Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

blogs.kde.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#161

Post by mpyne »

josephlord wrote: post #159
Argorak wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not that it is used. Its used without attribution and correct licensing information, especially as the website states that all material is copyrighted(!).

Sony should not have claimed copyright and should not have used it without attribution. I'm however not sure of the legal status of components of LGPL software that are downloaded components of a hosted service. If they are not "distributed" the license brings no requirements does it?

The icon is distributed as part of the UEFI firmware (if the blog post is to be believed).

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#162

Post by mpyne »

polshaw wrote: post #86
belorn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depend on the judge and jury. It could come down to damges per sold unit if Sony is seen as intentional breaking copyright law, especially from this point on after Sony has become aware of the issue. In more likeness, KDE can now prevent any future sale of VAIO if they want, but asking a judge for an injunction. Of course, this assume that the copyright law is sanely being interpreted. If we use movie/music version o…

Working with the assumption that Sony righted-itself in a reasonable time-frame after legal action/threats began; Could KDE prevent sales of VAIO machines if they were now complaint? I guess not? Is there ANY precedent for damages of this kind of situation? (particularly where wilful infringement was not long-continued) If not, it would seem there is an almost non-existent risk.

If Sony took even the tiniest steps toward reasonable action to come in compliance I'd be 101% surprised if either the KDE e.V. or the artist tries to take any further legal action.

And given that the license in this case merely requires attribution it would seem it's very easy to come into compliance.

I don't know jriddell personally but I would be willing to bet his point is not the infringement, so much as the hypocrisy by the Big Giant Defender of IP, Sony.

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#163

Post by Argorak »

josephlord wrote: post #159
Argorak wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not that it is used. Its used without attribution and correct licensing information, especially as the website states that all material is copyrighted(!).

Sony should not have claimed copyright and should not have used it without attribution. I'm however not sure of the legal status of components of LGPL software that are downloaded components of a hosted service. If they are not "distributed" the license brings no requirements does it?

If the client downloads it, it is distributed.

LGPL is interesting when used in the server software itself. Then, it doesn't have to be distributed, as the server software itself is never provided to the client.

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#164

Post by gnud »

ajross wrote: post #141
Zealot wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I go to some site, that offers me movies for free and states "commercial usage allowed" ?

Public domain and freely available artwork is commonly available on the internet. Free movies are not. One of those seems more likely to be valid than the other. And in any case, Sony can use this artwork commercially. It's free software, for goodness sake. What they missed was the requirement for attribution. So they should provide that somewhere. End of story. I don't understand this kind of logic. I mean, I can se…

I honestly think we should be pretty strict about following licenses to the letter. No-one who creates open-source software has the time to hand-hold all their users and make sure they are in compliance, so we should help them out.

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#165

Post by polshaw »

mpyne wrote: post #162
polshaw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working with the assumption that Sony righted-itself in a reasonable time-frame after legal action/threats began; Could KDE prevent sales of VAIO machines if they were now complaint? I guess not? Is there ANY precedent for damages of this kind of situation? (particularly where wilful infringement was not long-continued) If not, it would seem there is an almost non-existent risk.

If Sony took even the tiniest steps toward reasonable action to come in compliance I'd be 101% surprised if either the KDE e.V. or the artist tries to take any further legal action. And given that the license in this case merely requires attribution it would seem it's very easy to come into compliance. I don't know jriddell personally but I would be willing to bet his point is not the infringement, so much as the hyp…

I understand this, but i was asking a broader question; is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action.

No one has brought up a case that got to the point of there being actual damages, which leads me to believe there isn't, really. The closest i (as by no means an expert) can think of in terms of commercial 'damage' is when Linksys released the source code for their routers found using linux. (And this release probably led to them making more money anyway).

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#166

Post by michaelbuddy »

baby wrote: post #131

But here we're clever and we know that behind Sony, this is the mistake of a stupid web developer. Right? EDIT: http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-icons... This thread is a nice flame war.

No doubt. What the hell is wrong with half the people in this thread. Pent up hostility against an invisible monster.

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#167

Post by mpyne »

polshaw wrote: post #165
mpyne wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Sony took even the tiniest steps toward reasonable action to come in compliance I'd be 101% surprised if either the KDE e.V. or the artist tries to take any further legal action. And given that the license in this case merely requires attribution it would seem it's very easy to come into compliance. I don't know jriddell personally but I would be willing to bet his point is not the infringement, so much as the hyp…

I understand this, but i was asking a broader question; is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action. No one has brought up a case that got to the point of there being actual damages, which leads me to believe there isn't, really. The closest i (as by no means an expert) can think of in terms of commercia…

> is there any real deterrent or risk for a company to use GPL code (in violation) first, and then fix it if/when they get found out and threatened legal action.

Well, there's a pretty wide gulf between "The Board of Directors and CEO decided that any legal consequences would be cheaper than not infringing" and "Oops, we didn't mean to mis-appropriate that IP".

The tricky area IMO is when a company or industry repeatedly "Oops"es and you have to start wondering whether they're even performing due diligence.

Re: Sony Pirates KDE Artwork

#168

Post by jason_slack »

mpyne wrote: post #160
jason_slack wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but this blog author/developer is acting like they are representing KDE as a whole. "Should we". He didn't preface by saying "IMHO" or "These are my views and I'd like your opinion"

The blog author is asking the community [KDE] a question, not acting as if his opinion represents the community. He's talking to me and my fellow developers, via an open letter. KDE is a much looser community than you may be used to seeing within open source projects. You seem to be projecting to see an alpha dev who's looking back at his friends saying "What should we do with this one?" with a grin on his face and a…

an opinion is never implicitly a persons own unless they state that it is. We have no idea who he is speaking for and he doesn't say at all.

He also doesn't state he is asking the community the question.

One can NEVER assume. You know what happens when one assumes, right?

Post reply on HN