options. Lots of small (and large!) open source commercial companies do that. Although it is ultimately up to the courts to decide this case, from a FOSS point of view Ximpleware is the good guy here!

There is rich detail about this matter that will come out during litigation. Please don't criticize until you understand all the facts.

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag (lrosen@rosenlaw.com)

Submission + - Anonymous launches operation Ferguson

Submitted by Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace writes: Hacktivist Group Promises Action In Shooting Death Of Unarmed Teen

Ferguson, Missouri's Police Department has been put on notice. International hacktivist group Anonymous has launched "Operation Ferguson" and promised swift action against authorities in city in response to the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.

Anonymous has promised to take every web-based asset of the Ferguson Police Department and other corroborating agencies offline as well as release personal information of every officer should any protester by harmed or harassed while protesting Brown's death.

It seems that the mayor saw this coming.

Anticipating a problem, the mayor of Ferguson had the IT Department take down all personal information from the site on Saturday

Anonymous announces Operation Ferguson on YouTube

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close