Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creative Commons License Upheld by Dutch Court

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the go-cc-go-cc-go dept.

121

musicon writes "As seen on Groklaw, a recent court decision upheld the the Creative Commons license in the Netherlands: 'The Creative Commons licenses are quite new, so there has been very little in the way of case law so far, so this is a significant development. The ruling rejected a 'the license wasn't clear' defense, particularly for sophisticated entities, and it upheld the license as binding without the licensee having to agree or even to have knowledge of the terms of the license.' You can read successful plaintiff Adam Curry's blog on the ruling too."

cancel ×

121 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Worth Listening to hist PodCast (1)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942893)

http://www.dailysourcecode.com/ [dailysourcecode.com] where I'm sure there will be some audio feedback

Re:Worth Listening to hist PodCast (2, Informative)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943200)

Show #351 [podshow.com] , specifically.

Re:Worth Listening to hist PodCast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944039)

... where I'm sure there will be some audio feedback.

Generally I don't like to listen to audio feedback, excepting some of the works of James Marshall Hendrix [wikipedia.org] .

Hmm... (2, Funny)

DarkIye (875062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942916)

I don't know why, but it seems every link in this article is covered by the Creative Commons licence!

Maybe it's something to do with this new Greasemonkey script I'm running...

Re:Hmm... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943252)

Sssh. Don't say that too loud. Next thing you know, someone's going to get out a pen and re-write all contracts, Copyright, deeds, and other legal documents. They'll own everything. Then someone else'll rewrite those changes. And then someone else will do it. Next thing you know, everyone'll be running around the streets, pens and markers in hand. It'll be pandemonium!

I don't understand something... (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942938)

Actually, I don't understand a lot of somethings, but this one thing seems relevant.

FTA:

The Dutch Court's decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and bind users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license.

You, the user of the content, are bound by the license without knowing it. How is this different from a shrinkwrap license? [lex2k.org]

But those are bad, and the CC license is good, and they share the same ambush-applicability feature.

I'm sure it's because I'm too simpleminded to comprehend the difference, but it seems to me that poison for the goose ought to be poison for the gander.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

spacebird (859789) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942973)

Wouldn't it work in the same way any copyright works, just like you wouldn't be able to reproduce CNN.com's stories without permission?

It's like Copyright, silly (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14942991)

You're liable for copyright infrigement if you copy a copyrighted work, whether or not you knew that work was protected by copyright law.

If in doubt about the license of content, assume it's copyrighted. The CC licenses only grant you rights beyond what copyright does.

Re:I don't understand something... (5, Informative)

iainl (136759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942998)

The difference, and I'd suggest it is a big one, is that the CC license grants the user EXTRA rights over and above the default copyright situation. "Evil" shrinkwrap licenses take them away.

An individual who doesn't know the precise details of the copyright status on file (because they don't have the license that should accompany it) won't get burned by assuming that the default applies. They just aren't aware of all the things they can do.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

g2devi (898503) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943110)

Exactly.

With a typical EULA license, if you reject the license, it should fall back on regular copyright law which doesn't include BSA clauses anti-fair use restrictions, but which includes a "no unauthorized copying provision".

With a CC license, if you reject the license, it should fall back on regular copyright law which gives you less rights (i.e. it includes a "no unauthorized copying provision").

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944497)

Exactly. The question is, though, is that what the judge actually said? Or did he say that you have the rights and restrictions specified in the CC license even if you reject it, and that it does not fall back on normal copyright? I certainly hope it's the former!

Re:I don't understand something... (4, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943299)

Not to mention that the CC licenses have that nifty little "actual, human-readable English" version as well as the legalese. Anyone failing to understand the legalese, fair enough, but "You may copy this content and reproduce it, but not for profit" (or whatever) couldn't get much clearer.

Re:I don't understand something... (0)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943688)

"You may copy this content and reproduce it, but not for profit" (or whatever) couldn't get much clearer.

Unless your native language is Dutch.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943765)

My native language is Dutch, but it's perfectly clear to me.
-1 for assuming people don't speak more than one language fluently.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944024)

Fair enough:)

I did consider putting in a comment about the typical linguistic ability in the Netherlands, but the comment was a little too rambling.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945612)

Heh. I said they have English. I never said they only have English. It's communications like these that cause failures of... umm... let's not go there. Nitpicking makes the world go 'round.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943915)

Profit is something every Dutch person understands.

Re:I don't understand something... (2, Informative)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944542)

Well.. the creative commons licence is available in a whole bunch of languages.. no problem if you're Dutch..

http://www.creativecommons.nl/ [creativecommons.nl]

Re:I don't understand something... (2, Insightful)

dwandy (907337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943754)

The difference, and I'd suggest it is a big one, is that the CC license grants the user EXTRA rights over and above the default copyright situation. "Evil" shrinkwrap licenses take them away.
While I agree that the intent is different, I think he was referring to the submarine effect that copyright has in general terms. The problem is that 'good' and 'evil' don't have the any meaning in the legal system. There is only 'legal' and 'illegal' and an EULA is an EULA is an EULA. This 'good' judgement might set an 'evil' precedent.
I guess I share the concern that this may validate shrink-wrap/click-thru EULA's...

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944059)

No, it's not just different "intent", it's different in action. You can always choose not to use PERMISSIONS, whereas unilaterally deciding to reject RESTRICTIONS is a recipe for trouble.

  • If you ignore a CC license (through ignorance or otherwise), then you default back to normal copyright. You don't redistribute, you don't include it in your own works, etc. No harm is done to you or to the creator.
  • If you ignore a EULA, you risk being sued by the creator and/or audited by BSA's winged monkeys.

Alternate analogy: you're on a US highway and you neglect to check the speed limit signs. 55mph is standard copyright, 65mph is CC, "45mph construction zone fines doubled" is EULA, and 75mph is "let's put this guy's photos in our magazine".

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944283)

You can always choose not to use PERMISSIONS, whereas unilaterally deciding to reject RESTRICTIONS is a recipe for trouble.
...and that is precisely the point. The (cc) license in question requires attribution. So this license is in fact making demands of it's own. The fact that many people (here) feel that these are not unreasonable demands isn't really the question. From Microsoft's point of view, no decompiling and demands on your first born daughter (those monsters!) are also reasonable. So we are in a situation where there is an implicit agreement, created by the copyright holder which makes different demands on the licesnsee than copyright does, and it's been upheld in court.
And this is where the slippery slope problem starts, and my concerns begin. The law has no place for 'good' and 'evil', or morals and ethics. The judicial system can only read the letter of laws and combine with precedent. What this case does is (possibly) create some precedant that shrink-wrap/click-thru EULAs are enforceable...

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944397)

But the Creative Commons restrictions only apply if you use it above and beyond what copyright permits. It's like, "Yes, you can do extra stuff, as long as you agree to...", which beats the heck out of "If you want to do the normally legal stuff, you have to agree to..."

Remember that the base here is copyright, not public domain. Creative Commons is more restrictive than public domain, but more permissive than copyright. EULAs are less permissive than copyright.

Re:I don't understand something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944459)

The point is that CC makes demands if you want to copy something. EULAs make demands if you just want to use something you've bought.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944541)

No, CC does NOT make demands, it provides alternatives. It's silly to complain that CC-by requires attribution, because the alternative is "don't redistribute without explicit approval". At no time does CC stand in the way of normal legal rights.

I stand by my analogy of speed limits. The part you don't seem to get is that public domain (aka the Autobahn) is not Not NOT the default.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945072)


What this case does is (possibly) create some precedant that shrink-wrap/click-thru EULAs are enforceable...


No it does not.

The ruling only says: if you wanna use get a agreement with the author, one way to get an agreement is simply to accept the authors license. doing NOTHING and assuming you can get away later claiming "you did not know" is no way to get an agreement with the original copyright owner.

Shrink wrap EULAs are something completely different. This term is usually used in conjunction with buying a wrapped software package, where you can assume you have no copy and redistribution rights (as this is your standard right). Now surprise surprise when you open the box an EULA is falling out of it. As you have bought the box without expection of any additional terms of use, additional terms you only "find" later are invalid.

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945414)


The (cc) license in question requires attribution. So this license is in fact making demands of it's own.


No, it does not!!!! the CC gives you the right use, modifie and redistribute!!!! By default you have no such rights!!!! Defining under which terms it (the license or in other words the auther) gives you those rights is the sole authors privilege to define.

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 8 years ago | (#14945893)

So this license is in fact making demands of it's own.

You are free to ignore those demands. You're free to ignore the demands of an EULA. But if you break copyright law, you're in trouble. The law has no place for "good" and "evil", but it does have a concept of what is covered by copyright law, and what isn't.

From the article, the ruling doesn't seem to be based around "a licence is binding, even if you haven't read it", but rather that he has an obligation to make sure he has permission for publication - i.e., comply with copyright law: "In case of doubt as to the applicability and the contents of the License, it [defendant] should have requested authorization for publication from the copyright holder of the photos (Curry). Audax has failed to perform such a detailed investigation, and has assumed too easily thet publication of the photos was allowed."

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944379)

Unfortunately, under some circumstances, the CC licenses can lock people into "restrictive freedoms". They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand. For a similar case, consider the "viral nature" (from some companies' perspective) of the GPL.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945624)

They might not be able to use some CC licensed content because while CC licenses offers the freedom to redistribute and thus republish, they also do so for derivative works as well, which may be inappropriate for the project at hand.

Yet still a better offer than you get from regular copyright restrictions.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944144)

The difference, and I'd suggest it is a big one, is that the CC license grants the user EXTRA rights over and above the default copyright situation.

That's for US copyright. I'm not sure about the Netherlands though. What are the privileges of the user under Dutch copyright, and what is the CC license in question?

Off topic, I can easily imagine the day when some of our "revered" F.O.S.S. licenses become more restrictive than copyright. Imagine a nation that loosened its copyright laws so that the restrictions in the GPL were more onerous than the law. Currently you can freely distribute GPL software to your students for educational purposes WITHOUT having to grant access to the source code. The GPL doesn't allow this, but the law (in the US at least under specific circumstances) does. Now imagine a court said that the GPL was binding even in these exceptions.

Imagine the day when RMS gets his wish and copyright is abolished, but the courts rule that the GPL is still binding without every having been agreed to.

This is why licenses must never be unilaterally binding without assent.

Re:I don't understand something... (2, Insightful)

bentcd (690786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944253)

This is why licenses must never be unilaterally binding without assent.

The point, I expect, is that by default, it is illegal for you to make use of the work (barring fair use etc.). Everything is automatically copyrighted, so anything that was not made by you must be assumed to be inaccessible to you.

The only thing that may allow you to use the work is if the copyright holder expressly gives you permission to do so. For any work that is distributed under some license, therefore, you have one of two situations:

1) You aren't aware of the license. You must assume you cannot use it.

2) You are aware of the license and decide to use the work since the license lets you.

When it is discovered, at some point, that you have used the work, it is therefore reasonable to assume that you did so by bullet 2 above. The alternative is that you blatantly violated copyright (bullet 1) and then you've really lost the case by default.

The license is therefore "binding" in the sense that the only alternative to being bound by it is to default to the worst possible case in this particular scenario, namely having violated copyright.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944422)

This ruling wasn't about defaulting to copyright, it was about upholding license terms that were never even seen, let along agreed to. Imagine thsi ruling being applied, as it will, to proprietary EULAs and other onerous licenses. Imagine being subject to the Sony license on a CD that you didn't even know was there.

But you don't even need to go that far. Every condition in a "free" license is in reality a restriction, and thus in some tiny small way a restriction over and above what copyright imposes. That you feel these restrictions are somehow balanced by the increased permissions doesn't change this fact. We must not impose these restrictions unilaterally upon the user without his consent!

What this court should have done instead, was to say "you didn't agree to the license, so you violated therefor copyright law by distributing the media." But that's NOT what it said! This ruling imposed the license restrictions upon someone who did not agree to it. That is a far different thing, and has far more scarier implications.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945403)

This ruling wasn't about defaulting to copyright, it was about upholding license terms that were never even seen, let along agreed to.

This is positively wrong. When the court found that the license had not been followed, it was treated as any other copyright infringement. In particular, the defendant was not forced to comply with the license (e.g. by offering its publication with the same license) but was rather warned that future copyright breaches of the same kind will be fined. As I said, then, the defendant can choose either (1) to comply with the license or (2) to break copyright. Since they didn't do (1), the judge put them in category (2).

Do note that had the license not existed in the first place, the only option open to the defendant would have been option (2) - break copyright. This is because everything is always automatically under copyright. The CC license therefore adds options to potential users of the work and takes none away.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945557)


This ruling wasn't about defaulting to copyright, it was about upholding license terms that were never even seen, let along agreed to.


you are wrong, exactly about that it was.

The copyright infringer first claimed: oh oh, I did not infringe copyright, after all its under a "free license" ... in other words, the author gave up the copyright.

Then he said, well well, but then the CC can't be valid!!!

And the courts answer was: even if you don't know the exact temrs, the license is valid. After all its your responsibility to read up the exact terms!!

Try to look at it from this point of view:

To make some agreement valid both parties must act.

The license alone is no thread. It just "paper". To make the license valid you need to do something which is covered by the license: using the work e.g. That means you have to act e.g. redisributing something etc. then the license becomes valid.

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945870)

This ruling wasn't about defaulting to copyright, it was about upholding license terms that were never even seen, [...]

I quote from the fine article

Curry sued Weekend for copyright and privacy infringement. As to the copyright claim, Weekend argued that it was misled by the notice 'this photo is public', and that the link to the CC license was not obvious.

The judgement was not that the license supercedes copyright law, but that just because a website had a sign saying a picture was public, it need not be so. Notice also that Curry sued for "copyright infringement", not license violation.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945510)


That's for US copyright. I'm not sure about the Netherlands though. What are the privileges of the user under Dutch copyright, and what is the CC license in question?


Pretty similar.

You have no rights to use, modify, redistribute of somone elses work. And certainly users have no priviledges ;D authors have priviledges, not users.

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943043)

It's not any different from a shrinkwrap license. If you copy a work, you have to either do it under some license from the author or you're infringing. The case is easier here because the infringer was a magazine which should have been smart enough to know that it just can't grab pictures off websites, even if the website said "this is public."

THe problem with shrinkwrap licenses is not really that they exist, but that the terms are often quite onerous.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943104)

I'm sure it's because I'm too simpleminded

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the problem is with copyright, not shrinkwrap licenses or CC or the GPL or anything else. Copyright law allows people to be "ambushed" like this, simply because everything is copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If you found a penny on the ground, it would be near impossible for even the most overzealous attourney general to find something to convict you with for spending that penny. But, if you were to find a snippet of code or a line from a song just laying in the street, that's completely different, because even though you're holding that code or song, it really belongs to someone else (this must be that remaining 1/10). Even if there was no name or identifier of any kind to track this back to the actual owner, you are forbidden to use it because even though you have possession of it, it's not "yours".

Until people understand that, we'll continue to have people whine about being "ambushed" or how some license or another is "viral".

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943197)

Interesting analogy.

But, if you were to find a snippet of code or a line from a song just laying in the street, that's completely different, because even though you're holding that code or song, it really belongs to someone else (this must be that remaining 1/10).


The only point I would make is that someone else does not "own" the code or song. The right to copy and reproduce that code or song is restricted by Copyright law and is likely reserved by someone else. Of course, you do not know for sure just by picking up the snippet on the street; it may already be in the public domain. It would take some research to know for sure.

And this is why I like the analogy so much. It really stresses that Copyright is not property law.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943909)

Interesting analogy...
On the other hand, if you use that piece of paper that you found the snippet on, you almost certainly couldn't be found guilty of anything. You could put it up in a store window, or show it to your friends, or give it away, or trade it for goods (like the penny).
And also on the other hand, if you were to _copy_ the penny, you'd probably get into lots of trouble (ok, maybe not for a penny, but if it were a $20 :-)

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944772)

You could put it up in a store window

That's a good question, but most likely if you put the piece of paper up where people can see it and somehow the rights holder finds out about it, they'll probably sue for royalties. Just like how you can't play music from a radio to your customers without paying up, they'll claim that their content (somehow) added value to your product or service and therefore they deserve a cut.

I wonder though, what would happen if you claim you were using the piece of paper, and not the lyrics, poem, code, or whatever on it?

Re:I don't understand something... (5, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943121)

But those are bad, and the CC license is good, and they share the same ambush-applicability feature.

I'm sure it's because I'm too simpleminded to comprehend the difference, but it seems to me that poison for the goose ought to be poison for the gander.


Not simple-minded. You just don't know how the license works. Just a lack of information, which is not a bad thing, and easily remedied. To wit:

CC licenses do not restrict the behavior of anyone who obeys traditional copyright. That is, you cannot, without authorization, redistribute the copyrighted material. In this case, the magazine in question did redistribute the material in question.

So what does the CC license have to do with it then? isn't it a simple copyright case?

In this case, the owner of the copyrighted material offered additional rights. The owner effectively said, "Under certain conditions, I will grant you authorization to redistribute this material."

That is, copyright says what you can and cannot do with the material, and you are free to treat CC'd material 100% according to copyright law. No problem.

If, however, you would like to do something that is not allowed by copyright law but is granted by the CC license, then you must abide by the conditions set out in the license.

Shrinkwrap agreements are different. They say that you are not allowed treat the product according to copyright law.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944612)

CC licenses do not restrict the behavior of anyone who obeys traditional copyright.

Yes they do! Read the damned licenses! Any condition to the license is also a restriction. Consider the Share Alike licenses. Copyright does not have a restriction against not sharing. So a condition that requires sharing is an additional restriction over and above what copyright imposes. It doesn't matter the permissions outweight the restrictions, because the restrictions are STILL there. It doesn't matter if you feel the restrictions are ideologically or pragmatically necessary, because the restrictions are STILL there.

Restrictions weigh differently on different people. While you might feel the the permission in a license far outweigh the restrictions, someone else may not. For an example from the software realm, you may feel perfectly happy with a copylefted Qt, but for many businesses the proprietary version is less restrictive for them. This is how Trolltech makes its money. In fact, the number one Slashdot complaint against Qt is that you have to pay to get rid of the GPL restrictions!

Re:I don't understand something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#14945440)

The license does not place restrictions on any rights granted by copyright, it places restrictions on rights granted by the fucking license ...

In short "CC licenses do not restrict the behavior of anyone who obeys traditional copyright."

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945846)

SARCASM ENABLED
It's those pesky founding fathers! They revolted against the King and supported a right to vote. This took away our rights, because they didn't also include a right to vote many times in the same election, and a right to stop people we disagree with from voting too, and all those other rights we should have gotten too. We were free when we had no vote, now we are slaves because we have recognition of just one right which wasn't recognized before, instead of unlimited rights that 'should' go with it.
      No, worse, it's God's (or the FSM's, or whomever's) fault. He made us with free will, and that took away our right not to have to decide, because "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".* We were free before we had the ability to make choices, now our rights are restricted by freedom itself. Fredom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and we have always been at war with the GPL!
SARCASM OFF
      By the way, how did you come up with a phrase like "Copyright does not have a restriction against not sharing", and not see what that implies for your own arguement? Cancel both negatives and you get "Copyright has a restriction against sharing", which is a.) true, and b.) precisely the point you are trying to ignore by using your tortuous double negative. You yourself have just claimed that the restriction you are attributing to the CC liscence actually originates within copyright instead. Your whole subsequent claim is then predicated on ignoring your own earlyer statement.

* Pert and Lee, after some French dead white male.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943135)

Actually, it's pretty much the same thing with copyrights. You agree to them if you use whatever they're applied to, even if you don't know all the terms of it. Creative Commons shouldn't be any different in such an enforcement, even though it's meant to open up more rights than normal copyright.
Ignorance of the terms really isn't an excuse, regardless of what license it's under.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943207)

How is this different from a shrinkwrap license?

It isn't, and that's a good thing. The more people are punished for not checking the license of content before they use it, the more people will demand those license terms be put out front, where they can see some of the ridiculous things that they are held to by some license agreements.

Those that insist on hiding it and putting usurous restrictions on the use of their content will then finally be subject to market forces. UNtil then, what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well. Cheers to the guy who hoisted at least one corp on it's own petard.

Re:I don't understand something... (5, Informative)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943212)

This is very important question! The answer lies in the difference between Copyright and Contract.

A Copyright is a license that applies to a work and allows the copyright holder to dictate the circumstances upon which a work may be copied. Examples of copyrights are the GPL, LGPL, Creative Commons, and the good old "All rights reserved" which is the default. A copyright can ONLY state conditions regarding copying. It cannot state anything about reverse-engineering, reselling, writing reviews of the product, disclosing benchmarks, etc.

A Contract is a license that applies to anything at all and allows the two parties to agree to anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature, witnesses, etc). Examples of contracts are employment contracts, purchase orders, etc. A contract can state anything. In the case of software, a contract could state that the user cannot reverse-engineer it, publish benchmarks about it, write revews, etc.

Granting of rights:

Suppose I write some software, copyright it, and I give you a copy. You can do anything you want with it EXCEPT copy it.

A copyright grants rights to the consumer. My copyright could say that "The author grants you the right to make infinite copies" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you include the source code" or "The author grants you the right to make copies so long as you don't reverse-engineer it." In neither case did copyright place any restrictions upon you. You can still reverse-engineer the software if you want! You just can't copy it if you do.

A contract removes rights from the signer. If I make you sign a contract, that contract could say that "The author denies you the right to reverse-engineer this software." In this case the contract took away a right you already had. You can't reverse-engineer the software at all.

Your original question - why is this good news?
How is this different from a shrinkwrap license? But those are bad, and the CC license is good, and they share the same ambush-applicability feature.
Yes, the CC license is good because copyrights are good, because they grant rights to the users of the work. You buy the product from the store without knowing about the copyright. So you must assume you cannot copy the product at all in any way because that is the default rights you have. But you open the package and are ambushed with the good news that it is GPL so you CAN copy it so long as you give out the source code along with it. Yaaaay!

But shrink-wrap licenses are bad because you buy the product from the store without knowing about the license. So you assume that you can reverse-engineer the application and write a benchmark on it. But you open the package are are ambushed with the bad news that you CANNOT benchmark it or reverse-engineer it. Booo!

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943597)

A Contract is a license that applies to anything at all and allows the two parties to agree to anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature, witnesses, etc).

A contract requires no such thing. It may be orders of magnitude easier to sue someone for breaching a contract if you've got unassailable proof of what they agreed to, but an oral contract made between two people with no one else around is still a contract.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

pegr (46683) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943991)

>A Contract is a license that applies to anything at all and allows the two parties to agree to
>anything at all, but requires legally-binding proof that both parties agree (such as a signature,
>witnesses, etc).

>>A contract requires no such thing. It may be orders of magnitude easier to sue someone for breaching
>>a contract if you've got unassailable proof of what they agreed to, but an oral contract made
>>between two people with no one else around is still a contract.

That's why an oral contract isn't worth the paper it's (not) printed on. A EULA, however, isn't a contract to begin with. There is no law stating that, in spite of the text of the EULA, by opening and using the software product, I have agreed to restrict the rights granted to me by obtaining a legally purchased copy. EULAs are bunk. Software vendors want you to think they are valid, but they are not.

I don't get it. (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944020)

For such a useful and interesting comment, where's the IANAL disclaimer?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944286)

IANAL.

Re:I don't understand something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943289)

It is different. If I record a song myself I own the copyright even if I take on action. JUst by creating it I own it. I'm not required to tell anyone that it is mine although I liky would. Because it is copywritted you can't use it. But if I say "Y'all can use this anyway you like but just don't sell if for profet." now you can use it. But notice that it's not my statment that prohibits you seling my work. Copyright law does that. My stament is positive it only _offeres_ you something and leaves you the choise to take it or not.


On the other hand if I slip an envelope inside some product and print on the outsie "By opening this you agree to whatever might be written on the paper inside." andthen inside the paper says "You are required to wear only pink clothing for the rest of your life." This envelope thing has nothing to do with copyrights. It's different.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Armchair Dissident (557503) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943361)

They're both copyright law, so it's right and proper that the law be applied in both instances. The fact that shrinkwrap licenses are considered "bad" is not because the copyright enforcement is 'bad', but because the conditions they impose upon the user are onerous, confusing, and seek to remove - in many instances - the statutory rights of the person buying the content.

You don't see copyright notices in books - for example - stating that you can't re-sell the book when your done with it, but I've certainly seen shrinkwrap licenses state this. (whether this is binding is entirely dependent upon where the product is used of course - which further aids the confusion).

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945683)


They're both copyright law,


No they are not.

A EULA is ot a license. A EULA is an agreement, thus it is a contract.

EULAs are void because you can't expose a "second contract" on one party after the legal transaction of "buying something" is already conducted.

An EULA attempts to say: now as you are at home with your new property there are ADDITINAL contract terms we expose now on you. And the EULA tries to convice you you would agree by default by simply using your new property.

But the simple fact that the itme is now your property makes clear the original legal transaction has already happend. So no additional terms can be bound to that transaction, thus EULAs are void.

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945737)

Sorry for double post, but my markup got messed up.


They're both copyright law,


No they are not.

A EULA is ot a license. A EULA is an agreement, thus it is a contract (or an attempt to be a contract).

EULAs are void because you can't expose a "second contract" on one party after the legal transaction of "buying something" is already conducted.

An EULA attempts to say: now as you are at home with your new property there are ADDITINAL contract terms we expose now on you. And the EULA tries to convice you you would agree by default by simply using your new property.

But the simple fact that the itme is now your property makes clear the original legal transaction has already happend. So no additional terms can be bound to that transaction, thus EULAs are void.

angel'o'sphere

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943448)

Keep in mind when these licenses come to play.

With the images, simply viewing the image does not invoke the license. However, if you wish to publish one of these images, you have to deal with Copyright. And to avoid breaking the law, you have to comply with the terms of the license the licensee has outlined. Claiming ignorance of the license is not a valid defense (even more so for someone in a publishing industry). The term "users of such content" is really a reference to publishers... not a general user, or consumer.

With shrinkwrap licenses, one has to agree to a license to USE the product. Copyright still applies - but shrinkwrap licenses are not about copyright. They are about restricting the use of the product that would otherwise be implied. Copyright is still in effect, of course. If one wanted to copy a software package covered by a shrinkwrap license, it tends to require negotiation of additional licenses.

It should also be stressed that the "shrinkwrap" license, in the classic sense involves, breaking a shrinkwrap seal on a package. This makes the software impossible to return for a refund. Yet one has to do this to see the license... which is invoked at the point that the seal is broken.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

achbed (97139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943529)

The difference here is that the items in question (the images) are covered by Copyright. Copyright is explicitly granted to the author automatically - no claim or registration is required. Copyright is what the other rights (pubilcation, ownership, etc) flow from. Simply stating that "these photos are public" does not explicitly grant any rights. The judge (correctly in my view) stated that in absence of any explicitly granted rights, an organization with the resources of the defendant, especially a publication that deals with these issues in its own work, should have at least *asked* if republication rights were, in fact, granted. Also, the rights for republication were restricted by the CC License as referenced on the page. The defendant never even looked to see if there were any rights restrictions placed on the images, even though there was a link to the license.

This case does not uphold a "click through" license, or give any "poison pill" license to simply reading the contents. If any work is to be reused or republished, it needs to be done in accordance with copyright law, especially if the reusing or republishing party has a commercial interest in using the material.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943713)

There is more than one person on Slashdot. A person who thinks shrink wrap licenses are good is not necessarily the same person who thinks the Creative Commons applies automatically is good.

Actually, your position if you don't have a license should be one of default deny - you are denied of doing anything (except as covered by fair use under copyright law). Creative Commons actually adds rights you would otherwise not have at all. So if you're ignorant of an image being under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license, then by default you should assume you have no permission to republish it without the author's permission - the position of the company that lost the lawsuit is absolutely untenable - without a license, they should have been assuming they had no rights at all to the image. The CC license above gives you some permissions without having to ask - i.e. is less restrictive than the rights you would have if the image was merely on the Internet with no associated license. It therefore cannot ambush you because you already should be assuming you cannot republish the image without the copyright holder's permission. Saying the CC license can ambush you is a logical fallacy.

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944961)


You, the user of the content, are bound by the license without knowing it. How is this different from a shrinkwrap license?


Pretty simple:

*I* create some stuff, lets say a writing (or some source code).

*You* want to use my stuff.

Who is resposnible to figure if he can use it? *I* or *You*?

According to most laws in Europe and elsewehre where copyright laws exist no one has any rights to use *my* stuff for anythign without getting a license first.

In all cases where I'm aware off, the person who wants to use *my* work has to make clear he gets the rights to do so.

After all you either accept the license I force with my authors priviledge on you, or you don't. In the alter case you have no rights att all, using my stuff is a copyrights infringement.

The guys who went to court was of a quite different oppiion, in layman temrs he thought: oh, its under a free license. So I can use it for what ever I want as the original owner has given up his rights.

The court reassured: no, he has not given up his rights. He completely made clear under what terms he allows usage.

angel'o'spehre

P.S. please: its kinda anying ot see all those headlines: "license held up in court". A license must be like "and you allow me to eat your children" to be not upheld in court. A owner of the copyright can create what ever license he wants and it will allways be valid in court!!!

Re:I don't understand something... (1)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945349)

You can go to the Creative Commons website to familiarize yourself with the CC licenses, including licenses you're very unlikely to see used (such as the more objectionable CC licenses like the developing-nations license and the sampling license that disallows verbatim non-commercial sharing). Shrinkwrap licenses are commonly inaccessible to you until you buy the package and open it, or begin to install the software and see the license panel in the installer program, or somehow begin acquiring something you might not want once you've read its license.

But under all copyright licenses, if you behave in accordance with the default of copyright law (which, broadly speaking, is to deny you the freedom to engage in regulated behavior like copying, production of a derivative work, distribution, and public performance or display) you should be behaving within the law.

What you're identifying as poison is a part of the copyright system, and not a part of any particular license per se. But it is a good cue from the licensor if they don't make their licenses easy to discover without obtaining the service or product being licensed. To me, that's one mark of an individual or organization to avoid doing business with.

That is misleading (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14942954)

It is misleading to say that the license is binding without the licensee knowing or accepting it. The license isn't actually binding if the licensee doesn't accept it, but then copyright kicks in and the non-licensee has even fewer rights, so either way the (non-)licensee is in violation (of the law or the license). You can't however enforce a license that the other party hasn't agreed to.

Re:That is misleading (1, Redundant)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943076)

"You can't however enforce a license that the other party hasn't agreed to."

To me, that was always the loophole for EULAs. "By pressing this button and installing this software you agree to these terms". Well no. No law (until recently) says pushing a button means you agree to anything. The only thing that applies meaning to the installation is the EULA, so if I don't agree then pushing the button doesn't mean anything.

Same with credit card companies changing their terms "your continued use of the card indicates your agreement". That form of acknowledgement is only valid if I agree to what they said. What if the letter got lost in the mail and I never even saw it?

CC Licenses and the GPL are quite different in that if you don't agree you've actually got less freedom :-) If someone doesn't agree, they're left with copyright law - which doesn't let them do much. If they then point out that the license says they can do something more, that's saying they agreed to the license terms.

Re:That is misleading (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943281)

The only thing that applies meaning to the installation is the EULA, so if I don't agree then pushing the button doesn't mean anything.

More interestingly, what if someone else agrees on my behalf, without my permission? Now, you might initially say that that other person would bear responsibility for my use, but what if the third-party involved had fur, whiskers, and a tail? And just to avoid the "I have responsibility for my pets" problem, presume this furry li'l EULA-circumventor stores nuts for the winter and came in through an open window.

Or for a potentially more likely way around agreeing to a EULA (and in fact, the way that I personally use whenever possible) - Most Windows installers (and all MSIs?) allow a silent installation as a command-line option. Silent, as in, it never asks you to agree, or even tells you about what you would otherwise have agreed to. I'd like to see that scenario played out in court...

Re:That is misleading (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944662)

That's what makes this a bad ruling, because the court DID make the license binding without the "licensee" accepting it. Copyright did not "kick in" and make this a case of copyright infringement. There are severe implications in this ruling.

Re:That is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944860)

No, that really is a misleading interpretation of the ruling. The court did not force anyone to comply with a CC license. The defendant must stop using the photos, unless he acts in accordance with the license. That is simply and purely copyright law. The defendant has to obey the law, which is that you can't publish someone else's copyrighted works, unless you have a valid license from the copyright owner. The only license which the defendant might claim to have is the CC license, as his "this photo is public" claim to a public domain license was rejected. The defendant is of course free to attain a different license agreement or refrain from using the pictures, thus the non-enforcability of a license unless the other party has agreed to be bound by it.

Re:That is misleading (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945074)

The court did not force anyone to comply with a CC license. The defendant must stop using the photos, unless he acts in accordance with the license. That is simply and purely copyright law.

Then the press is reporting this very badly. Which isn't surprising. Thanks for clearing this up.

From Adam Curry's blog... (1)

kaleco (801384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942988)

The licence violators were only told not to use his Flickr images without permission again. For this particular violation, they've escaped with little more than a rap across the knuckles. It is good that the Dutch courts acknowledged the CC licence, but the punishment was very weak.

Re:From Adam Curry's blog... (1)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943815)

There was also little to no damamge done. I've they would do it again this would result in a fine.

this thread is useless... (0)

versiondub (694793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14942989)

Without pics.

Re:this thread is useless... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943181)

Useful now? [creativecommons.org]

Actually, it didn't hold up... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943025)

the company was _not_ penalized for using
the pictures in the first place

Oh Dear (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943054)

Yea Europe. The land of socialist commie fuck bastards. I can't wait until your population revolts when they realize you're keeping them from becoming like we are in America: rich. Hell yeah! Can I hear it for the U.S. of A!!!

Re:Oh Dear (0, Flamebait)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943144)

Spoken like a true idiot American. Not everyone here is rich. In fact most of us are having a pretty hard time economically because wages haven't gone up in quite a while and prices on nearly everything have skyrocketted. I don't think that's what other countries around the world really want as their model. Yet another example of why it sucks to live in America: the idiocy in the air is thick as pea soup and smelly as rotten eggs.

On idiocy and the American Dream.. (1)

Tominva1045 (587712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944601)



Yet another example of why it sucks to live in America: the idiocy in the air is thick as pea soup..

Indeed- you are correct and clearly representative of this position.

America is the land of Opportunity not the land of free-software-and-candy-for-everyone.

..wages have stagnated and prices are skyrocketing..

What real American would sit on his hind quarters waiting for his verison of the American Dream to be handed to him? In order to realize the American Dream one has to make it a priority in his life and chase after it.

Whining about the inequities of life do not advance one's position in life. Go for your dream- it's sitting out there waiting for you!

Re:On idiocy and the American Dream.. (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944686)

Um. Surely you jest. There is no way to guaranteed success in this country no matter how hard you work. You either have to be born rich or get lucky. The kind of idiot who spends 80 hours a week chasing the American dream simply benefits his employer with no really good compensation and basically loses out on enjoying his own life. There are better thing in life than money. I advise that you discover them. But I doubt that you will since you've obviously fallen for the lie.

Re:Oh Dear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943739)

U S A!
U S A!
U S A!

Not so fast (4, Insightful)

nietsch (112711) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943106)

The courts agreed that weekend/audax was wrong, but did not award any damages, because Curry did not incur any losses himself: he published them on his own website.
That could translate as a company could take sourcecode licenced under an open licence. When they are eventually found out, they can argue they don't have to pay any damages because the code was available for free. But these were just short proceedings, so the verdict may be different if Curry decides to push this trough.

Re:Not so fast (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943264)

The way to deal with this "loophole" is to offer a choice of licenses: An open source license for the people who don't mind sharing back and a commercial license for the people who can't or don't want to share. When someone infringes on your copyright, the damage is the money that they didn't pay for the commercial license. (IANAL, this is not legal advice.)

Re:Not so fast (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945207)

When someone infringes on your copyright, the damage is the money that they didn't pay for the commercial license. (IANAL, this is not legal advice.)

I like that. Of course, even without the proprietary option, I could argue that I suffered damages because the source code was GPLd specifically to avoid this situation and that I would have demanded a license fee (possibly per copy) of anyone who wanted to use it in a commercial product.

The lesson here (3, Insightful)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943132)

The lesson here is that you probably shouldn't use "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" for anything, because "commercial" is often not a clearly defined concept, and it's up to the whim of a court to decide that.

For example, suppose you use it on a personal web page. In exchange for a free web page from an ISP, you agree to put up with Google ads on the page. Certainly, if the page becomes popular because of the "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" work, the provider will benefit financially via increased ad exposure. So is this commercial or noncommercial?

There are other problems. You cannot put a "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" work, e.g. an icon for your app, in open-source software under GPL, BSD, etc., since it would defeat the whole purpose of those licences. Imagine if Linux were under "Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike" - then it would have barely developed to become a hobbyist toy for a few hackers, if even that.

For this reason, I personally steer clear of anything with a "noncommercial" restriction, treating it as if it were covered by standard copyright. It's just not worth the risk.

Mod Parent Up (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943608)

Anything that can be abused will be abused.

Licenses without signed contracts (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943173)

I'm no fan of click-thru licenses, or any license that doesn't have a signed contract. For those who know my usual opinion, I'm also against copyright laws of any kind.

I do think there can be an acceptable way to agree, through contract, to tell a person what they can and can't do with a product you sell them. I'm not sure how we can facilitate Internet purchases (and licensing) without a signature, though. For me, I am not comfortable with the idea that a simple click or download is the equivalent of accepting a license or signing a contract.

What are the options out there for a real contract to be signed in terms of accepting it? Will we see third party contract companies that we sign a deal once with who then are used by others to work as a third party on our behalf (sort of like a power of attorney deal)? Does anyone have any thoughts to how we can facilitate contract acceptance for transactions where we can't sign it?

I'm assuming most geeks are against the click-thru license agreement. What will it take for competitive businesses to attack the current licensing standards and bring a real amount of change to the licensing structure?

Re:Licenses without signed contracts (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943400)

I am against click-thru licensing on commercial products.

but not when it comes to my music.

Re:Licenses without signed contracts (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943673)

I do think there can be an acceptable way to agree, through contract, to tell a person what they can and can't do with a product you sell them.
I don't see why any company should be able to decide how I use things I own.
Your morning coffee now starts with This Starbucks Coffee License is a single user license, and does not allow you to sell or give away this coffee to anyone else. The coffee must be consumed within fifteen (15) minutes of purchase. Unused potions must be disposed of at a designated Starbucks facility (fees may apply). Enjoy your coffee.

Re:Licenses without signed contracts (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943788)

What will it take for competitive businesses to attack the current licensing standards and bring a real amount of change to the licensing structure?

Come on, you know the answer to that. As soon as it becomes more profitable to change, they will do so.

As far as your other questions, I am also intrigued.

Re:Licenses without signed contracts (1)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943879)

Does anyone have any thoughts to how we can facilitate contract acceptance for transactions where we can't sign it?

Cryptographic signatures seem like they might do the trick, though you might need to have them registered somewhere to prove your identity.

Re:Licenses without signed contracts (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944755)

Why would a capitatechnoanarchist like yourself want the overhead associated with signatures and contract law? Obviously, the invisible market hand forces will force people who deal with such inefficient methods of establishing 'rights' to go into bankruptcy, as the differential efficiencies are tremendous.

Question? (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943196)

So I have the blog link in context: Who is Adam Curry and why is a tabloid publishing photos about his daughter? Besides the obvious answer that tabloids are usually scum.

Re:Question? (3, Informative)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943225)

Adam Curry was one of the first MTV VJs. You can hear his podshow and a bunch of his MTV colleagues on Sirius Satellite radio.

Answer : (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943442)

Google's second result is Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:Answer : (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943826)

Which doesn't contain the answer to my question of why they were taking photos of his daughter. But such is the slashdot; ask a question, get GIYF as your answer. I wasn't asking anyone to do research into it, just a simple question if anyone knew off hand. But thanks for the link :).

Re:Question? (1)

blank00 (961943) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945437)

it's really more about who is wife is (Patricia Pay). She was/is a popular singer in Holland -- or Europe at large -- or something like that.

Comments on TFA (2, Funny)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943303)

Gotta love the reply someone left to TFA:

By analogy, most people don't charge when they have sex.

They don't?!? Why didn't anyone tell me?

Yet this should not be seen as evidence that the market value of sex is zero and hence there is no damage in cases of rape.

True, but I think it is safe to say that the victim has not directly suffered loss of income unless they were a hooker (obviously physical, psychological and indirect damage notwithstanding).

Bad analogies, it seems, are not exclusive to /.

Re:Comments on TFA (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945271)

TFA: Yet this should not be seen as evidence that the market value of sex is zero and hence there is no damage in cases of rape.

Most people don't charge when they beat you bloody, and yet assault is still illegal.

Bad analogies, it seems, are not exclusive to /.

Yeah, but we deal in bulk here.

FAILZORS (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943525)

you geT distracted Corporate I ever did. It With process and yoUr own towel in

There is no "CC license" (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943751)

Creative Commons is a set of licenses that vary significantly. There is no single "Creative Commons license".

In this particular case, the license in question is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 [creativecommons.org] .

The differences between the licenses are important because some of the CC licenses permit the kind of use that this case was about, and the particular license he used does not.

Misleading to say 'binding' (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943846)

I think that it's misleading to say that the license is binding on recipients despite the fact that they didn't know about it.. The better way to put it is to say that, without the license they don't have any rights to use the picture beyond what Copyright rules equivalent to 'fair use' would allow.

To say that this (true, permissive) license is 'binding' could create false 'precedents' about restrictive contractual pseudo-'licenses' that companies like Microsoft purport to hoist on people after they've paid hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for what the vendors now claim to be nothing more than permission to beg for the ability to use their computer.

Dutch Uncles (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943864)

As usual, the Dutch prove they're the only civilized people on the planet.

Just a friendly reminder.... (0, Offtopic)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 7 years ago | (#14945084)

Groklaw cheerfully accepts donations to stay online. So pucker up buttercups and give some love to PJ. Nothing says love like a donation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>