It is not a sin to share software
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| npan Jan 06, 2008 7:28 PM EDT |
RMS emphasizes that users should have the right to share computer programs as nobody loses a copy whenever it is shared. If copyright law was to be removed, there wouldn't be any requirement to follow the redistribution requirements of the GPL which would likely mean that people will not share source code. That's all right because we will also have the right to share other people's work as well. We also retain the right to share existing code or publish new code. |
| azerthoth Jan 06, 2008 8:36 PM EDT |
Your missing a major point. Open Source folks can go on just as they have before, with one caveat, any business, such as Tivo, a primary reason for GPL3, no longer even has to share back. MS can take the code for free and there is nothing that says that they have to share one dratted thing. In other words kiss the 4 freedoms good bye. |
| npan Jan 07, 2008 4:07 AM EDT |
> any business [...] no longer even has to share back [...] MS can take the code for free and there is nothing that says that they have to share one dratted thing That is correct; the derivates of free software would potentially be non-free. Without any legal obligation to share back changes to the community, many software proprietors would probably take code, change it and not share the modified code when the binary is distributed. > In other words kiss the 4 freedoms good bye. The four freedoms could *potentially* be lost on the *derivatives* of free software. The software that is already free will always remain free. So what would be the good thing about this? The software black market will cease to exist. It would be legal to share copies of Microsoft Windows XP, Adobe Photoshop or any computer game that is past the copyright term. It would be completely legal to start a software distribution service - that is you get paid for sharing someone else's work. So what will happen to free software? Free code will be used in non-free programs and then it will become non-free. But that's alright, free code will still remain free. Open source development would work like how the BSD projects are working. |
| jdixon Jan 07, 2008 6:45 AM EDT |
BTW azerthoth, I think your understanding of a trade secret is incorrect. IANAL, but as I understand it, once a trade secret is made public the company loses all rights to it. I believe this is true even if it becomes public due to illegal acts on the part of one or more people (those those people could still be prosecuted for their actions). So, if you get a copy of a trade secreted program, you should be able to use it. Dino would probably know more about this subject than I do. |
| azerthoth Jan 07, 2008 9:38 AM EDT |
Incorrect sir, a trade secret, if revealed by illegal means, remains a trade secret. A good example is Mcdonalds secret sauce. Every body and their brother knows that it is 1000 island dressing, still it's exact recipe remains a guarded secret. You can't have somethng become legal via an illegal act. If I steal a car and then sell or give it away. The recipient of it is still in possesion of stolen property and retains no rights to if found out, even if they could prove that they alteast were acting in good faith during the transaction. They still dont own the car, and may themselves be subject to criminal charges. *side note* A great example of loss of control is happening right now. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/01/05/mcafe... , if the copyright were ammended to disallow or limit time for functional works the only answer could be made would be ... oh well, that whacky company got us again. ZERO protection. |
| dinotrac Jan 07, 2008 10:49 AM EDT |
>Incorrect sir, a trade secret, if revealed by illegal means, remains a trade secret. Sorry, but no. If somebody misappropriates -- ie taken by illegal means or in violation of a duty to protect the secret -- a trade secret, they are liable for the misappropriation itself. People who knowingly participate in the misappropriation can be liable for spreading the secret. However, if the secret gets out to others, it's not a secret any more. That's why we have things like copyrights, patents, and trademarks. There are variations in state laws -- for example, I seem to remember California having a rather odd law,l though I can't remember why -- but, by and large, once the cat's out of the bag, there's not point in trying to chase it. |
| jdixon Jan 07, 2008 11:26 AM EDT |
> However, if the secret gets out to others, it's not a secret any more. Thanks Dino. That was my understanding. Azerthoth, a car is not a trade secret. The two cannot be reasonably compared. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 07, 2008 12:12 PM EDT |
Actually, if copyright law were to be eliminated, _contracts_ would still exist. The GPL is a license. I think it stands independent of copyright legislation, even if it falls under copyright _right_now_, since copyright law preceded the GPL. One reason that California laws have been different was to protect the movie industry, to avoid all those pesky patents and "trade secrets" that Edison had on motion pictures. That's why they moved from the East coast, and their big markets, to settle in L.A. *edit* I meant "independent of copyright law", I hope that was clear from context. |
| azerthoth Jan 07, 2008 1:00 PM EDT |
Thanks for the correction dino, did a little research following that and ran across this :
Quoting:Trade secret rights can also be lost through publication of the information, including the posting of confidential information via modern mass communications systems, such as the Internet or intranets. Anonymous postings, even if available for only a very short period of time, can destroy trade secret status because millions of people could have accessed the information even if few people in fact saw it. From this .pdf file http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/Trade_Secret... , which is a good read for basic overview of trade secrets and protection of them. Included in it is a comment that computer programs can indeed be classified as trade secrets. However the car analogy still stands pretty well, if not in the way I stated it. If there is a reasonable consideration that the information was misappropriated then the recipient can still be held accountable for being in possession of stolen property, and the fun bits that go along with that. There are other odds and ends that can get tossed into the mix as well, up to and including the inclusion of the RICO act. |
| azerthoth Jan 07, 2008 1:04 PM EDT |
Found this as well:
Quoting:Information that qualifies as a trade secret is subject to legal protection (against theft and misappropriation) as a form of valuable property--but only if the owner has taken the necessary steps to preserve its secrecy. If the owner has not diligently tried to keep the information secret, courts will usually refuse to extend any help to the trade secret owner if others learn of the information. excerpted from http://www.marketingtoday.com/legal/tradesec.htm |
| dinotrac Jan 07, 2008 3:17 PM EDT |
>When a disclosure is considered wrongful, the courts may also consider use of the information wrongful and issue an order (injunction) preventing its use for a particular period of time. But the injunction will apply only to the wrongdoers. Innocent members of the public (or competition) are not constrained to pretend they don't know. That makes sense. Imagine a classic 1 person tells 2 people tell 2 people each fan-out... The law could never keep up. Not only that, none of those innocent spreaders of the secret would have broken any law. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 07, 2008 3:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:But the injunction will apply only to the wrongdoers. Innocent members of the public (or competition) are not constrained to pretend they don't know. Are you sure? It would make sense that a court would order that, after someone steals the coca cola formula, it orders that nobody can use the leaked recipe for the next X years. |
| azerthoth Jan 07, 2008 3:40 PM EDT |
I'm trying to imagine anyone capable of using the code not being aware of the origin of it. Especially since the minute it got out MS would be screaming bloody murder. |
| dinotrac Jan 07, 2008 6:07 PM EDT |
>It would make sense that a court would order that, after someone steals the coca cola formula, Seems like it, but how do you prove that someone is using the leaked formula? Remember -- no patent issue, so two people could actually come up with the same formula. As a practical matter, there is no way to protect a trade secret beyond those who can be identified as having dirty hands. |
| jdixon Jan 07, 2008 7:37 PM EDT |
As a perfect example of one way to lose a trade secret, a couple purchased a house in Kentucky (I believe it was a few years ago now). When going through the attic they found an old trunk with some papers which had formerly belonged to Harland Sanders (apparently it had at one time been his house). One of those papers contained a recipe. KFC denies that the recipe is actually theirs, of course, but they've also apparently threatened couple with legal action, which sort of belies their claim. If it actually is the recipe, and the couple chooses to publish it, there's little KFC can do, and their trade secret is gone. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!