(Untitled)

[mjg59]

Seth Oster, executive VP and chief communications officer of the MPAA, told Ars that the notice came over the Thanksgiving holiday when their offices were closed. "As soon as we came back and discovered that there had been someone who had raised some concerns, we removed the software," Oster said. "Anytime anyone raises any reasonable concern we

Comments

Friday post-Thanksgiving

[ext_30240]

FWIW, virtually every non-retail American business does give their employees the day after Thanksgiving off. So contacting them that day was poor-ish form by American standards. But I've never heard of anyone also taking Monday off.

[abdulpeele]

Before this read, I have never heard of anyone taking subs for any other reason than for opiate (heroin, oxycontin ) addiction.

i'm drinking to that

[dismissive]

cheers mate, and keep an eye out for the non-beta versions they'll ultimately try to fob off.

[nunfetishist]

A poorly researched article - they can't spell your name :)

[joshperot]

LadyShiva Wed 22 November, pm What a poorly researched article. If the writer intended to make me laugh, they failed miserably; I am offended and not interested in using your website further.

[haydenboazman]

LadyShiva Wed 22 November, pm What a poorly researched article. If the writer intended to make me laugh, they failed miserably; I am offended and not interested in using your website further.

[adanybanez]

LadyShiva Wed 22 November, pm What a poorly researched article. If the writer intended to make me laugh, they failed miserably; I am offended and not interested in using your website further.

Seriously...

[anonymous]

"Anytime anyone raises any reasonable concern we look at it because we take copyright very seriously at the MPAA."

My question to that would be, why don't they take copyright seriously _until_ a concern is raised?
Why not read the licensing term to begin with, so no concern has to be raised at all?

Is following the licensing agreement for copyrighted works only important if the copyright holder is in a position (read: has enough money) to sue?

I'm no way near as good as mjg59 at this, but I'll give it a try: Dear MPAA, fuck you!

//fatal

[lukemallett]

Even if lo-bat’s work has not been directly used for commercial purposes, it certainly has been used to build the image that they were out there, build press and get visibility.

[madfilkentist]

Could you clarify what the GPL violation was? The MPAA is currently denying that it modified any of the apps that it distributed. Is the issue that the "stickiness" of the GPL requires that all applications shipped with an Xubuntu distribution have to come with source code, even if they're unmodified? If that's the only concern, then it would seem that all the source code is already available to the public.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood the issue, but the news reports which I've seen just haven't been clear about the nature of the alleged violation.

[mjg59]

You need to provide either the source or an offer to provide the source on request for all GPLed code, regardless of whether or not the files are modified.

xubuntu.com is the source repository?

[madfilkentist]

This is also a muddy issue considering that some may feel that if the packages have not been modified in their redistribution, that anyone who wants the source can go back to the originator of the software, in this case XUbuntu's sources.

Is seeing that this was the XUbuntu distro and pointing to their sources enough to comply? The source is provided, if indirectly.

Re: xubuntu.com is the source repository?

[mjg59]

Under GPLv2, no, that's not enough to comply.