What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
103 Comments
- Qumahlin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Wrong, Apple did what a company is supposed to do when another company is attempting to trademark a term you actively use...they fought it. Trademark law says you MUST be on top of defending your trademark otherwise you lose it. I know some people find this hard to believe, but Cisco IS going to lose the iPhone trademark most likely, or when they get close to losing it, they will sell it.
Cisco did not defend the trademark in the years they actively owned it. They did not defend it when they knew 100% that Apple was preparing a product with the same name, they were lax about filing extensions and at the last minute conceivable (and even then was too late if you want to get technical) they rename an EXISTING product using the trademark which they never bothered to defend until it was absolutely too late.
The act of defending your trademark is a HUGE part of trademark/copyright law. Some people honestly believe that you can go out, trademark a term that you know a company is interested in...let the company get comfy using it and then sue them...it doesn't work like that. You began losing your trademark status the moment you knew another company was using it and didn't do anything to prevent this. (Not that this applies in the cisco/apple case, i'm just saying people truly do not understand trademark law and how strict it is in this regard) - negativefx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23copyRIGHT. Last I checked, we're not talking about access control.
- blurplevtx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16But 3 lefts make a right.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Oh my GOD! HE'S RIGHT!!
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Not just copyright infringement, moral infringement too.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9No, but if there is evidence that GPL code wasnt just linked to, like there appears to be, then they have to release the source. I mean, getting the kernel to run on a custom device requires some modifications.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Straight from the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
I doubt obfuscated code would qualify as "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
Where it defines "complete source code", it basically says that you must include all the code, a working makefile; So you can't split the program into a million single-line files and hope no-one can ever figure out how to compile it. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm not an apple lacky, and neither are the people who wrote the article. Its just linux users who only want what's fair. Cisco saved a lot of money by using Linux, instead of Windows Mobile or something else, and so far aren't giving back the only thing they were asked to do in return. As far as the apple reference, well, it brings up that they're not as clean as some would want people to think, nor are things there really on the same page at Cisco (in other words "let ye without sin cast the first stone"). Plus it adds a bit of sensationalism.
- heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20Apple didn't go after people using the term 'podcast', they went after one specific company that was trying to trademark terms that were uncomfortably close to trademarks Apple owns.
- prammy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@hellmark
The GPL does not require you to provide source code on the same media as the binary. In fact all you have to do is to provide a written offer for the source code for a reasonable cost of media+shipping or bandwidth fees. For example, I could distribute binary XYZ with a written offer for source code at $4.99 per copy (for my costs of shipping+media) and that would be fine with the GPL.
However I would have to make sure that the source code is complete, i.e it compiles and any build scripts etc is included. Also I cannot add any other restrictions to the source so for example if you paid me $4.99 for the copy and I sent you a copy of the source, you can post it on a public ftp site for anyone else to download and distribute freely. I cannot restrict you from doing that.
This is especially what I love about the GPL. Even if I were to violate the terms of the GPL, the people I distributed it to can remain in compliance if they follow the terms of the GPL.
People tend to brush off RMS as a hippie who is all about taking away companies rights to market their software as they want to. He definitely had a LOT of foresight and the GPL ensures that everyone who receives GPL'd software has the same rights. People tend to argue that BSD license is more free because it allows people to restrict other people's rights, but I disagree since GPL ensures that everyone is treated equally. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6While that is all fine and dandy, just have to say. The Article is not about the Cisco vs Apple issue over Apple's use of the iPhone for its new cellphone. It is about the cordless Skype phone being sold by Cisco, which runs on Linux.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yes they could provided that the source was complete. They could actually charge for the source code as well.
No-one does it because the first person to collect would just bring sanity so all they would achieve is pissing people off. Not to mention that actually splitting everything up would be an unnecessary cost. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, the source was still available. Only requirements are that the source of the GPL based code be complete, that the source be made publicly available via the same media as the binaries, and the cost of the source is no more than the cost of the binaries.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Read the ***** article. It is not about the trademark argument at all. Also, its presented by Linux users, not apple fanboys.
Oh yeah, an organization dedicated to prevent GPL violations is really a group of Apple fanboys making up lies to deface someone apple is having issues with....Twatlet... - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The article isn't about the name squabble.
- Aleks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14You can criticize Apple all your like but do NOT compare Apple to the republican party! That's very low!
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No one is asking for the complete source code of everything on the iPhone, only the portions that are based on GPL code. In this case, it would most likely be only the kernel.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This isnt about the Apple fight though...
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5On computers, yes, no modding is needed at all, but when you're talking about embedding it into a new custom device, some will be needed.
- eponym, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8But Cisco didn't properly enforce/use its trademark. There is a 5 year period in which you actually have to USE the trademark, and prove it. Cisco failed this. But there is a 6 month grace period wherein you can renew the trademark provided you meet the same requirements before (submit proof of product, such as packaging or a label) and pay a penalty fee.
Cisco renewed less than 2 weeks before the end of the grace period. But it's legally debatable if it was a lawful registration because all they submitted for proof of use was a box with a printed out STICKER saying 'iPhone' stuck onto the existing VOIP phone (that was at the time being referenced solely by its model #). Even by the time of Macworld, the only place the name iPhone appeared was packaging. Documentation still references the model #.
CISCO is doing nothing but trying to cash in. They realized they might lose out on being able to manipulate Apple.
This new news about the GPL is just more ammo for Apple lawyers. With this Apple could theoretically prove that Cisco illegally registered an illegal product. - bdxphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I may be wrong, but I think you only have to release the source for something GPL'd if you are planning on redistributing it (commercially or for fun). I don't think most data centers plan on redistributing their code (if they make modification to the kernel, it is only for use on their machines), so data centers wouldn't need to open their modifications since it is only used internally.
And yes, most computers need no kernel modifications, but many embedded systems do since there hardware is very specific. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bigstacker - You're missing the point. The stock linux kernel probably wouldn't start and run at all. Once they get it running, all of the things that they need, like the IP stack, don't need to be modified at all, leaving them to just write things at the application layer.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Uhm, what about the kernel that the IP stack and everything runs on? That is Linux, which is GPL. I seriously doubt they did zero modifications what so ever to get the kernel running on their device.
- KarmannGhia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That depends on if you used GPL or LGPL.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@bigstacker - Based on. You have to realize that there are very few stand alone devices that can run a totally unmodified version of linux. Most of the time it take very little tweaking to get it to run, but some changes have to be made. And any changes have to be published.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Unrelated I know - but another company who doesn't seem to give a crap about the GPL is Archos. Their entire line of 504/604 players is based on Linux - yet they haven't released one single bite of code back to the community.
I wish someone would make a fuss about this.
TBH I wish there was somewhere (some sort of central location maybe) that you could report violations like this, like a legal charity with it's own (donated) war chest to both fight against litigation and to defend against cased of GPL violation.
Maybe there is somewhere and I just don't know about it? - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They're not suing them or anything, so they do not have to prove anything. If it advances to where they do take the matter to the courts, then they'll have to release the evidence. From a legal standpoint, it makes sense, because it gives Cisco less of a chance to try and play some funny business. Like poker, you dont show your hand till things are done.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Reverse engineering is simply the act of finding out how something was made, and not the creation of something after finding out how a rival product works.
- GenghisTom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Gotta love the GPL, that RMS guy's pretty smart.
He must have sat down to edit it with a bunch of lawyers and just said "Now, how would a huge ***** company try to get around this..." - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That part I assumed was known, and since we were talking about a publicly available product, so is kinda moot.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Likelihood of profiting is extremely slim. Some areas do not allow for compensation for legal bills and court costs, even if you are victorious.
- JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just for the record everybody, this has nothing to do with the trademark. The iPhone allegedly is in violation of GPL. The only reason why you've heard about it right now is that it is convenient to get this pushed while the iPhone controversy is in the spotlight.
"But Cisco has yet to publish the relevant code from the WIP300 iPhone, Hemel said. He decided to talk about his findings now because "the timing is just perfect," he said." - jas168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hahaha
Hellmark, I'm starting to wonder if they're getting dumber just to spite you for having to explain the same obvious point over and over. - jas168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's a big difference between a greedy corporation suing rather harmless users in a PR campaign and what I consider stealing from the people who made GPLed code.
In fact, I encourage software writers to protect their copyrights, since I disagree with stealing. I just don't see that the RIAA's actions are in the best interest of the music artists. I'm allowed to have complicated opinions based on the issue at hand, it's not hypocritical to think certain kinds of lawsuits are better than others. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@prammy - I should have said medium, rather than media. Meaning, if its only available on CDs, the source should be available on a CD (seperate or same disk, doesnt matter), or if its available for download, so should the source. That will prevent the developers from making it a hassle to get the source in comparison to the binaries.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@locojones - that would work though, only for the US. The people pushing this are in Europe.
- jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess you got tired of trolling on fark, so you decided to troll at digg for free?
http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/users.pl?login=7of7 - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In this case, "based on" equals "runs" - as in the run a full blown customized version of Linux.
They have always been extremely evasive when asking them about what (if any) modifications have been made within the source code - and despite many attempts by several people, they have yet to give a straight answer. If they haven't made any changes, let them say so. But if ythey have, they are (or at least they should be) obligated to say what those changes are.
In fact you really have to go out of your way to get them to admit their players run Linux at all (even at one point denying it completely) and in fact I only found this out by asking a 3rd party Archos partner who confirmed that they did in fact run Linux after all.
It pisses me off as I own one of these players - and there is so much I could do with it, if only I could get access to the source. - concertina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Apples and oranges (no pun intended).
SCO's arguments were absurd on the face of it, their claims unbelievable to anyone who had any knowledge about licensing or the linux source tree. The GPL Violation Project's claims are completely believable, based on what we know about required kernel modifications on embedded devices.
SCO has also attempted to game the legal system and dodge presenting real evidence in court. If the GPL Violations Project does the same, feel free to make all the comparisons you want. - Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Which is odd, considering they followed to the letter on the PMA400.
- concertina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2digg's a pretty diverse group these days. What makes you think it's the same group of people complaining about GPL copyright violation and RIAA tactics?
Even assuming there's some overlap, it's one thing for an individual to violate copyright. It's another thing for a large company to do so in a commercial product being sold on the open market. - masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Thanks mom
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Dude, this isnt fanboyism. It has zero to do with apple.
- JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7I've always wondered if a company can comply with the GPL by posting the code in publically accessible places, but in the most annoying format imaginable. Say, break the source code into 1,000 parts and place those 1,000 parts around the world and post the source code characters using a binary breakdown of the ASCII characters that make up the source that have been passed through an obfuscator. Make sure all places are publically accessible but only open for 30 minutes a day for further annoyance, etc.
- Dwonis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Hellmark: It doesn't always take that long. It's mostly a matter of locating the copyright holders (who are the ones who have the standing to file copyright infringement lawsuits), and having them send the company a few nasty letters. Then, you just wait until the company's own lawyers to tell them that they'd better start complying with the GPL.
- blackomegax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If my olevia tv runs busybox linux, and they dont make the source available, is there any recourse?
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, just people are too ignorant and lazy to bother reading, or paying attention.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ethics and what is required are two different things. And no, court isnt like a poker game, but many of the same strategies can apply. Also, this is not in court yet, and possibly never will be.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, but someone downloading a song rather than paying the 99 cents for it isnt quite in the same league as some company investing millions into and later profiting on a product that violates copyright.
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It has nothing to do with the Apple iPhone. Cisco makes a device called the iPhone, that runs linux, that is used for Skype. Linux is GPL. Cisco modified GPL code. Cisco isnt releasing code. Is it too much to ask that people read first?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is