The GPL (and Linux?) in court

Tim Smith · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 2610

In article <12fhu3-oo7.ln1 RemoveThis @dragon.myth>,
Jim Richardson <warlock RemoveThis @eskimo.com> wrote:
> > Mark Kent <mark.kent RemoveThis @demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
> >> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
> >
> > How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with you?
> >
>
> How come stealing software is piracy, a double-plus ungood to BillG but
> it's just fine if it's a movie?

You'll have to ask Bill Gates.

--
--Tim Smith

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
JPB <news.RemoveThis@europa.demon.co.uk> espoused:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
><snip>
>>>> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>>> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>
>>> How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think using GPLed software without adhering to the GPL is OK?
>> D-Link was told to play by the rules, and thats it. Even if it annoys you
>> MS-fanboys
>
> Not quite, though D-Link were wrong. _Using_ the software does not require
> accepting the General Public License, which is a unilateral *license*
> grant, is not a contract, and is not an EULA.
>
> _Distributing_ the software, on the other hand, as D-Link did, is copyright
> infringement and when done commercially should be considered criminal. One
> escape is to accept the General Public License, in which case compliance
> makes it necessary to make the source code available to users of the
> software, according to the provisions of the GPL - a free choice, either to
> respect the copyright of the owner, or write one's one code and not "steal"
> GPL code without respecting the license it was distributed with.

DLink stated that they believed that the GPL was not binding or did not
apply or some similar language. They went head-on to disprove the GPL
and failed. Personally, I shan't be buying anything from D-Link again.

>
> The other escape, of course, is to decide that it's perfectly OK to copy,
> modify, and redistribute GPL code without respecting the license; I
> actually wouldn't have any objection to that, because in order to do so it
> would be necessary to repudiate copyright and license grants, which would
> have various advantages including (by and large) making the GPL
> unnecessary.
>

That's actually a huge disadvantage from a GPL perspective, and in the
long-run, would kill FLOSS. I'm surprised you can't see that.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
flannister, n.:
The plastic yoke that holds a six-pack of beer together.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
Jim Richardson <warlock DeleteThis @eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700,
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group DeleteThis @mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1 DeleteThis @ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent DeleteThis @demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>> theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>
>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with you?
>>
>
> How come stealing software is piracy, a double-plus ungood to BillG but
> it's just fine if it's a movie?
>

I've never said violation of artwork copyright is okay, anyway, and I do
not believe that it is. Why do trolls like to put words into other's
mouths?

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
flannister, n.:
The plastic yoke that holds a six-pack of beer together.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
ed <ed.TakeThisOut@noreply.com> espoused:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:59:23 +0200
> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.
>
>
> Depends how one uses it and how one interprets the means of use. If one
> were to make changes to GPL code and distribute that as binary on a
> website, then that's in effect stealing, its passing it off as part of
> your own work, even if you acknowledge it's source, one still has to
> provide that full source code, which is what DLink were not willing to
> do (otherwise they would not be in court). Their penalty is so minor
> that putting the code online would cost them more in bandwidth than what
> they had to pay in court.
>

It was worse than that, though - they said that the GPL wasn't valid.
They were shown to be wrong.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
flannister, n.:
The plastic yoke that holds a six-pack of beer together.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends

ed · External Since: Nov 20, 2006 Posts: 877

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
Tim Smith <reply_in_group.RemoveThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.RemoveThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>
> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
> you?

What artwork?

--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.openbsdhacker.com
proud linux hacker
Vin Diesel may only have one testicle, but he's got more balls than
France.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

ed <ed DeleteThis @noreply.com> writes:

> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group DeleteThis @mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1 DeleteThis @ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent DeleteThis @demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>
>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>> you?
>
> What artwork?

Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
well documented and Roy ended up apologising.

JPB · External Since: Jun 04, 2006 Posts: 59

Mark Kent wrote:

> begin oe_protect.scr
> JPB <news DeleteThis @europa.demon.co.uk> espoused:
<snip>
>>
>> _Distributing_ the software, on the other hand, as D-Link did, is
>> copyright infringement and when done commercially should be considered
>> criminal. One escape is to accept the General Public License, in which
>> case compliance makes it necessary to make the source code available to
>> users of the software, according to the provisions of the GPL - a free
>> choice, either to respect the copyright of the owner, or write one's one
>> code and not "steal" GPL code without respecting the license it was
>> distributed with.
>
> DLink stated that they believed that the GPL was not binding or did not
> apply or some similar language. They went head-on to disprove the GPL
> and failed. Personally, I shan't be buying anything from D-Link again.
>

Yeah - well, the GPL was the only thing giving them permission to
redistribute the copyrighted work, so if invalid then they also
demonstrated that they weren't entitled to distribute the software. Vice
versa, if valid then it stands demonstrated that the terms of the GPL
apply.

>>
>> The other escape, of course, is to decide that it's perfectly OK to copy,
>> modify, and redistribute GPL code without respecting the license; I
>> actually wouldn't have any objection to that, because in order to do so
>> it would be necessary to repudiate copyright and license grants, which
>> would have various advantages including (by and large) making the GPL
>> unnecessary.
>>
>
> That's actually a huge disadvantage from a GPL perspective, and in the
> long-run, would kill FLOSS. I'm surprised you can't see that.
>

I'm not *absolutely* certain, but I _suspect_ that it's actually not that
bad. The only thing is that if there was no copyright, then anyone could
release software binary-only, incorporating any other code (hitherto GPL or
not) without releasing source, hence undermining the "must release source"
stipulation the GPL requires. However, there are a couple of other effects
that would come into play, which lead me to think that might not be too
serious in practice:

(1) In a world with no copyright, there would also be no bar to publishing
annotated disassemblies, which others could add to, even rewrite and
improve section by section in whatever appropriate high-level language was
suitable. So IMHO anything released binary-only or even with technological
protection measures would not stay that way for very long.
(2) In a world where people were free to copy and reverse-engineer binaries,
I don't believe the commercial incentive would exist much to release
binary-only software anyway - software companies would be forced to adjust
to a model of charging for the actual development effort, rather than per
copy of software, anyway. In which case, the question would hardly arise
anyway, as the source code is much less worth guarding if there is no
copyright in it.

Having said that, I do regard abolishing copyright as being a rather drastic
and disruptive way of getting a result - the only reason I entertain it,
really, is due to the insane extensions to copyright and patents over the
last few decades. I could as well be satisfied by some sensible reform,
returning matters to a more sensible situation:

* Reduction of copyright duration to a more appropriate timescale, such as 7
years, or 5 years
* Requiring registration to assert copyright at all (with the deposition of
a copy in escrow, in the case of software including full source code a la
GPL)
* Declaring all non-commercial copying and redistribution to be "fair use"
* Declaring "software" or "method" patents to be invalid, restricting patent
law to dealing only with tangible hardware
* Declaring all digital restrictions and technological protection measures
illegal for manufacturers to impose on software and devices they sell, and
any circumvention of such to be automatically "fair use"

Use of encryption, of course, would be unaffected by that last, as would
digital restrictions and technological protection measures used, let's say,
within an organisation to protect trade secrets and privileged information,
as opposed to used in a product marketed on general release.

Even these measures would, of course, weaken the GPL to an extent, as GPL
code might be reused freely 7 or 5 years after first released; on the other
hand, you'd also be able to reuse presently proprietary code in FLOSS after
a similar duration. Also, any copyright violations, such as the use of GPL
code presently hidden by binary-only distribution, would become visible
after not very many years - would any closed-source developers still dare
to follow that practice, in that case?

--
JPB

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

This message is not archived

ws · External Since: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 82

Mark Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> ed <ed.DeleteThis@noreply.com> espoused:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:59:23 +0200
>>Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.
>>
>>
>>Depends how one uses it and how one interprets the means of use. If one
>>were to make changes to GPL code and distribute that as binary on a
>>website, then that's in effect stealing, its passing it off as part of
>>your own work, even if you acknowledge it's source, one still has to
>>provide that full source code, which is what DLink were not willing to
>>do (otherwise they would not be in court). Their penalty is so minor
>>that putting the code online would cost them more in bandwidth than what
>>they had to pay in court.
>>
>
>
> It was worse than that, though - they said that the GPL wasn't valid.
> They were shown to be wrong.
>

Actually, I thought the Judge's opinion was that even if the GPL is
b0rked, it's still the only thing giving you permission to distribute,
and hence if *you* think it's invalid, then you don't have permission.
Period.

Which was waht E.M. was saying all along, and why no one really want's
to challenge it in court.

Cheers,
ws

Mark Kent · External Since: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 5545

begin oe_protect.scr
ws <see.sig.RemoveThis@pacific.net.sg> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> ed <ed.RemoveThis@noreply.com> espoused:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 23:59:23 +0200
>>>Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How is using OSS "stealing"? You seem confused.
>>>
>>>
>>>Depends how one uses it and how one interprets the means of use. If one
>>>were to make changes to GPL code and distribute that as binary on a
>>>website, then that's in effect stealing, its passing it off as part of
>>>your own work, even if you acknowledge it's source, one still has to
>>>provide that full source code, which is what DLink were not willing to
>>>do (otherwise they would not be in court). Their penalty is so minor
>>>that putting the code online would cost them more in bandwidth than what
>>>they had to pay in court.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It was worse than that, though - they said that the GPL wasn't valid.
>> They were shown to be wrong.
>>
>
> Actually, I thought the Judge's opinion was that even if the GPL is
> b0rked, it's still the only thing giving you permission to distribute,
> and hence if *you* think it's invalid, then you don't have permission.
> Period.

Ie., the GPL is valid, and it's what is giving you permission to
distribute.

>
> Which was waht E.M. was saying all along, and why no one really want's
> to challenge it in court.
>

Because it's valid.

--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
flannister, n.:
The plastic yoke that holds a six-pack of beer together.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

flatfish+++ <flatfish.DeleteThis@linuxmail.org> writes:

> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>
>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>
> Did he?
>
> I don't ever remember seeing an apology from Roy or the rest of the COLA
> nuts that backed him up.
>
> Maybe I am wrong about that though.
>
>
> He did, finally remove THAT particular piece of artwork.

Oh sorry. A bit like that brain fart of his when he threatened someone
with black eyes and castration. I was so embarrassed for him that I
killed the thread and assumed he was joking, Was I mistaken? Especially
after he accused me of "ad hominem attacks".

Maybe he was too busy working on his "free web search engine" to
apologise?

http://www.iuron.com/

Hilarious.

Takes me back to my first year at Uni when wankers thought they could
get a good degree by understanding what "poke" meant.

Poor Roy.

--
Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients.

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> ed <ed.RemoveThis@noreply.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.RemoveThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.RemoveThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>
>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>> you?
>>
>> What artwork?
>
> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>

No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
violation of copyright.

Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
memory serves, he linked the image back to the author.

I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
claim.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFHNF+d90bcYOAWPYRAnS9AJ9QepD9GloN2+0IHkZpEq16Ox538wCg4okp
JADLUb9tURG2SZlJCthJNYc=
=IvsS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Instrument of Darwin

Doug Mentohl · External Since: Jul 20, 2006 Posts: 368

on Sep 23 2006 8:55 pm Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2006 07:36:35 -0700, Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> > The important thing is that it establishes the GPL as legally binding.

> It does no such thing.

In that case what was the prosecution about then.

>.. Nothing I've seen so far has indicated that the GPL was tested.

Wegen der weiteren Einzelheiten wird auf die genannten Vereinbarungen
Bezug gerommen. Bei den drei genannten Programmen msdosfs, initrd und
mtd hadelt es sich um Teile des sog. Linux-Kernels ..

Dies drei Softwareprogramme werden ausschlieBlich unter der GNU General
Public License (GPL) (nachfolgend, GPL") lizensiert.

Die GPL gestattet jedermann, der einen solchen Vertrag als Lizenznehmer
schlieben will, die Vervielfaltigung, Vertbeitung und Veranderung der
software, wenn die Weitergabe ebenfalls wieder unter den Bedingungen
dieser Lizenz erfolgt, insbesondere auf die GPL hingewiesen, der
Lizenztext der GPL beigefugt, der Quellcode zuganglich gemacht und auf
einen Gewahrleistungsausschluss hingewiesen wird.

http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

Peter Kai Jensen · External Since: Oct 23, 2006 Posts: 202

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hadron Quark wrote:

>> What artwork?
>
> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own.

OK, now you've passed the threshold to outright lying and slander. He
*never* passed it (there was only one disputed image) off as his own, as
he clearly linked to the copyright holder (how else would Erik find
material for his smear campaign). I'm not defending the action, but I'm
also not convinced that what he did was disallowed by local laws.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFHLivd1ZThqotgfgRAhWcAJwJi1fe3dSbmCEjYsThaivvaFDU5QCggf3Z
PWnD6fn06wL4I5vgaP2IFfI=
=d0po
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe

The meek shall inherit the earth; but by that time there won't be
anything left worth inheriting.

Peter KÃ¶hlmann · External Since: Jun 27, 2005 Posts: 1500

Peter Kai Jensen wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>> What artwork?
>>
>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own.
>
> OK, now you've passed the threshold to outright lying and slander.

He has passed that threshold quite some time ago
He now acts mainly as flatfish sock. In fact, his posts have more and more
quite some "fishy" smell

> He
> *never* passed it (there was only one disputed image) off as his own, as
> he clearly linked to the copyright holder (how else would Erik find
> material for his smear campaign). I'm not defending the action, but I'm
> also not convinced that what he did was disallowed by local laws.
>

Well, "Hadron" is at least not alone in this. Roy is activly attacked by
flatfish and Erik Funkenbusch. And all of them use slander and outright
lies
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> writes:

> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>> ed <ed.DeleteThis@noreply.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.DeleteThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.DeleteThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> What artwork?
>>
>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>>
>
> No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
> violation of copyright.
>
> Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
> memory serves, he linked the image back to the author.
>
> I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
> claim.

If that is the case I am slightly mistaken.

However, by copying other peoples work and presenting it on your own
documents the natural progression for most people is to assume it is his
own work

Fairly simple conclusion.

Roy is being accused of nothing.

The facts are already well publicised. Roy took someones images and used
them in his own work.

Notice I say "in" as opposed to "as" here to avoid the indignant "take
that back" response.

--
> Whoa, first contact!

Nope, 'fraid not, Linux is still primarily used on planet Earth, I'm
afraid.

Our friend here sent a message in Russian (KOI8-R encoding).
-- Aleksey Kliger, explaining a russian posting

flatfish+++ · External Since: Dec 12, 2004 Posts: 2793

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:17:23 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

> Jim Richardson <warlock.RemoveThis@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> ed <ed.RemoveThis@noreply.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.RemoveThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.RemoveThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.RemoveThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> What artwork?
>>>
>>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>>>
>>
>> No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
>> violation of copyright.
>>
>> Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
>> memory serves, he linked the image back to the author.
>>
>> I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
>> claim.
>
> If that is the case I am slightly mistaken.
>
> However, by copying other peoples work and presenting it on your own
> documents the natural progression for most people is to assume it is his
> own work
>
> Fairly simple conclusion.
>
> Roy is being accused of nothing.
>
> The facts are already well publicised. Roy took someones images and used
> them in his own work.
>
> Notice I say "in" as opposed to "as" here to avoid the indignant "take
> that back" response.

Roy used the images without the author's permission = fact.

Roy never apologized = fact.

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:17:23 +0200,
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> ed <ed.DeleteThis@noreply.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.DeleteThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.DeleteThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> What artwork?
>>>
>>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>>>
>>
>> No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
>> violation of copyright.
>>
>> Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
>> memory serves, he linked the image back to the author.
>>
>> I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
>> claim.
>
> If that is the case I am slightly mistaken.
>
> However, by copying other peoples work and presenting it on your own
> documents the natural progression for most people is to assume it is his
> own work
>
> Fairly simple conclusion.
>
> Roy is being accused of nothing.
>
> The facts are already well publicised. Roy took someones images and used
> them in his own work.
>
> Notice I say "in" as opposed to "as" here to avoid the indignant "take
> that back" response.
>

Roy made no attempt to claim the image as his own, he linked back to the
author of said image.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFHdgnd90bcYOAWPYRAvxkAKDLnqO94MlzVBZE+UquUgZf41VfkQCfegEr
pNz4iScjgbpyXgShdH2CcUY=
=AqyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
-- Lazarus Long

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:17:23 +0200,
> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
>>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> ed <ed.DeleteThis@noreply.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.DeleteThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.DeleteThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>>>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>> What artwork?
>>>>
>>>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>>>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
>>> violation of copyright.
>>>
>>> Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
>>> memory serves, he linked the image back to the author.
>>>
>>> I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
>>> claim.
>>
>> If that is the case I am slightly mistaken.
>>
>> However, by copying other peoples work and presenting it on your own
>> documents the natural progression for most people is to assume it is his
>> own work
>>
>> Fairly simple conclusion.
>>
>> Roy is being accused of nothing.
>>
>> The facts are already well publicised. Roy took someones images and used
>> them in his own work.
>>
>> Notice I say "in" as opposed to "as" here to avoid the indignant "take
>> that back" response.
>>
>
> Roy made no attempt to claim the image as his own, he linked back to the
> author of said image.

Just to put this to rest : how did he link back? Did he link the images in?

--
By the way, I can hardly feel sorry for you... All last night I had to listen
to her tears, so great they were redirected to a stream. What? Of _course_
you didn't know. You and your little group no longer have any permissions
around here. She changed her .lock files, too.
-- Kevin M. Bealer, commenting on the private life of a Linux nerd

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:43:13 +0200,
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:17:23 +0200,
>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> Jim Richardson <warlock.DeleteThis@eskimo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:41:51 +0200,
>>>> Hadron Quark <qadronhuark.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ed <ed.DeleteThis@noreply.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:43:39 -0700
>>>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <a5mgu3-vmo.ln1.DeleteThis@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent.DeleteThis@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> > least, until they've been caught each time. Free software needs no
>>>>>>> > theft, stealing software is wrong. Use Linux, observe the GPL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How come stealing software is wrong, but stealing artwork is OK with
>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What artwork?
>>>>>
>>>>> Roy plagiarised someones images and passed them off as his own. It is
>>>>> well documented and Roy ended up apologising.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No he didn't. The worst you can say, is that Roy pirated the image, in
>>>> violation of copyright.
>>>>
>>>> Roy did *not* claim the image (singular) was his own, and in fact, if
>>>> memory serves, he linked the image back to the author.
>>>>
>>>> I await your retraction of your claim, or proof, that Roy did as you
>>>> claim.
>>>
>>> If that is the case I am slightly mistaken.
>>>
>>> However, by copying other peoples work and presenting it on your own
>>> documents the natural progression for most people is to assume it is his
>>> own work
>>>
>>> Fairly simple conclusion.
>>>
>>> Roy is being accused of nothing.
>>>
>>> The facts are already well publicised. Roy took someones images and used
>>> them in his own work.
>>>
>>> Notice I say "in" as opposed to "as" here to avoid the indignant "take
>>> that back" response.
>>>
>>
>> Roy made no attempt to claim the image as his own, he linked back to the
>> author of said image.
>
> Just to put this to rest : how did he link back? Did he link the images in?
>

don't remember for sure, either the image, or a text hyperlink IIRC.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFJI2Zd90bcYOAWPYRAivmAJ0WdiIxSqu9XMh7lOCoQbzKuL1SgQCg8QjV
YE6CzUOu/l9WOH851wJg1GU=
=iaO+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I have an understanding with my local police--I have them outgunned, but
they have me outnumbered.