Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government GNU is Not Unix Software News Your Rights Online

Mambo Users Are Free And Clear 190

Posted by timothy from the obvious-but-good dept.
ValourX writes "By now most of you have heard of the copyright infringement and code theft claims involving the Mambo content management system and businessman Brian Connolly. Legal questions have been raised, guesses have been made, commentary has flowed forth, and everyone involved in the dispute has had their fifteen minutes to relay their sad tale of injustice. Now it is time for the facts, and NewsForge can definitively say, based on material and quotes from Larry Rosen, Dan Ravicher, and Eben Moglen, that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless. Part of the new information in this article reveals that the SCO Group helped Brian Connolly by giving him some media contacts. NewsForge is part of OSTG, like Slashdot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mambo Users Are Free And Clear More

Mambo Users Are Free And Clear

Comments Filter:

  • What's a mambo? Mambo #5? (Score:4, Funny)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:19PM (#10388760) Journal
    A little bit of Rosen in my life
    A little bit of Moglen by my side
    A little bit of Ravicher makes me dance
    A little bit of Taco dripping down tims pants

    I don't know what mambo is. They probably stole this guy's code, though.
    • "They probably stole this guy's code, though"

      It is interesting that the Slashdot headline focuses on "that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless" and SCO's involvement, but doesn't seem to question whether code was taken.

      Well, was it?

      • Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You might notice that there are colored, underlined words in the submission. These are called "links" and lead to other websites if you click your left mouse button on them.

        One of these "links" leads to something called "TFA", or, The Fucking Article for short. Reading TFA is optional before posting comments and opinions on it, but you're always encouraged to actually read TFA to help reduce the possibility of stupid questionitis.
        • If it's such an obviously silly case, then one question remains: can we all get Slashdotted by simply accusing somebody of something ridiculous?

          I hereby want it to be known: Apache stole my code!

          (sorry that I didn't give the article a thorough read)

          • Well, apparently Connolly contracted a developer to modify GPLed Mambo code, and when the contractor gave the code back to the original authors, Connolly went apeshit stupid and started threatening to sue Mambo users if they didn't stop using the "illegal" code.

            Since my attempts to visit the Furthermore site greet me only with stories about the fight against Mambo, it's hard to tell if they were just selling a service, or if they sell licenses to Furthermore. If it's the latter, I'd STFU if I were Connoll
            • So? Same thing in SCO's case; their claims have been proven baseless, but that doesn't (and still hasn't) stopped them from sueing the pants off a number of other companies, causing millions of dollars in legal fees for said companies, not to mention the FUD they're spreading.

              In fact, the guy could go the patent-route; start sueing each and every Mambo user, most of who will not be able to afford the legal fees and will simply settle.

              So, if you ask me, there's still penty to be afraid about; they're far f

      • Re:What's a mambo? Mambo #5? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Best ID Ever! ( 712255 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:15PM (#10389240)
        If only there was some sort of article you could read that would explain it.

        And if that goes over your head, here is a snip of reply from the code's author:
        To summarize it:

        1) The code delivered to Brian Connolly is not the same as the code implemented in Mambo.
        2) The code delivered to Brian Connolly was derived from GPL, Copyright Miro International Pty.
        3) Brian Connolly distributed copies of Mambo that had the so-called 'infringing' functionality under the GPL.
        4) There are no copyright assignments with my signature on.
        5) Brian Connolly has no trademarks or patents on anything resembling the disputed functionality.

        • Although I haven't been following the case closely, I did RTFA and it made no mention of point (3). My impression was that Connolly kept his derivative secret, which is perfectly valid under the GPL.

          The FA did say that "the code was a derivative of GPL-licensed code, thereby making it a derivative work of the parent code and automatically licensing it under the GNU General Public License." However, this is not correct unless Connolly distributed his code

          I agree with the rest of the points, though, and I

          • The grandparent isn't summarizing on its own, it's quoting the creator of the code in question as quoted in the first [newsforge.com] of the two Newsforge stories. At the end of that article is a rebuttal by Emir Sakic (the coder) to the allegations made by Brian Connolly. The rebuttal contains the above five points.

  • So glad... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:20PM (#10388774)
    I'm so glad that this critical speculation has made the front page of Slashdot.
    • The key problem was Erik's off-hand comment he made in his email. What he thought would be taken as "facetious" was perceived as a threat or challenge by Connolly. And now we have this mess.

      Perhaps Connolly did not know how relatively insignificant Erik's mutual functional change to both codebases was...

  • The impossible is possible (Score:5, Funny)

    by Colonel Cholling ( 715787 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:20PM (#10388775)
    You can do anything with Mambo... anything at all. The only limit is yourself.

    Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of this. [zombo.com]

  • Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toetagger1 ( 795806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:25PM (#10388833)
    "Now it is time for the facts, and NewsForge can definitively say, based on material and quotes from Larry Rosen, Dan Ravicher, and Eben Moglen, that Connolly's legal threats against innocent Mambo users are baseless."

    So where are the facts?

    • Re:Facts? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lothar97 ( 768215 ) * <owen@NosPAm.smigelski.org> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:38PM (#10388931) Homepage Journal
      Come on, you don't really want "real facts" to get in the way of "forceful conjecture?" It really is amazing how pretty much everything in the news is based upon what people say or think, and is not reporting facts.

      In this case, there could a legal opinion drafted, a ruling from a judge, etc, and not merely "expert opinions." An expert opinion varies from a regular opinion only in the fact that the expert one costs more.

      • Re:Facts? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ValourX ( 677178 )
        When two opposing sides agree on common, verifiable elements, those common elements are facts. When two experts agree on a standard and accepted policy or interpretation, that policy or interpretation is a fact.

        Now quit trolling and RTFA.

        -Jem

        • Re:Facts? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by winwar ( 114053 )
          "When two experts agree on a standard and accepted policy or interpretation, that policy or interpretation is a fact."

          Hmm, different definition of fact than I have. Policies and interpretations are not facts. They may be derived from them. Or they may have no relation to them (more often the case....)

          "When two opposing sides agree on common, verifiable elements, those common elements are facts."

          But they may not be facts by my definition-things that are essentially true (in as much as you can prove anyth

          • Re:Facts? (Score:3, Informative)

            by Progman3K ( 515744 )

            "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
            Fact Fact, n. L. factum, fr. facere to make or do. Cf.
            Feat, Affair, Benefit, Defect, Fashion, and -fy.
            1. A doing, making, or preparing. Obs.

            A project for the fact and vending Of a new kind of
            fucus, paint for ladies. --B. Jonson.

            2. An effect produced or achieved; anything done or that
            comes to pass; an act; an event; a circumstance.

            What might instigate him to this devilish fact, I am
            not able to conjecture. --Evelyn.
      • the fact is that it doesn't matter.

        in this case, you could READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE, and come to the conclusion that nothing the other party does has any merit.

        (wouldn't have even he had gotten the coder under written contract)

        hell, if you buy something gpl'd and even distribute it yourself.. wtf you except it to be?
      • An expert opinion varies from a regular opinion only in the fact that the expert one costs more.

        But, expert opinion is exactly the same as regular opinion in that you can always find two experts in any field that have diametrically opposite opinions on any subject. I guess it boils down to which expert dresses better in front of the jury.

  • More of the same. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jaywalk ( 94910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:26PM (#10388842) Homepage
    This is just a lame attempt to keep playing the "open source is dangerous" riff that Microsoft loves so well. The main offensive (and I mean that in all senses of the word) is, of course, the SCO case. Fortunately, this course of attack will eventually fall on deaf ears if no valid case is actually put together. Expect more of this kind of thing until the mainstream press realizes there is no story here and decides to move along.

    • Re:More of the same. (Score:4, Informative)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:50PM (#10389004)
      But, how many times has Microsoft been sued for infringement of intellectual property? More times than Open Source has, by my count. If I were Microsoft, I'd avoid drawing attention to the issue! "People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!" and all that...


      Let's see... Apple, Stac, Eolas, Priceline, InterTrust, AT&T, Burst.com, and GoldTouch[?] have all sued Microsoft for infringement. M$ has been sued at least 42 times for patent infringement! All in all, I'd say the Open Source movement has a much better track record than Microsoft does in respecting intellectual property rights!

      • Re:More of the same. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by badriram ( 699489 )
        But when companies win against MS they can afford the bill, most opensource apps cannot afford such a bill and neither can its developers.
        • First rule of tort law: only sue people that have money! The only point of suing an open source developer is to get them to stop distributing allegedly infringing code. Couldn't the same thing happen to Microsoft? Couldn't somebody get an injunction against Microsoft to force them to stop distributing any copies of XP because one of the thousands of developers cut and pasted code they shouldn't have? Or are you saying that since Microsoft can afford to buy it's way out of most any conceivable lawsuit, that

          • Re:More of the same. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rewt66 ( 738525 )
            The problem is, if I'm a developer, and Microsoft lifted my code, and I want to stop them from shipping XP, I'd better have a lot of money and time for lawyers, because they're going to tie me up in court for years. And when I finally get a legal decision, then they will say, "Well, we removed that code years ago, so we can keep shipping XP." And, if the legal decision was that they couldn't ship XP because it contained my code, they would be right - they could keep shipping if they had removed my code in

            • Re:More of the same. (Score:3, Interesting)

              by El ( 94934 )
              That exactly what a preliminary injunction is for -- to keep somebody that has harmed you from continuing to benefit from that harm while they tie the case up in court for years. Like most arguments leveled against open source, it falls apart when you realize that closed source is just as vulnerable or even more vulnerable.

              Question: What's to keep somebody from inserting malicious code in Linux? Answer: What's to keep a disgruntled Redmond employee from inserting malicious code in Windows? The difference i

              • The Eolas case demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. Microsoft continues to distribute with the code, because removing the code would be too expensive to do immediately. Further, the presence of the code does not hurt Eolas (just not getting paid for the presence of the code), it just helps Microsoft.

                Btw, you didn't answer the actual objection, which was that if you Microsoft loses such a judgment, they will simply take out the offending code and replace it with something else.

                The difference betwee

  • Perhaps he should have just quit.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by gphinch ( 722686 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:27PM (#10388852) Homepage
    ..when he contacted SCO and asked them for legal advice.

  • Connolly replies... (Score:5, Informative)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:29PM (#10388867)
    FYI, he's issued his rebuttal here: Point-by-Point Response to Matzan's Op-Ed [literatigroup.com]

    • IANAL That said, I'm going to take a stab at rebutting the rebuttal... Just the points that I think actually have any bearing on the case.

      2. "Newsforge can definitively say that Connolly's legal claims against the Mambo community are baseless." -- Actually, Newsforge cannot "definitively" say anything legal. Moreover, it is patently illegal for Matzan and Newsforge to provide something that can be construed as legal advice.

      Newsforge can definitively say whatever it wants and be correct about it witho

    • Re:Connolly replies... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zurab ( 188064 )
      From that response:

      Jem then argues that the "competitor" was in the process of "reverse engineering." However, reverse engineering would still require the permission of the copyright holder.

      No, it wouldn't (IANAL).
      • Yes, and never mind the fact that I never said anything about the perceived competitior trying to reverse engineer anythingn TFA. Connolly made that up and then spun it in his direction, as he has done and continues to do.

        -Jem

      • Good point and (Score:3, Informative)

        by einhverfr ( 238914 )
        IANAL, but....

        I think that Sony v. Connectix sets a pretty strong precident for allowing reverse engineering provided that it is strictly a copyright case.

    • Re:Connolly replies... (Score:5, Informative)

      by rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:10PM (#10389189)
      I read his reply. He does all right until his fourth point, where he says, "However, reverse engineering would still require the permission of the copyright holder."

      This is total baloney. You only need permission of the copyright holder if you are copying, or if you are creating a derivative work within the meaning of the copyright law. It's not enough to say, "It does the same thing, it's by the same guy, so it must be a derivative." Reverse engineering is almost certainly not going to create a derivative work in copyright terms.

      Now, reverse engineering could get you in trouble with patents. And if the same person did the work, there could be trade secret issues. But Connolly didn't argue those points; he yelled about copyrights. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Copyright only applies if someone copies something. If I understand correctly, Salik says he didn't copy anything; he re-wrote it.

      In point 5, Connolly claims, "The code committed to Mambo was done under contract and paid for by the Literati Group." If this is true, that's a big no-no. But if the code committed to Mambo does the same thing as the code written for Literati, but is in fact different code, re-written from scratch (it's only a few lines), then Connolly has nothing contractually to lean on.

      Moving on to point 9: Connolly claims that the GPL doesn't require you to redistribute. This is true. What the GPL requires is that, if you distribute the program in any form, you must also distribute the source under the GPL. If you leave the program in-house running your web site, you don't have to distribute the code at all, ever, to anyone, under the GPL or under any other terms.

      The questions are: First, did Salik contribute original code to Mambo, or did he contribute the code he wrote under contract for Literati or a derivative thereof? (Note well: "He wrote the one, and then he wrote the other, and they do the same things, so the second must be a derivative" is a fallacious argument.) And second, did Literati distribute the program under any terms to anybody, and does the program contain GPL'd code that is not owned by Literati? (Note that Literati can GPL a version of their code, and ship a version that contains the same code plus other code, without having to GPL all the code in the second version, as long as all the GPL'd code in the second version is owned by themselves.)

    • Re:Connolly replies... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sparkz ( 146432 )
      I've not heard of Mambo until now, but I do understand the GPL...
      Newsforge say:

      The red herring
      When Connolly first put up his Furthermore demo site, he noticed that his server logs showed that a perceived competitor had downloaded about 20MB worth of data from his site. Connolly immediately interpreted this as wholesale code theft when, in fact, he had no reason to believe that any theft had taken place. The competitor was in the process of designing a site around Mambo OS and, like Furthermore, also e

      • Re:Connolly replies... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by X ( 1235 )
        If Sakic was contracted to modify GPL'd code under these conditions, that term of the contract must be void, as LiteratiGroup do not have the rights to enforce that term.

        Not at all. The GPL doesn't in any way effect who has copyright to the code.

        The GPL relies upon copyright; without (c), the GPL would be meaningless. Adding (c) code to GPL'd (c) code is only possible by accepting the terms of the GPL.

        True. True. False. Accepting the source or the binary if you are NOT the copyright holder requires ac
        • It's worth noting that the (c) convention, to my knowledge, doesn't have any legal force. The actual copyright symbol or the word "Copyright" is supposed to be spell out. That said, I can't imagine that a reasonable court wouldn't decide that "(c)" is sufficent, but it's not listed on the Copyright Offices website as one of the 3 standard forms. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv [copyright.gov]
    • Previous to his, my understanding is that Connolley had announced an agreement with one of the companies that he had been directly threatening. My understanding is that they agreed to pay him for the use of 'his' code. Those people are now in legal possession of that code -- whether it is his code or not.
      • If it is properly copyright by Furthermore, he has now effectively distributed it, and the legal recipients have the rights to redistribute it under the GPL.
      • If it is not properly copyright furtherm
      • I just read Connoly's rebuttal [literatigroup.com] It sooo reads like SCO Rhetoric. As an example:

        7. "Code was not stolen verbatim, and it clearly was not an act of malice on anyone's part."
        -- Not quite sure what Jem is getting at here. It seems that his argument is that if one only slightly misappropriates... and with a good attitude... well, that's okay.

        Need we read much further?? Connoley is essentially saying: "I'm making a copyright complaints and the law is irrelevant!"

        Sourceforge says that Sakic effectively

  • Missing link to MamboServer.com? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mitchy ( 34242 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:34PM (#10388905) Homepage

    Good thing they didn't provide a link to www.mamboserver.com [mamboserver.com], as that would certainly get the server slashdotted.

    They provided links all over the place, and many of them to boot, but I find it strange that they link to everyone involved in the story but Mambo. Sure am glad they didn't link to www.mamboserver.com [mamboserver.com], which just happens to be the official site of Mambo.

    innocent smile.

  • Article is mostly crap (Score:5, Informative)

    by jhoger ( 519683 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @06:39PM (#10388938) Homepage
    The author doesn't seem to understand how the GPL works.

    If I make changes to a GPL'ed work, they are my changes. I own the copyright. I don't own the copyright to the entire work, but I own my changes. Imagine my changes as a diff file with a copyright on it.

    If I distribute it, the GPL requires that I license my copyrighted code under the GPL.

    The author completely misses this point, and in fact makes the assertion that if you derive a work from GPLed code that your work is automatically GPLed. This is a common fallacy. I can't believe it made Newsforge as such.

    The only issue here is whether a) the code was copied such that it is close enough to be considered infringement and b) whether Connelly distributed the code outside of his organization.

    If either are untrue, Connelly has no case.

    • Fixing my twisted broken logic at the end there is left as an excercise for the reader
    • The author completely misses this point, and in fact makes the assertion that if you derive a work from GPLed code that your work is automatically GPLed. This is a common fallacy. I can't believe it made Newsforge as such.

      Actually, I believe such a derived work is automatically GPL'd. However, the GPL only requires distribution of source to those who get binaries. So if you don't give away the binaries, you're under no obligation to give away the source.

      • "Why?"

        Because the GPL offers you the freedom to do what you like with the code for your own use. This is not something granted by the GPL, it's preserved by the GPL. Forcing you to release derivative works is absurd. Everyone who's ever done an experimental modification of GPLed code would be obligated to distribute that modification. People customize stuff all the time. Who exactly should they distribute those customizations to and as you asked "Why?".

    • RTFA. The code between the two derivative works that create lead story blocks is not the same code.

      RTFA. Owning the copyright to GPL code means little other than the fact that you get credit for it.

      RTFA. The code was not copied. The code in Mambo does not belong to Connolly in any way shape or form.

      -Jem
      • >RTFA.
        I did, I even read the whole thing :-) That's how I know you're wrong. Grow up a little and admit your mistakes.

        > The code between the two derivative works that create lead story blocks is not the same code.

        I'm not arguing this point at all. My issue is with your interpretation of the GPL.

        You may be wrong there too... you don't have to make a verbatim copy to be infringing. It's actually fairly complex in that regard.

        >RTFA.
        I did, stop saying that!

        > Owning the copyright to GPL code mea
        • Jtem seems to not realize that if you made a deritive of a GPLed work it does not have to be distributed unless you distribute the binaries.

          I.e. I can make *MY* own version of LINUX, put in breath taking functionality, and as long as I use it only on my computer, or at my organization then I have *NO* obligation to release the source to anyone *UNLESS* I give away the binary file to an outside 3rd party.

      • Owning the copyright to GPL code means little other than the fact that you get credit for it.

        Consolidating copyrights is highly recommended for large open source projects, so they can adjust to new licenses over time. This is why OpenOffice.org, for example, requires a Joint Copyright Assignment be signed, so the project can release the code under all relevant licenses. This is why Mozilla, when they decided to add GPL/LGPL to their license mix, had such a huge headache, because they didn't consolidate co

    • I don't think so.

      Taken directly from the GPL FAQ:

      The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to all third parties." Who are these third parties?

      Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.

      The developer in question
      • Ah, you actually make a valid point that I missed, about contractors. Here's the section of the "GPL FAQ" (which btw, is not the GPL, so it's a little suspect)

        That is interesting. Keep in mind that my point still stands; I said that Connelly's case hinges on whether the programmer infringed on his copyright, and whether he distributed the code or not. If by default employing an off-site contractor you automatically are considered under the GPL to be distributing the work, then yes, he distributed it, end o
        • OK, here is a hypothetical situation:

          Alice is a contractor. She modifies a GPL program under contract for BigCorp. She sends a copy of the modifications to BigCorp.

          Alice has distributed the code to BigCorp, so she has no legal right to complain should BigCorp distribute it further, so long as BigCorp do so under the GPL.

          Now say Alice's contract says that she will not distribute her modifications to anyone else. Is this legal/enforcable? Did Alice have the right to modify the code while bound by such a re
          • That's a really interesting concept.

            So Alice gets this program under the GPL and modifies it. She Must distribute it under the GPL.

            ...BUT she only distributes it to the company that hired her. That company then never distributes it further, thus it remains "closed".

            At first glance it seems that this is kind of a looophole in the GPL, but I think it *might* be covered by various "non-discrimination" clauses in the GPL.
            OR as you suggested, perhaps there is a clause which prohibits her from distibutin
          • Interesting situation. I think this is acceptable under the GPL, but note:

            1. If BigCorp ever distribute a copy of her derivitive work back to her, they are distributing it under the terms of the GPL and are then not allowed to enforce any contracts that further restrict Alice's actions under the GPL, so she can distribute it on in this case.

            2. This is all subject to the courts' interpreatation of "within a single organisation". I'm aware that they may extend this to include contractors -- British cour
          • Assuming that BigCorps legal staff isn't totally imcompetent, then Alice's contract with them will specify that this is a work for hire, with all copyrights belonging to BigCorp. So in copyright terms, Alice never has any rights to the code, and her sending it over to BigCorp when she's done isn't "distribution" any more than handing a CD back to someone that dropped it is.

            In this particular case the claim is that the donated code is NOT the same - if it is, then there's possibly a problem. On the other

        • According to the documentation provided, this 'new version' was also distributed to 'registered users only' for a period of time, although that is claimed to have been 'short'. He even admitted to that, and tried to justify it with some crap about how it was only to registered users.

          That is a dead giveaway to be bound under the GPL right there, the fact he tries to claim it "doesn't count" as it was only to 'registered users' only undermines his own ignorance.

          The way I see this, the already GPL softw
          • Assuming all this is so, I think a final step is required in the chain. The existence of people who can legally distribute Connolly's code does not imply that Sakic has a legally distributable copy.

            Sakic needs to get a copy of his code from (directly or indirectly) one of the 'registered users', who, via the GPL, have the right to redistribute it.

            This may require some persuading and legal indemnification, as the 'registered users' know that Connolly is litigation-happy and may come after them.

            Possibly Sa
            • This wouldn't actually help a huge amount. It would stop any future distribution from being copyright infringement, but he would still be liable for any infringement the court decided he was responsible for up to the moment he received the copy.
          • As far as the 'validity' of the GPL FAQ, while I'm sure it is not error-free, it comes from the same group of legal scholars (and their assistants) that gave us the GPL. While I am sure not perfect, they know it better then any of us. I readily trust their interpretation better then anybody except Moglen's.

            You have to consider, while reading it, that the answers are to questions about generic situations. Any small detail and assumption, which may or may not have been explicitly stated (it's written with
      • The developer in question is not an employee of Furthermore, so this is not "distribution within a single company" which is explicitly allowed. If anything, it was a distribution between a contractor/contractee, which further in the GPL FAQ you will see is considered distribution.

        There is a problem with this argument. The developer is not the owner of the copyright in question. This means that his distribution of it to Connoly cannot grant anyone any rights to it under the GPL. Only Connoly has the le

  • Furthermore says: It's not over yet (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Connolly isn't done yet. See http://www.literatigroup.com/versusmambo/content/v iew/60/46/ for details.

  • I take it this is not the Mambo with the shirts depicting farting dogs?
  • Is not applicable to information. Please use accurate wording.
    • "Theft" ... Is not applicable to information. Please use accurate wording.

      I nearly agree with you. Unauthorized copying is not theft.

      Taking the original, medium and all, is theft of the original.

      Taking the information (whether an original and a copy) AND destroying all the copies in the possession of the original owner, is theft of the information.

      The distinction between theft and unauthorized copying is that theft deprives the original owner as well as enriching the thief.
  • (IANAL)

    "Copyright infringement is a broader term and would seem to be a better fit for this situation; after all, the contract called for all copyrights to be assigned to Furthermore, Inc. But the code was a derivative of GPL-licensed code, thereby making it a derivative work of the parent code and automatically licensing it under the GNU General Public License."

    But doesn't the GPL only take effect if the code is distributed? Connolly employed someone to modify GPLed code, for his own use. Doesn't he have
  • ...Zombo [zombo.com] Users are Free and Clear?

    I personally am really glad that I can keep using Zombo.com. I can do anything there!

  • SCO are the big guys? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:02PM (#10389111)
    "SCO and IBM are the big guys", Connelly was quoted as saying in the article. I find this funny, even before SCO went down its path to self destruction in the last year it employed less people and probably had less turnover than the average suburban shopping mall. IBM is a few orders of magnitude beyond that.
  • This is a question about the GPL, no flames, please. In the Connolly's response, he blathers:

    -- Moglen's quote is misapplied. BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NO DUTY TO REDISTRIBUTE MODIFIED GPL CODE. The code was redistributed improperly by the Mambo project as it was gotten without Furthermore's permission. This also makes derivative(s) an unlawful by-product.
    ------------------

    IANAL, but Connolly raises an interesting question about the GPL and the ASP loophole. If someone writes derivative code based on a GPL'ed
    • It's not a loophole at all.

      If I take a GPL program and modify it I own the modifications. There is never any doubt in that, the fact that it is GPL'd is not important - I always own the code I write (notwithstanding employment contracts etc).

      All the GPL says is that if I take a GPL program and modify it, I must license the new version under the GPL also. That's it. So I still own the modifications, I just have to license them under the GPL. Fine. (I can even license them under some other license as well i
      • Here's my case, GPL quoted to save anyone from looking it up:

        --- (selectively quoting what supports my argument...) ---

        2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ...

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    • If you give the executable to someone, you must provide code. If you provide code, it must be under a GPL license. Connolly seems to be claiming (possibly so) that he did neither. Ownership of the new code (not the existing GPLed bits) belongs to the creator, who presubably assigned that ownership to Connolly in this case.

      Now, since the code was HTML and Connolly's server distributed it to people looking at the pages... that may be a real problem for him now that I think about it. OTOH, did it really hand

      • The whole issue has to do with redistributing the code. I think this is actually a sneak attack on the GPL, and someone is trying to make an end run by saying the GPL doesn't count if the person with the rights chooses not to redistribute the code.

        If all an author has to do is claim he did not intend to release code for people to be liable for damages (or that someone stole the code and released it) the GPL becomes meaningless.

        M

        • "the GPL doesn't count if the person with the rights chooses not to redistribute the code" is a true statement. However, in this case, the code was distributed. The contractor distributed it to Connolly. As such, it is my opinion that *even if* the contractor had contributed *the identical code* (rather than new code) to Mambo, it still would have been GPLed. The fact that the contractor signed away his rights to the code is irrelevant; he could not sign away *Mambo's* rights (based on the code being a
        • "furthermore" seems to denie ever distributing the code(in binary or source) and also alleges that they have a written contract that "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com [Furthermore's parent company].".

          however, it seems that they _did_ seem to distribute the source too and that sakic _didn't_ sign a contract. however, neither of these things matter if sakic(as he alleges?) just made a new implementation of the (ridiculously?) low number of

  • Connolly may be right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @07:21PM (#10389303)
    "This means that even if it could be definitively said that Sakic created a derivative work of the code that he'd written for Furthermore, Connolly has no legal recourse for preventing its distribution or use."

    This statement is not entirely correct. If I create a derivative work based on GPLed code and don't redistribute it, no one has the right to steal it from me and put my changes back into the original open source version. This guy who did the contract work (assuming there was a typical contract) signed over his ownership to the derivative work to Connelly. By keeping a local copy (which he should not have) and putting derivatives of that back into the main project, he may have effectively stole the code from his employer and put it under GPL.

    IANAL, but people need to follow owership and distribution very closely. If there was no contract my limited understanding of these issues breaks down in a hurry - I would assume without proper assignment he can do whatever because it's actually his code but again IANAL.

    It bothers me to see GPL proponents getting too carried away and assuming that the public has a right to use anything that came from GPLed work. I doubt the guy is right, but it would NOT be because of the GPL. It looks to me like it comes down to pure ownership in this case because Connelly never distributed any code.

    IANAL, so please correct me if I'm wrong here.

    • This statement is not entirely correct. If I create a derivative work based on GPLed code and don't redistribute it, no one has the right to steal it from me and put my changes back into the original open source version. This guy who did the contract work (assuming there was a typical contract) signed over his ownership to the derivative work to Connelly. By keeping a local copy (which he should not have) and putting derivatives of that back into the main project, he may have effectively stole the code from
  • As a few people have pointed out, the author of the article seems to have overstepped his bounds a bit. He's not really qualified to render a legal opinion. To state that Mr. Connelly is definitely in the wrong is a potentially dangerous thing. Especially given that he seems to be lawsuit happy.

    That aside, I find this disagreement somewhat interesting for a few points.

    First, I wonder what is copyrightable when it comes to code. For instance, if I wrote a sentence in an article of a magazine and then r
  • "...involving the Mambo content management system and businessman Brian Connolly."

    It's my belief that any good thing will have, at the root of its ruin, a businessman. History will back me up on this.
  • There is one big fat glaring disagreement between Sakic and Connelly that should make most of this pretty plain.

    Sakic claims there was no contract. Connelly says there was.

    My one semester of business law clearly makes me an expert, so here goes:

    I suspect there was a contract. I suspect it said what Connelly said it does. My understanding is that in these kind of legal proceedings there has to be some "consideration", i.e, money or value changing hands. Sakic was paid to do a job. Then he gave
    • ***Connelly, in my view, has a valid claim against Sakic since Connelly paid for the time Sakic took to complete the task and got very little value in return.***

      being suckered like that doesn't really make you have a claim(..and he got what he wanted for the money, an added feature). and the contract connelly claims that was there says (by connellys words) that his corp just gets all the _copyrights_(NOTHING MORE!) to the code. nothing about owning the ideas or anything like that(nor do they have any paten

  • The code that shagged me (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dr. Connolly: Gentlemen, welcome to my underground lair. Here is the plan. Back in the 80s I developed a sophisticated HTML attribute that we called "colspan." Using this "colspan" we were able to format a table so that one cell would span two columns in a given row, thus creating what we referred to as a "lead story block." We'll allow this "lead story block" to find its way into the Mambo open source project and then hold the community ransom for... [quick zoom in] PROPRIETARY CODE RIGHTS! [pinky in mouth

  • Wouldn't there be an easy solution?

    Rip out the related code find somebody who has never worked on Mambo OS and give them a written (non-code or pseudo-code) description of what feature you want and let them just do it in 20 minutes from scratch.

    I've never looked at the Mambo code nor the furthermore stuff but I know PHP like the back of my hand and there are plenty of people like me.

    I don't even think this is one of those "but it's the principle" issues...just some miscommunications..

    Just my $.02

  • ..but for some reason I can't shake the notion that this is all but a publicity stunt from the Mambo people. Consider this:
    1) Mambo isn't the end-all OSS CMS. It's just another drop in the Bucket of a bazillion other Open Source Content management Systems based on PHP and MySQL. And not the best one I might add.
    2) The Mambo Site [mamboserver.com] looks cool. These people [miro.com.au] aren't your usual OSS developers, they are professional designers with a company. The Sites professionality is the single largest reason Mambo has gained th

Slashdot Top Deals

Eureka! -- Archimedes

Close