| |||||||||||||
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)Posted Jun 12, 2012 6:15 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) by cmccabe Parent article: US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register)
Actually, I thought about this a little more and I think they're taking the view that sending the drones on a mission doesn't constitute "distribution." So they should be ok.
yeah... I'm definitely taking your post a little too seriously... heh.
(Log in to post comments)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 7:19 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I think so. The question here is intent, and the intent of someone launching a missile at you is that the missile should explode. This would naturally deny you any use of the code running on the missile, and should probably not be counted as distribution (just as it is not counted as a gift of very expensive hardware to the target). Since distribution was not intended by the sender, I don't see how copyright law could apply. (Also, arguing legalities like that with someone who can launch missiles is unwise in some jurisdictions: even in the US, 'no-one ever got rich suing city hall'.)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 10:06 UTC (Tue) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link]
I'm not so sure intent-based arguing works for anyone else than missile owners though...
"But your honour, I only intended to use that public ftp server as a backup of my music/film/software collection, it wasn't intended as filesharing"
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 11:00 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
How about a private ftp server with an easy to guess user and password combination such as anonymous/anonymous or maybe admin/admin. Or perhaps you leave the door to your house(dorm room) unlocked and someone makes a copy of your data without your express permission. We can cut this line of argument as thin as we want to...and still not have avoided the inevitable situation of having to watch something go to court to create precedent.
End of the day, The US government is in a unique position in that it can redefine the rules for itself at the drop of a hat. Already there are clauses in the US code which set statutory limits on damages the federal government can pay as well to a US citizen who makes an infringement claim. And in fact those clauses actually define a concept of willful intent to set the damage aware(so yes intent does come into play to some extent). However compared to the cost of the lost munition itself, the maximum capped damage award is really not that big of a cost. I fully expect that if the issue of munitions (or generally captured US military equipment) comes up for discussion in a court room Congress will feel the urge to carve this out as an explicit fair-use case without losing much sleep over it.
The DoD is doing the bulk of protecting itself by demanding contractors hand over ownership of any proprietary code to the Defense Department instead of holding on to it as a contractor. Which is interesting...
But the real question I have, and I'm sure this will actually be put to the test at some point is the following. Is the federal government really one entity or does distribution clauses latch when one governmental agency hands code to another agency? Is the Defense department itself one entity? Handing code between the Navy and the Airforce..does that latch the distribution clause? They have their own separate logistics and r&d budgets..managed as separate from a day-to-day logistics pov. If they share it with Homeland...is it distribution? I'm really not sure that the federal government can be view as one entity for the purposes of distribution. I'm not even sure the DoD should be view that way...considering how compartmentalized and resource competitive each agency inside the DoD is with the others.
-jef
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 11:22 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Presumably the US Navy has no qualms distributing the source to the US Air Force...
Entities Posted Jun 12, 2012 14:13 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
I don't see how the Federal Government is any less a single entity than a large corporation like IBM is, no matter how much individual divisions might compete for resources.
Entities Posted Jun 13, 2012 5:27 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
I don't see how the Human Race is any less a single entity than a diverse species like dogs are, no matter how much individual sovereigns might compete for resources.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:08 UTC (Tue) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link]
Intent-based arguing always works. The problem is showing your intent is what you say it is. Your actual behavior is generally considered a stronger indicator of your actual intent than your words--people often make excuses when facing prosecution.
In the case of your ftp site, the fact that you set it up for public access is likely to be a strong counter-argument to your claim that it was for personal use. Especially if it can be shown that you knew how to set up a private ftp site and/or the plaintiffs can find any evidence that you revealed the site's existence to others.
Intent is why "loopholes" in the GPL, like distributing patches-only, generally don't work (ask NeXT about this one).
On the flip side, with the missiles, if the enemy capturing a missile and reverse-engineering it were to count as distribution, then it probably wouldn't be safe to use any software except BSD-licensed. Microsoft would be no happier about having their code copied than a GPL author.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 12:01 UTC (Tue) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] The question here is intent, and the intent of someone launching a missile at you is that the missile should explode. The intent is widespread distribution. Clearly a violation.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:39 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
High speed, high pressure distribution. It will make you yearn for the days that the GPL was merely viral.
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 12, 2012 10:03 UTC (Tue) by etienne (subscriber, #25256) [Link]
It is not distribution all right, but is it conveyance?
> To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. Else they have to limit the drone/missile to GPL v2 only (unless they claim it is a "Mere interaction with a user")... -:)
US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet (The Register) Posted Jun 13, 2012 5:29 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
Merely interacting with the user's ability to continue living ;)
|
|||||||||||||