6 ms·
Supplying Legal Notices for Free Software in your Products
- exabrial 9y agoI guess the other irony is that every Windows/Intel computer boots Unix first...
- aetherspawn 9y agoWell, the machines that print the chips in the first place probably run Linux. So I guess it all starts with Linux. Edit: although, to be fair, open source EDA sucks and the chips were probably designed on Windows, so..
- j605 9y agoCommercial tools run on Linux but they are not open source.
- raverbashing 9y agoI think Linus said something like "you don't make friends by suing people" and while Intel has not followed the license to the letter, court should not be the first answer to that
- confounded 9y agoI don’t see how your feelings are relevant. Tanenbaum’s software was used against the terms of the license to produce possibly the most oppressive product in computing — one which he specifically finds objectionable. If he ever considers pursuing the case, I’d donate some money!
- syshum 9y agoThe problem with worldview is the law suit is the stick Of course one should want to avoid law suits, however if you tell a violator you will never sue them, and there will be never any consequences for violations of your license, then why even have a license at all. People that respect you project do not need the license in the first place, and people that do not respect your project now have no reason to start as you have told them they will suffer not legal consequences from you.
- a_imho 9y agoImo suing in a professional setting is orthogonal to making friends. You obviously don't want to piss off powerful entities, but they should not get a free pass especially as they would do the same. Further, Intel ME being one of the most anti consumer pieces of tech clearly adds an emotional angle to this. I can see where the people saying they should reap what they sow are coming from. It is not everyday a too big to fail brand might be held accountable, even if it is only tangential to the main problem.
- lexicality 9y agoYou don't make friends by illegally using someone's software for a purpose they find objectionable either.
- wiz21c 9y agofrom my own experience : you don't make friends by using their code in a way that was specifically prohibited.
- MayeulC 9y agoThe title should probably be something along the lines of "No legal notice supplied with Intel ME's minix fork". Interesting read nonetheless. Here, the ones that could sue are the copyright holders (A.S Tanenbaum), and I would be surprised if they were interested.
- jwilk 9y agoAFAICT, Minix 3 copyright is held by Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, not by Tanenbaum himself. http://git.minix3.org/index.cgi?p=minix.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE http://git.minix3.org/index.cgi?p=minix.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE
- HelloNurse 9y agoInteresting. A university might have a statutory and/or legal duty to sue Intel for as much money as possible.
- buckminster 9y agoIndeed. And for all anyone knows Intel already has permission from the university.
- tzs 9y ago> Anyone who distributes the CPU must provide the legal notice, i.e. not just Intel but also the computer manufacturers who placed the CPU in a computer, and the sales companies that eventually sold the computer to you. What about the first sale doctrine?
- rocqua 9y agoMaybe that is a consumer-protection thing that doesn't extend to commercial entities?
- jrochkind1 9y agoNo, it extends to anyone, it's part of copyright law in the US. I'm confused thinking of how it applies to software licenses though. I guess software licenses are not a purchase of an object, but a _license_ to use it. (And of course it's not open source that pioneered this legal application). The first sale doctrine lets you, for instance, resell a book you buy -- it doesn't let you print more books. It's unclear and confusing to me how it applies to what's being discussed too. Probably who knows what a judge/jury would do.
- tzs 9y agoTo be clear, I'm suggesting first sale applies to to the companies that buy CPUs from Intel and put them in the computers they build, and the sales companies that buy those computers and resell them to consumers. I'm not suggesting it applies to Intel. Intel is making copies, so they need copyright owner permission. The company that buys a CPU from Intel and solders it into a computer they build, and the sales company that later sells that computer to a consumer, are not making copies. They are just passing on copies they received. Hence, they should not need copyright owner permission because of first sale. There is one possible hitch that comes to mind. In the US version of first sale, it applies to the owner of a copy that was "lawfully made". If Intel is violating the license, and if that means the copies Intel makes are not "lawfully made", then first sale does not apply to those copies.
- 9y ago
- djsumdog 9y agoAll Intel would have needed to do to comply with the license was include a small blurb in that tiny insert provided with each retail chip. Similar to the about screen in most mobile apps that list all the individual libraries and their OSS licenses? Right?
- ovao 9y agoAccording to the article, yes, that would be sufficient for retail chips.
- mmagin 9y agoI find it amusing that everyone is so certain that Intel doesn't have a special arrangement with the copyright holder.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]