Post #30,139
2/28/02 9:54:53 AM
|
What the judge is thinking . .
. . appears to be that this whole thing is rather silly and should be worked out without bothering her. I fail to see that as unreasonable.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #30,144
2/28/02 10:44:37 AM
|
Wrong: With all the anti-GPL "but is it enforceable?" FUD...
...the world needs[*] a demonstration of its enforceability. And, hey, this is copyright, not contract, law -- as soon as Progress ceased to comply with the GPL license, thus invoking its automatic revocation clause, they were (AFAICS) in *criminal* violation of the law. And *I* fail to see how _that_ can be "silly and should be worked out without bothering [a judge]"... From [link|http://www.fsf.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html|Eben Moglen's affidavit]: [22]: The GPL is specifically designed to be a license for decentralized distribution, in which everyone can share programs and improvements with anyone else. This means that program code can cross national borders and otherwise propagate in uncontrolled ways. For this reason, the GPL makes special provision for dealing with the consequences of license violation. Under \ufffd4, any licensee who violates the GPL loses his right of distribution, until such time as that right is restored by affirmative act of the copyright holder.
[25]: ...I have secured compliance with the license in dozens of cases over the past decade, and have never had to resort to judicial measures of mandatory enforcement. Without the leverage provided by \ufffd4, however, parties would resort to repetitive partial compliance, ``capable of repetition but evading review,'' in language the Supreme Court has applied to a different sort of situation, substantially if not overwhelmingly complicating the task of securing reliable compliance with the license.
[38]: Under GPL \ufffd4, I conclude, Progress Software Corp. lost the right to distribute MySQL when it distributed NuSphere MySQL Advantage in a fashion that violated GPL.
[*]: From [link|http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html|his screed on enforceability FUD] But perhaps we have succeeded too well. If I had used the courts to enforce the GPL years ago, Microsoft's whispering would now be falling on deaf ears. Just this month I have been working on a couple of moderately sticky situations. ``Look,'' I say, ``at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?'' Christian R. Conrad
Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #30,160
2/28/02 12:05:31 PM
|
The judge is an idiot
The ability to proactively react in strength to noticed violations is key to MySQL AB's business model.
Their model, after all, depends on their being able to give away source-code for publicity, and then charge for selling the same thing for general use. Without the ability to proactively enforce against violators, they are left in a position of having to pursue actions against every 2 bit Harry who thinks they can get away with it. Since doing this is untenable, they have effectively just given away the store.
If having this kind of thing haunt them is not "irreparable harm", then I don't know what is.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #30,232
2/28/02 6:13:01 PM
|
Or just a republican
Sorry, did I repeat what you said?
Ok, that was mean and I take it back. I suppose their are plenty of republicans who are idiots, but they surely don't have a monopoly on idiocy.
(Pun intended)
I got the impression from what I read that the judge is saying "How could you show damages? You're not in danger of losing profits. They are." That's why I jumped to the conclusion that she's a republican.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #30,255
2/28/02 8:16:37 PM
|
Well...
For a preliminary injunction to be granted, she said, the plaintiff must show that it is being done irreparable harm. What the Judge said is...you can go to trial if you want...I highly recommend that you don't...and in the meantime you have to do a hell of alot better job of showing actual harm from this...because as it stands you will not get an injunction. It >is< pretty hard to show financial harm when you give your product away. And on the other side...granting a preliminary injunction shuts them down. I don't think that the Judge was saying anything at all about the merits of the case...in fact...she seemed to favor the MySQL side...especially on the trademark front. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #30,272
3/1/02 1:09:43 AM
|
That's ironic
I mention how the judge only focuses on loss of profits as harm and then, from you we get this,
It >is< pretty hard to show financial harm when you give your product away. And on the other side...granting a preliminary injunction shuts them down.
Perhaps I shold have spelled it out; The loss of monetary gain is not the only harm that exits. But what the hell do I know, being a lawyer was never much of an attraction for me. For all I know, the wording of the request for injunction may not have been specific enough to point this out either.
BTW, you wouldn't by chance be a republican would you?
Leaving aside the teasing, I should say that I simply got the impression from the article that the judge only saw harm in financial terms. That impression may well be wrong. Even so, and even though I do not even use GPL products, I kind of thought the entire point of the GPL was that to incorporate works covered by the GPL into your own works required adhering to the terms of the GPL. The most important of which is the requirement to include source. They violated those terms.
Speaking only to the point of irreperable harm, I think I will defer to those more expert than I in the terms of the GPL and the philosophy behind it.
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
Post #30,297
3/1/02 8:16:23 AM
|
>irreparable<...see answer to CRC
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #30,285
3/1/02 3:31:45 AM
|
Doubly ironically, as even in purely financial terms...
...it was fucking well SPELLED OUT, in the post two up from yours, BeeP, by Ben: They don't *only* distribute MySQL under the GPL. The alternative, if you want to do non-GPL-conformant things -- like, extending it with your own code, and NOT include the source to those extensions -- with their code, is to BUY A COMMERCIAL REDISTRIBUTION LICENSE from them. (As the copyright holders to the original MySQL code, they can do that.)
Now, if people get the impression you can do whateverthefuck you want with the freely downloadable version -- going "Hey, it's 'Open Source', right? Isn't that the same as 'Public Domain'?" -- then who the fuck would ever buy one of those commercial licenses?!?
That's so fucking *obviously* "irreparable harm" even in the financial sense, that the judge *must* be a moron for not seeing it.
And as for you, BeeP, not seeing it *even after* Ben spelled it out... Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were tired or something.
Christian R. Conrad
Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #30,296
3/1/02 8:15:21 AM
|
Christ in a sidecar people...
...the words are "irreparable harm" and its for granting a >preliminary injunction<.
Ok...maybe you don't understand this...that just means that mysql is asking the Judge to order in their favor BEFORE she grants a ruling.
And what SHE said was...You (mysql) will survive if we don't stop them right away...and >they< will not.
In addition...she said...it looks pretty clear...to the other side...that if this thing goes all the way through...she would, in fact, rule in favor of mysql.
So she sent them off with very specific instructions to make nice. And what will that be??? MySql will get their money and probably additional license fees because these idiots put the trademark in their name.
The point the Judge made was that MySQL was asking for too much in a >preliminary < injunction.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #30,417
3/1/02 8:56:46 PM
|
Christ on a crutch, Bubba, maybe it's *you* who doesn't...
...understand this!
Yes, the words are "irreparable harm", and that is for granting a preliminary injunction. That's because they NEED a preliminary injunction to avoid being irreparably harmed, you see.
"that just means that mysql is asking the Judge to order in their favor BEFORE she grants a ruling." Oh, really? Well I had NO IDEA the word 'preliminary' had anything to do with being 'before' anything, or that 'injunction' meant 'an order from the court' -- thank you SO MUCH for clearing that up!
And if what SHE said really was "You, MySQL AB, will survive if we don't stop them right away, and they, Progress Software, will not", then that only PROVES that she IS a moron -- and so are you, for listening to her even after I tell you she's wrong.
Which of these companies has only one product, and a fragile business model based on allowing that product to be used gratis in *some* circumstances? And which of these companies has lots of other products of their own to fall back on, and has only recently started to branch out into the minor activity, for this company, of extending the other company's product?
Hints: The answer to the first question is *not* Progress Software, and the answer to the second question is *not* MySQL AB.
And the questions, combined with the correct answers, are the reason why allowing GPL violations to go unchecked is IRREPARABLE HARM to companies that try to make a living by writing Open Source software.
Christian R. Conrad
Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #30,458
3/2/02 10:25:07 AM
|
I see your point...
...but I don't see the same conclusion.
She pretty much told Postgres they would lose in her Court.
She told both parties to come to an agreement.
She could very well have NOT wanted to be the first judge to rule on a GPL case. Problem is, the GPL needs a case like this to prove itself.
I understand the desire to have her rule swiftly and strongly in favor of MySQL by forcing Progress stop immediately. ..but once she does that this case is in the Courts for good. No chance for the 2 parties to settle this themselves, which was her stated intention in the first place. She could be a moron...and probably is...but she's trying to force a settlement and this is really the only way to do that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #30,486
3/2/02 6:47:43 PM
|
The case is there, she's a judge - WTF is she waiting for?!?
Who *cares* if she "doesn't want to" be the first judge to rule on a GPL case? When anti-murder laws were invented, would it have been OK for judges to try to shirk judging on *those*, just so they weren't the first to judge one...?
Yeah, once she does that this case is in the Courts for good. What's wrong with that? Isn't that where it fucking well *belongs*?!? Actually, one would have thought some unknown little judge would *jump at the chance* to get her name in the books as a vital precedent; and especially so when it's as simple and obvious a case as this.
Also, who the fuck does she think she is, putting *her* "intention" of having the parties settle it between themselves, above her *duty to uphold the law*, which Progress is at the moment breaking? (AFAICS, a *criminal* violation of copyright law) Isn't that the fucking JOB SHE GETS PAID TO DO?!?
What she's saying, according to your reading of her intentions, is essentially: "Yeah yeah, mr Assfuck might be breaking his contract with mr Buttfuck by having murdered mrs Buttfuck... But can't they just settle this peacefully between themselves?" -- What the fucking FUCK?!?
Christian R. Conrad
Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #30,494
3/2/02 7:45:42 PM
|
That was almost a record ;)
Dude...I get yer point.
I'm guessing her intentions...I don't know them.
But this sort of thing happens all the time. The paperwork is gone through...briefs are submitted...one side asks for a preliminary ruling...the Judge reads through everything and basically says "Try and work this out amongst yourselves"
The only reason anyone here is getting worked up about it is because this case is about the GPL...essentially a contract between 2 parties...and contract disputes are more often settled out of Court than in...many times at the prodding of a Judge.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #30,591
3/4/02 10:51:04 AM
|
FWIW, agreed
Shortly after I posted the root node I had a discussion with someone else who made the same point, and then the FSF press releases have stressed it.
She was leaning against granting MySQL AB a preliminary injunction on the copyright issue because the harm that would happen during a case from continued distribution is not irreparable to MySQL. That says nothing about her thinking on the likelyhood of ruling for MySQL AB.
Incidentally one comment that I saw from someone who was there was that she didn't understand that by linking they meant something different from hyperlinks. Before she can give a real ruling, she has some learning to do. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything."
--Richard Feynman
|
Post #30,324
3/1/02 11:48:38 AM
|
Or just a Clinton appointee
[link|http://www.wardfellowship.org/ward/sponsors2001/psaris.asp|As long as we're all being mean, we may as well be evenhandedly mean]
No excerpt, `coz no particularly meaningful info here, except maybe that she's associated with President Bubba and with Chappaquiddick Ted. But enough unwarranted reading into things.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #30,370
3/1/02 4:02:24 PM
|
Nickel
With this much manure around, there must be a pony somewhere.
|
