brianpuccio.net

it's dot com

Orphan Works Act Of 2008

I first heard of the Orphan Works Act of 2008 by way of an open source advocate voicing concerns regarding the lack of diligence allowing companies to ignore the GPL. While this is could be an issue, I think if a party fails to do something as simple as perform a google search and see it listed at the top, a judge would probably hold that the searcher didn't perform a diligent search, especially since computer stuff more often than not found in the Internet. Besides, there are plenty of GPL violations that occur now. And considering most software has in it (either in the code or the application itself) some sort of documentation that points to the software's website. I don't think there's a judge who would find a company who ignored that sort of obvious information as a company who performed a diligent search.

So I decided to find out more about this bill and the second google hit was a petition to stop the Orphan Works Act of 2008 by some nutjobs who think copyright should last, quite literally, for eternity:

We believe it is the unalienable right of the individual artist or person to decide how their photographs, illustrations, videos, music or paintings are used for eternity.

Sorry, but copyright shouldn't last for 50 years after the death of the creator, it shouldn't last for 70 years after the death of the author and it certainly shouldn't last for eternity. The ultimate purpose of copyright (which is a time-limited monopoly on the rights to copy (or otherwise reproduce) a work) is not to provide for the authors of the works, but rather to enrich society as a whole. As a way to encourage individuals to create works, there needed to be some financial benefit, so the government granted the author a time period of 14 years (renewable for an additional 14) during which the author would hold a monopoly on the right to copy the work. After that, the author had to either come up with a new work, or get another job because the work became public domain, because the goal all along was to give society free access to the largest amount of works possible.

Now that's not to say I'm in favor of the Orphan Works Act of 2008. I'm not. But I am against the 7336 people who have signed this online petition. And not only these people, but other people who run around claiming that this bill "destroys the copyright validity of all artists. And then go on to claim that the Bushites are the anti-christ:

Who or what is the motivating power behind such a horror as this bill?
Guess! Fascism, Neo-cons? You see, as I warned you long ago and forever since, The Bushites ARE the anti-Christ. They realize that much financial and critical support comes from the Progressives and Liberals in the arts and the vast majority of artists of all sorts ARE Progressives and Liberals. When God or nature bestows upon a man, woman, or child a great creative gift, with that gift most often includes the sensitivity it takes to recognize the vagaries and the subtlety in nature and art. Artists of every sort are keen observers, because they have to be, and they are trained to be and by their very gift they are born ro be so.

The Anti-Christ forces, which supplant merely being The Anti-Christ, but are in reality Anti-God, Anti-Spiritual giftedness, anti-prophet, but pro-illicit profit. Their goal is the utter destruction of the God-Gifted artists. They hate and hold on contempt those favored with gifts, which includes athletes. If you will note, they have gone after with scant evidence all members of the arts and sports with lawsuits and skimpy, fringe, phonied, trumped up indictments, many of which I have correctly called as failing, here in these pages in many articles. They are aided and abetted by those who attack the messengers rather than perpetrators.

I share the position of Adam Huttler regarding the Orphan Works Act of 2008 in that I don't know if the bill is either good or bad (or a little bit of Column A and a little bit of Column B). Huttler does make some interesting points, though, including that authors are still entitled to compensation even from someone protected by the Orphan Works Act and that registration isn't compulsory.

SMF Unhappy With Bridge To Drupal

Sunday, April 20, 2008, 4:04pm
Drupal, GPL, bazaar vs. cathedral, open source, simple machines forum

Today, vb reported on the Drupal Forums, the SMF Forums and on his own website that he will no longer maintain the Drupal SMFforum Integration module.

According to vb, SMF's Project Manager Michael "Oldiesmann" Eshom told him he was in violation of SMF's proprietary license because he failed to obtain SMF's permission to distribute or change a file named smf_api_subs.php containing SMF functions, some of which had been modified to work with Drupal.

...

Sadly, this story is far from over. I think SMF is starting to realize they are in a bit of a pickle. There are dozens of other SMF bridges leading into GPL environments that have been initiated, discussed and distributed (by sharing links) right inside of the SMF forums in the *exact* same way the Drupal bridge was done.

Sounds like an awful lot of foot shooting going on.

Acquia Code To Be Released Under GPL

Monday, March 3, 2008, 12:09am
Drupal, GPL, bazaar vs. cathedral, acquia

Acquia plans to ship a commercially supported distribution of Drupal, code-named "Carbon." The Carbon distribution will include the Drupal 6 core release and essential extension modules for rapidly assembling compelling social publishing sites and applications. With Carbon in hand, web developers will have fully integrated and tested building blocks for user management, web content management, single or multi-user blogs, wiki collaboration, discussion forums, user-generated content, social networking, and more. In keeping with the spirit of the open source development model, all Acquia-developed Drupal code will be freely licensed under the GPL v2 license and the company will work continuously to merge new features and patches into the main line Drupal project through the established community process.

SimCity Goes Open Source Under GPL3

Friday, February 1, 2008, 12:06am
GPL, open source, olpc, simcity, micropolis

Source code for SimCity has been released under the GPLv3. For legal reasons the open source version was renamed Micropolis, which was apparently the original working title. The OLPC will also be getting a SimCity branded version that has been QA'ed by Electronic Arts.

Monsoon Multimedia GPL Lawsuit Settled

Monday, October 8, 2007, 8:21pm
GPL, open source, Monsoon Multimedia, SFLC, BusyBox

The first U.S. GPL-related lawsuit appears to be headed for a quick out-of-court settlement. Monsoon Multimedia admitted today that it had violated the GPLv2 (GNU General Public License version 2), and said it will release its modified BusyBox code in full compliance with the license.

previously

Monsoon Multimedia Is Defendant In First US GPL Lawsuit

Monday, October 8, 2007, 8:07pm
GPL, open source, Monsoon Multimedia, SFLC, BusyBox

For the first time in the U.S., a company and software vendor, Monsoon Multimedia, is being taken to court for a GPL violation. Previously, alleged GPL violations have all been settled by letters from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) or other open-source organizations, pointing out the violation.

The SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) announced on Sept. 20 that it had just filed the first ever U.S. copyright infringement lawsuit based on a violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL) on behalf of its clients. The group's clients are the two principal developers of BusyBox. BusyBox is a small-footprint application that implements a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities. It is commonly used in embedded systems, and is open-source software licensed under the GPL version 2.

The developers of BusyBox came to the SFLC after trying to talk Monsoon into honoring the conditions of the GPLv2. Unsuccessful with this, the SFLC has filed suit on the developers' behalf against Monsoon.

One of the conditions of the GPL is that re-distributors of BusyBox are required to ensure that each downstream recipient is provided access to the source code of the program. On the company's own Web site, Monsoon Multimedia has publicly acknowledged that its products and firmware contain BusyBox. However, it has not provided any recipients with access to the underlying source code, as is required by the GPL, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit assert.

Syndicate

Syndicate content

User login