Is a government site considered "non-profit" MILON

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Thursday June 19 2003 - 23:32:17 BST

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-1018845.html
"Senator OK with zapping pirates' PCs"

at the bottom:
"On Wednesday, Hatch came under attack for allegedly being a copyright pirate himself. His hatch.senate.gov Web site's menus use JavaScript code created by the U.K. company Milonic Solutions. Milonic Solutions charges between $35 and $900 for the right to obtain a license number for its JavaScript menu, but Hatch's site does not include a license number. Instead, this comment appears in the site's HTML code: "i am the license for the menu (duh)." "

I just read the code on the website and it says: "The Free use of this menu is only available to Non-Profit, Educational & Personal web sites."

Has he contacted you to register? Do you consider a .gov site a non-profit? I don't know about you, but I definitely think the goverment is for profit!

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Friday June 20 2003 - 2:25:44 BST

Private company and individual penalties in the United States for the type of action Hatch has done by stealing your software is up to $250,000 fine, statutory damages of up to $150,000 or at your option real revenue losses and a possible 5 year jail term.

See http://www.bsa.org/usa/antipiracy/law/

There is also criminal penalties, see cases at http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipcases.htm where average seems to be around 2-4 years.

A US lawyer should be all over this, open and shut case, evidence even cached by google.

There are also even stricter US government rules against illegally using software, including people with government jobs automatically being fired for piracy.

Good luck, you guys shouldn't just be receiving another license, but what you deserve in past financial damages according to US law, too.

I agree

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Friday June 20 2003 - 14:14:13 BST

I agree, you should get more than just a license, this should be criminally prosecuted simply because of his statements and actions. If anyone should set the example, it should be him.

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Saturday June 21 2003 - 1:19:36 BST

The question is, when will Milonic apologise to the Senator and his web company for their false accusation of copyright infringement?


http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicinde ... /index.htm is a distribution point for the menu system and contains a similar license in the readme.txt file, with these instructions:

This permits free use of the unmodified menu system with no more than an intact copyright notice, which was present on the Hatch site, so long as commercial support is not desired.

But there’s a catch. The instructions say that you are to install mmenu.js. That file contains this:

So, the end users and installers are told one set of license terms, presumably for the whole package, but there’ a more restrictive license embedded in a file nobody is expected to look at.

The only remaining question is whether Milonic was careless in granting a broader license than they intended or whether they were doing it to deliberately entrap people into an apparent copyright infringement, in the hope that the legal people wouldn't ask the technical people to sort out the facts before paying the bill.

Either way, Milonic has some high profile apologising to do.

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Saturday June 21 2003 - 1:23:26 BST

I apologise. I neglected to include a contact address. The anonymous guest can be contacted by Milonic, the Senator and other parties with a direct interest in the matter at milonic.to.jamesd atdomain recursor.net . No others are authorised to use this email address.

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Saturday June 21 2003 - 9:34:14 BST

I hope all of you forgive me for the upcoming rant, but since this is an "anything goes" forum, and since the preceding comments by "Guest" are so clearly misinformed, I am about to let anything go.

Dear James,



The url you give is not to an archived file; it's to an active file on the honorable Senator Hatch's site. True, the archived site (in various archives) shows this file being sourced into the html, but that gives no indication what the contents of that file were when the story broke. We can only see the file's current contents. And news reports clearly indicate that the company that devlops Sen. Hatch's site added copyright notices after the story became public. Even if that file did contain copyright notices, the license terms clearly indicate that the copyright notices are to remain intact and "in place" ... "in all files"... "including the home page." I would take that to mean that the notice should appear wherever the code appears. What would be the motivation for removing the copyright notice from the code and placing it in a separate source file? People who do thay typically do so because they don't want visitors to their site to know that the cool code wasn't developed by themselves. Not very laudable.



Again, not true according to published reports.



I also take issue with your portrayal of the licensing requirements and the above statement. Granted, the three examples of licensing requirements you quote differ somewhat in content, and that probably wasn't the best approach for Milonic to take back then. However, your "presumably" comment is simply that: a presumption on your part that people wouldn't be expected to look in a particular file. I never made that presumption. And many other Milonic users also never made that presumption, as illustrated by their having followed all of the requirements for free licensing. The so-called "more restrictive" license you refer to appears not only in the mmenu.js file, but also in the menu_array.js file that accompanies the dynamicdrive.com download you reference. You seem to have overlooked that one in your cut-and-paste efforts, so here it is:



You will no doubt notice that this version is even somewhat different than the one from mmenu.js. But its difference is that it is even more specific (e.g., that the links on the user's site to the Milonic site be prominent). So, now we have two copies of the more restrictive terms of use; one in mmenu.js and one in menu_array.js. You claim that the notice in mmenu.js is "embedded in a file nobody is expected to look at." Once again, what people are expected to look at is your own presumption. I for one would never use a downloaded script on my site without at least a cursory look at the file's contents. No professional website developer would, and Sen. Hatch's site was professionally developed. I think the more reasonable presumtion is that such developers would have looked in that file. But even if they hadn't, the same sort of terms appear in menu_array.js, an essential example file that most, if not all, new users would refer to as an example to see how to configure their menu. The requirements there are very clear. OK... so you have four different versions of the terms, two of which are similar in content and more restrictive. What do you do? Choose the one that suits you best? I think reasonable people would want to make sure all possible requirements were met.

1. Place prominent links to the milonic site on the user's site. Was not done. Not even one link!

2. Keep all copyright notices intact and in place. Was not done.

3. Inform Milonic of their intent to use the menu. Was not done, according to reports.

4. Provide the user's URL. Was not done, according to reports.

The terms you skipped (from menu_array.js) also specify that "Comercial support contracts are available on request if you cannot comply with the above rules." That's a no-brainer even for beginners. If you can't or don't want to follow all of the rules for a free license, then get a commercial license. Then you don't have to put links on your site to Milonic's, etc. What's really galling here is that a commercial license for a single domain is only about 35 dollars! A pittance for such a beautifully designed script. Pay the people for their hard work!

Another issue you neglect to raise is that software designers often reserve the right to change the terms of a license, especially a free license, at any time without notice. (This is a case in point, because this whole mess has prompted Milonic to change the licensing terms for Government use.) Version 3.3.19 that you cite is from April, 2003. The license terms had long since been updated, and had been made consistent across various files. Of course, as most people realize, the best place to view updated terms for such scripts is on the developer's website. For a free license, the user had to keep all copyright notices in place, put a link to the Milonic site on every page that used the menus, inform Milonic of the intent to use the menus, and obtain a license number that was to be included in the menu code's comments (if I recall correctly, this last one was added because so many people were using the scipts without paying but also without following the rules for a free license). Again, it seems clear that the developers of Sen. Hatch's site ignored most if not all of these requirements.

All of this could have been avoided by simply paying the extremely small fee for a commercial license or by following the rules for a free license... all of the rules, as specified in all of the files a reasonable developer would have perused. The only reason not to follow some of those rules -- e.g., copyright notices, links -- would be that you don't want people to easily discover that you (the developer) didn't write the code. That's the sort of infringement on intellectual property that is supposed to be protected by copyrights; the same copyrights that Sen. Hatch so strongly wishes to protect.

I'll conclude by saying this James. Milonic does not owe anyone an apology, high profile or otherwise. They did not accuse anyone. They simply responded to questions raised by the press after someone else discovered the circumstances brough them to light. They confirmed that indeed Sen. Hatch's site appeared to be in violation of at least some of the rules governing the free use of their scripts. And that certainly appears to have been the case, no matter how you look at it, even if you don't look at the whole picture.

Kevin

oh the irony!!

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Saturday June 21 2003 - 12:15:59 BST

I agree that people should be paid for what they do. I buy all my cd's and lp's and software. I also pay for my Satellite dish (something which millions of people in this world think that illegal cards are o.k)

The irony of this event is that indirectly Sen. Hatch has fallen to his very mandate to catch those who illegally use software, music etc. I cannot blame him though for it is the web designer who is at fault. I design web sites and not one of my clients have ever been involved insomuch as looking at the source or the codes of the work done. So they would not know whether the work was being done with integrity.

But it does bring up the point that maybe customers who have their sites designed should make sure that those doing the work are doing it legally and with integrity.

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Saturday June 21 2003 - 18:26:22 BST

Kevin,

No problem with vigorous discussion, so long as we don't descend into unproductive personal attacks.

I read the content of all of the files in the distribution zip file, to ensure that I wouldn't accidentally be wrong in my statement that Milonic had made a baseless claim.



Yes, I'm aware that the js file I linked to is still live on the Senator's site. I assume that it hasn't been modified, for it is consistent with other versions of the license from around the same version number. For example, http://pub96.ezboard.com/blordsofobsidianmsgboard contains this:



That's the same as to the version on the Senator's site, asside from the asterisks replacing the word script. I conclude that the js on the site accurately reflects the state at the time the accusation of infringement was made, for it's consistent with other 3.3 versions of the license agreement.



I trust that there is a version with that requirement. It wasn't the one in use on that site. The site complied fully with the terms for the version it was using. The terms of other versions don't matter. Not that I'm keen on the way the site split the license agreement from the page, but that was permitted by that license agreement version. I'll remember not to make that mistake myself...



I don't care what the published reports, presumably reflecting the inaccurate Minonic claim, say. I care what the license Milonic granted the Senator's site says. That license conflicts with Milonic's claim and the published reports. Here's what the license says:



Simple enough. You can use it free. If you want to modify it or redistribute you must send an email and include the copyright notice. That's it. Easy to comply with and I see no indication that the Senator's site failed to comply with the license governing the version they were using.

My presumption wasn't simply presumption. It was an explicit statement in the readme file that the installation was complete at that point. I assume that the more strict license in the mmenu.js file applies if you want to use that file alone, rather than as part of the menu system package. That's the obvious effect of the outer less strict license and the inner, more strict, version.

I agree that a user of the mmenu.js or menu_array.js files alone, not governed by the overall license for the menu system, would have to comply with the more strict requirements in those files.

Personally, I agree with you and would not use a thirdy party script without examining it. It wouldn't change my view to see the licenses for the components being more strict, so long as I was comfortable with the lesser restriction for the whole package. However, our prudence isn't mandatory, however wise it is.

If Milonic doesn't like this obvious reading of its license, it's at liberty to modify the text so that the outer license matches the license on the components. The files in the version I obtained today show last modified dates of 17 April 2002 for the readme and the two js files we've been discussing, so I assume that the choices made in the license wording were deliberate, rather than a mistake in failing to update the readme to be consistent with the other files.



Yes, it's a no-brainer. If you want the commercial support you have to pay for it. That makes sense. It doesn't say that commercial use requires the license, though, only that commercial support does. That's entirely consistent with the support and use contracts of open source software: free, but you have to pay for commercial support if you don't want to accept the free support on a time available basis.



I agree that this is common practice. However, it's not retroactive, affecting versions obtained before the change. I could today ship out a thousand copies of an older version and be in full compliance with the license covering that version, so long as I followed its requirements (link, email, notice).

Now, I do agree with you that developers should be paid if they want to be. After all, I am one and I have bills to pay. But unless it is required by the license for the version in use, that's entirely voluntary. Personally, I consider it somewhat tacky that there was no license fee paid... but tacky is not the same as copyright infringement or a license breach and that's what Milonic alleged.

I am glad to see that Milonic has clarified its license terms, though. Hopefully those covered by the later license will have a clearer situation to deal with.

Today, I can obtain many versions of th Milonic menu system with differing license terms. I'd choose the one from here, with the most strict terms, only if that was necessary for a specific project. It's a cat Milonic can't fully put back in the bag, for many of the older versions encourage redistribution and that's not a license Milonic can revoke for those older versions.

Meanwhile, if Milonic finds that the license governing the actual version on the Senator's site was complied with, as appears to be the case, Milonic owes those involved an apology. And thanks for the cheap publicity.

Simply, Milonic needs to remember that there are many versions of the software out there, with differing license requirements, and that it is necessary to apply the correct terms for the version in use. That's not hard. I recently prepared a DMCA takedown notice for someone distributing an unauthorised version of a program when the current version allows free distribution. The version being sold was a hacked and expired beta covered by a different license, so it was infringing. The distribution site was taken down by the hosting company when their client didn't respond to the infringement notice. I've no problem with enforcement... when that enforcement is appropriate for the version in use.

re: this baseless, defensive attack

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Tuesday June 24 2003 - 22:40:27 BST

Just pay the $35.

High-profile, highly paid Senators looking for freebees even when the menu is offered for free should hang their heads in shame for trying to make a case against having to pay a measly $35. It's a bunch of "we're not to blame" crap. Pony up the cash and shut up.

Disgusting to say the least.

twesson2 __at__ yahoo.com

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Tuesday July 1 2003 - 0:51:51 BST

Hi James,

Didn't think I was headed toward personal attack... sorry if I gave that impression. Here's the thing... we obviously disagree on several points. That's fine. But I think some of your arguments are based on assumptions that may not be accurate, one of which is how the menu system actually works.

(1) You base much on your reading of a readme.txt file. You assume that file came from Milonic. However, none of the updates and examples I have ever downloaded from Milonic's website have ever contained a readme.txt file; it's not a standard part of the download. It may make more sense, therefore, to assume that the readme.txt file was added as instructions by the third party website distributing the scripts (e.g., dynamicdrive.com), and did not actually come from Milonic. If so, then Milonic should not be held responsible.

(2) More importantly, you seem to assume that the stricter licensing would apply only if an end user were to use menu_array.js or mmenu.js.

Here's the problem: It is impossible to use the menu system without using mmenu.js; the scripts contained within are what make the menu work. As for menu_array.js, there are only two lines of script in that file that must be present for the menu system to work; the rest is simply an example demonstrating how to set up your own menus. You'd follow the same general approach, but you would not use that file as is or you'd simply be reproducing the exact same menus on your own site. You could, of course, name those files anything you want, but the core scripts in mmenu.js would still have to be there for the menu to appear and work. So, given that a Milonic menu user has no choice but to use mmenu.js, shouldn't he or she conform to the license requirments spelled out within that file? You've indicated that he or she should. Sen. Hatch's website used (and still uses) v3.3.18 of mmenu.js, but did not follow all of the requirements for using it. (BTW: I understand that the site is now in compliance.)

I'm out of juice for this thread, but feel free to comment if you like.

Respectfully,

Kevin

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday July 1 2003 - 15:05:55 BST


However, you cannot obtain those versions from the Milonic site. Milonic has no control over what other sites distribute. The last time I looked at dynamicdrive.com they were, quite literally, 23 versions down-level! Should Milonic decide, for whatever reason, that a change in license terms is necessary that is up to them, as is whether or not those new terms apply only to the current version or to all versions published.

This code is updated on a very frequent basis for the benefit of the user. These folks work very hard to produce a high quality product, and they deserve to be paid for that effort.

Poster: Ruth
Dated: Wednesday July 23 2003 - 21:58:29 BST

When did the government become a corporation or a commercial entity? Were that the case it would cost us a heck of a lot less.

Ruth