Archive for the ‘Legal Proceedings’ Category

W3.org Censored in Finland

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

The web site of W3C, w3.org or w3c.org, was briefly censored (Google Translation) by at least some of the local ISPs. For an unknown reason the URL was mistakenly entered into the Federal Police’s censor database. Some of the Finnish ISPs use the database to filter out questionable content such as child pornography. The censor database is itself already highly questionable and largely ineffective, as online activist Matti Nikki writes:

For example a document that goes by the name “Railaksen Selvitys” and dated 2005-12-16 lists several critical problems and unanswered questions regarding the censorship. These problems are listed in the very beginning of the document and include things like effectiveness of the filtering solutions, the problem of collateral damage when censorship affects more material than it should, freedom of speech, what kind of crimes the censorship should exactly target, etc. Most of these went unanswered and the problems are seen with the current implementation of the censorship. Some of the issues were only addressed partially, for example the freedom of speech regarding reception of illegal material was touched but the police has now been found censoring even sites that do not contain illegal material themselves. What is being practiced now isn’t what was planned.

This isn’t the first time that a site has been wrongly blocked; at least for a period in the past the Lapsiporno.info site protesting against the filtering, maintained by Matti Nikki, was blocked. (NB. ‘Lapsiporno’ is ‘child pornography’ in Finnish, but the Lapsiporno.info site has nothing to do with pornography, or indeed any other sordid materials)

Tietokone (Google Translation)

Google on Chrome EULA controversy

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

As noted on this site, and many others, the Google Chrome EULA is nothing short of preposterous. Among other things it gives Google a “perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and nonexclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, [Google’s products, software, services and web sites.]”

Now Ars Technica tells us that Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome, Rebecca Ward has commented on the controversial EULA. She told Ars Technica:

[Google] tries to reuse these licenses as much as possible, “in order to keep things simple for our users.” Ward admits that sometimes “this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product” and says that Google is “working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

Ars Technica also notes that the EULA, as it stands, is unenforcable due to the BSD license under which Google Chrome is published.

Users could simply download the source code, compile it themselves, and use it without having to agree to Google’s EULA. The terms of the BSD license under which the source code is distributed are highly permissive and impose virtually no conditions or requirements on end users.


Ars Technica

Recap: 7 Stories I missed this week

Friday, August 29th, 2008

Once again apologies for the pause in posts, it’s been a busy week.  Here, to compensate, are seven interesting stories I didn’t have time to post about during this week.

Court: violating copyleft = copyright infringement

Thursday, August 14th, 2008

Ars Technica explains this a lot better than I can, so have a read over there.

A federal appeals court held Wednesday that copying free software without complying with its license is copyright infringement. The ruling, which will make such licenses much easier to enforce, is a key victory for the free software community.

Ars Technica

Judge Orders SCO to pay Novell over $2.5 million

Thursday, July 17th, 2008

Judge Kimball has finally ruled in the SCO vs. Novell case.

In his trial ruling, Judge Kimball decided that SCO owes Novell $2,547,817 for agreeing to unilaterally amend Sun’s SVRX licence.

He also ruled that SCO did not have the right to enter into its SVRX licencing agreement with Sun without Novell’s prior consent.

ISO Recommends Denying OOXML Appeals

Sunday, July 13th, 2008

ISO has responded to the appeal launched against OOXML standardisation.  In essence ISO says that there is no grounds for appeal and that the process was just fine and dandy.

  1. All judgments made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the Directives
  2. The fact that the BRM voted on all proposed resolutions in some fashion satisfies the Directives
  3. The fact that a sufficient percentage of National Bodies (NBs) ultimately voted to approve DIS 29500 ratifies the process and any flaws in that process
  4. Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process

Groklaw & ConsortiumInfo.org [via Slashdot]

Linux felon forced to install Windows

Monday, June 30th, 2008

“A Linux user who was jailed for uploading a film onto a peer-to-peer service has been told he will have to switch to Windows if he wants to use a computer again. ”

Does this count as cruel and unusual punishment?

CNet

Venezuela joins OOXML opposition

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

Document logoI missed this last week, Venezuala has joined Brazil, South Africa and India in the opposition of OOXML.

Although the deadline for appealing the March 29 decision was to be within two months, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) have reportedly accepted Venezuela’s appeal despite the fact that it was made after that time.

Denmark has also filed an appeal with the ISO, according to Computerworld Denmark, but that report could not be confirmed.

Linux Insider [via Tectonic]

Denmark Protests OOXML

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Document logoDespite the deadline for appeals having already lapsed, Denmark has become the fourth country (after South Africa, Brazil and India) to appeal the OOXML decision.  The reasons cited include that ISO rules were broken, there was no consensus in Denmark, and that the Fast Track process “has been formally annulled for 2 months now – since the 29th of March, where the specification should have been sent to the national standardization organizations. The basis for a fast track procedure is no longer present, and I therefore expect ISO to pick up the case again.”

This article seems to be raising a serious question. If there is no final draft yet, and for unknown reasons there isn’t, and if Microsoft itself is not supporting OOXML yet, and it says it isn’t, how is true interoperability possible? This couldn’t be a deliberate delay game, could it? I hate to think that, but I confess this article has started me thinking in a brand new way about the delay in delivering the final draft. And since currently Microsoft isn’t supporting ODF, only promising to do so someday, where does that leave interoperability? Finally, since ODF 1.1, as I understand it, has issues with spreadsheets and accessibility that are solved in ODF 1.2, why did Microsoft choose to support the version that works less well? Is their goal really interoperability or just the appearance of a willingness to do it someday?

Groklaw has the full story, and more analysis…

Groklaw [via Slashdot]

India Also Appeals OOXML

Friday, May 30th, 2008

It seems that in addition to South Africa and Brazil, India is also launching its own appeal against the standardisation of OOXML.  Looks like Microsoft is going to have a tougher time pushing OOXML through ISO than it previously thought…

The Indian appeal was not filed according to official procedure, but will be considered nonetheless.

“By the deadline last night, we had received three appeals, from Brazil, India and South Africa,” said Jonathan Buck, spokesman for IEC.

“The Indian appeal was not lodged in the correct procedure it was not send to the CEOs of the two organizations but nonetheless it has been received,” Buck said, adding that it will be treated in the same way as the Brazilian and South African appeals.

The New York Times


Bad Behavior has blocked 355 access attempts in the last 7 days.