[05:10] <cxo> Trying to do some research on canadian copyright law and software licensing. Want to confirm that software licenses are invalid as part of contract law in Canada.
[05:15] <hypatia> cxo: "software licenses" as in "gpl/bsd" or as in eulas?
[05:15] <hypatia> i've never heard of either being blanketly invalid in canada, either way
[05:16] <cxo> well EULAs are just proprietary software licenses, so both i guess
[05:17] <hypatia> not exactly - eula's cover the binary; source code in proprietary software is just under regular copyright
[05:17] <hypatia> whereas Free licenses cover both binary and code
[05:17] <hypatia> with the same license
[05:17] <hypatia> but yeah, i've never heard of any of them being invalid under canadian contract law
[05:17] <hypatia> any idea where you heard that, cxo ?
[05:18] <cxo> That's the conclusion I've come to after reading the Canadian Copyright Act (C41) and Contract Law
[05:19] <cxo> GPL and friends, grant the user permissions that are usually only restricted to the copyright owner,  so that would be OK in sense that it doesnt try and take away constitutional rights given by the Copyright Act. But things like the EULA start imposing things that the Copyright Act explicitly gives you permission to do
[05:19] <cxo> rather, most EULAs
[05:20] <hypatia> there's a difference between certain provisions of a EULA being unenforceable vs. them being "invalid as part of contract law"
[05:20] <hypatia> see also "blue pencilling"
[05:21] <hypatia> http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg00669.html from debian-legal says GPL is likely enforceable in canada
[05:21] <hypatia> i'm sure portions of EULAs would also be invalid in the US and elsewhere
[05:22] <hypatia> the right of first sale, for example
[05:24] <cxo> well the GPL is enforceable because it is basically just transferring rights from owner to user. But not all software  licenses do that. Once you start telling people what they can't do, it becomes illegal, if the Copyright Act says otherwise. Thats why I see most software licenses not being enforceable in Canada
[05:24] <hypatia> you get the idea of blue pencilling, though, right?
[05:25] <hypatia> and i'm not sure that EULAs would fall under the purview of the Copyright act rather than just general contract law
[05:25] <hypatia> what specific part of contract law do you think renders EULAs invalid?
[05:25] <cxo> (can't seem to find a good definition of blue penciling)
[05:28] <cxo> It isn't contract law per se, as in, contract law is just between two people/entities and is enforceable. But the point that it is only enforceable if it is not contradictory to existing law and in this case the Copyright Act
[05:30] <hypatia> i'm not sure the copyright act applies over a regular contract, though
[05:31] <hypatia> blue pencilling is basically "editing down" portions of a contract which are unreasonable or contrary to law
[05:31] <hypatia> so like "we asked for this, but this is what's actually allowed under the law"
[05:32] <cxo> oh ok, i get that, yes i suppose thats fine.
[05:32] <hypatia> it's not really a question of fine or not, it's how the law works :)
[05:33] <cxo> no what i meant is, I understood that and in agreement to how the law works
[05:33] <hypatia> ah gotcha :)
[05:34] <cxo> Thus the EULA/license is always valid and only parts are invalidated on a point-by-point basis by federal or provincial law
[05:35] <hypatia> well, it would vary case by case
[05:35] <hypatia> it's certainly possible that the whole EULA would be overbroad
[05:35] <hypatia> and get thrown out
[05:35] <cxo> yes
[05:35] <hypatia> but blue-pencilling it down is more likely
[05:35] <hypatia> unless it's really egregious / obvious
[05:37] <cxo> Canadian copyright act does not make any mention of software. There is a C-32 on the table to modernize it but not sure if it will get passed
[05:37] <hypatia> doesn't matter if it's mentioned in the current law
[05:37] <hypatia> contract and common law still apply
[05:40] <cxo> Yes, I don't doubt that. I think my wording was poor when I asked that.
[05:41] <hypatia> cxo: law is all about being pedantic, apologies if it seemed like i was picking at your words :)
[05:41]  * hypatia was raised by a feral pack of lawyers
[05:41] <cxo> The very nature of most EULAs is to restrict usage. eg. Take this business of reverse engineering. Its one of those things that is on most proprietary software licenses or EULAs
[05:42] <cxo> Since we dont have a DMCA or an equivalent, how would that be dealt with in Canada
[05:43] <cxo> (pulls up the popular microsoft eula to look for some examples)
[05:44] <cxo> "You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation." Now in Canada, there is nothing about _explicitly_ permitting or prohibiting reverse engineering
[05:44] <cxo> (sorry that exert was from the Microsoft Windows EULA)
[05:46] <hypatia> right, which is why MS would have to take you to /civil/, not criminal, court if you RE'd their product
[05:47] <cxo> I suppose it will then come down to what your intent was and not the act of RE
[05:47] <hypatia> likely, yes
[05:50] <cxo> Are you following this business of Blizzard and the Battle Net 2.0 RE case
[05:50] <hypatia> nope
[05:50] <hypatia> got a link handy?
[05:53] <cxo> not the legal docs but here is a little blurb, http://au.gamespot.com/news/6282171.html
[05:54] <cxo> This stuff is so completely alien to Canadian law it was be quite comical to see this go down in a Canadian court
[05:54] <cxo> s/was/would
[05:54] <hypatia> it never would, because the DMCA offers so much more traction
[05:55] <hypatia> that's why most of the interesting RE work happens in europe
[05:56] <cxo> Yeah, i've noticed that. But why not Canada
[05:57] <cxo> "When users of the Hacks download, install, and use the Hacks, they copy StarCraft II copyrighted content into their computer's RAM in excess of the scope of their limited license, as set forth in the EULA and ToU, and create derivative works of StarCraft II."  </gamespot article>
[05:59] <hypatia> cxo: not sure why not canada.  lots of crypto work is done here, though (see: openssl, openssh, openswan)
[06:01] <cxo> And with the advent of the Internet. Would you be breaking the US law, if you an American were to do anything prohibited by the DMCA online on a server in Canada/Europe
[06:02] <cxo> ... physically being in the US and "virtually" acting in another country
[06:05] <hypatia> cxo: non-americans who "violate" the dmca have been arrested in the past when they set foot in the US
[06:05] <hypatia> see the Dimitri Skylarov case
[06:05] <hypatia> even when the violation happened outside the US
[06:05] <hypatia> it's scary shit
[06:05] <hypatia> that's why the iphone dev team folks conceal their identities
[06:06] <cxo> Yes it is scary. These provisions were intended to protect the weak. Now its being used to attack the weak.
[06:07] <hypatia> well, they are being used to attack the strong, too
[06:07] <hypatia> cf. patent trolling
[06:07] <hypatia> nothing weak about RIM and MS, and they get patent trolled all the time
[06:08] <cxo> Software Patents dont exist in Canada right?
[06:08] <cxo> As far as I know the US is the only place you can patent software
[06:11] <hypatia> i don't think either of those statements are correct
[06:11] <hypatia> just because there's no specific legislation saying you /can/ patent sw, doesn't mean you can't just go ahead and do it
[06:12] <cxo> and i dont think you can patent an algorithm either, "    "No patent shall issue for ... any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem."
[06:15] <cxo> see the last paragraph, http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr01090.html#sec8
[06:16] <cxo> Need to find a definition of "invention" as per the Canadian IP law
[06:18] <cxo> Invention= "process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter"
[06:21] <cxo> see chapter 2, http://www.jurisdiction.com/itpatents.pdf
[06:22] <hypatia> interesting
[06:22] <hypatia> it'd also be interesting to just look for existing .ca software patents
[06:22] <hypatia> that'll tell you how it's being interpreted :)
[06:22] <hypatia> and software patents don't typically just include "abstract theorems" so that doesn't really apply
[06:25] <cxo> yes, as long as it actually does something, then it gets closer to being allowed
[06:26] <cxo> go to page 18 of that doc
[06:27] <cxo> "software that has been integrated with statutory subject matter may be patentable. For a method to qualify as statutory subject matter, it must involve a physical act upon a physical object producing a physical change in character or condition, and ii) produce an essentially economic result relating to trade, industry, or commerce."
[06:28] <cxo> "essential economic result" haha
[06:28] <cxo> (and the lawyers go wild)
[08:00]  * KombuchaKip mumbles to himself that he will make the first public announcement regarding Avaneya shortly and, for those who are not on it, but interested, recommends you get on the mailing list (www.avaneya.com).
[08:05] <cxo> Why is that?
[08:27] <KombuchaKip> cxo: Why do I mumble to myself or why am I making a public announcement?
[08:27] <KombuchaKip> cxo: If the former, I'm probably going senile prematurely.
[08:28] <cxo> I know why you were mumbling. But not what you were mumbling about.
[08:30] <KombuchaKip> cxo: There is a mailing list for the game that I am going to announce via. There's a lot of folks from ubuntu-ca that have been tracking the project, hence the mentioning it here.
[08:31] <cxo> What kind of game is it? Got any youtube footage?
[08:33] <KombuchaKip> cxo: Sorry man, it's late and I need to hit the sack. Take a look at website and faq on www.avaneya.com Good night.
[15:59] <benasp> Hi, I have a little question I run Office 2007 on wine and even though I installer MS font, the font displayed arn't quite right. When I compare what I see in wine and in virtualbox running the same file the font are different. Someone have an idea ? thank a lot
[16:06] <hypatia> benasp: did you install the ms fonts for wine or for ubuntu?
[16:07] <hypatia> benasp: i expect wine has its own font path
[16:07] <benasp> I installed corefonts via winetrick
[16:09]  * hypatia uses crossover for ms office, sooooo worth the $40 :)
[19:21] <cxo> apt-get install ttf-mscorefonts-installer
[21:39] <hiko_hitokiri> Good afternoon
[21:42] <BobJonkman> Hello hiko_hitokiri !
[21:42] <hiko_hitokiri> hi! BobJonkman
[21:43] <BobJonkman> Here for the Ubuntu IRC chat in a few hours?
[21:45] <hiko_hitokiri> yes
[21:47] <hypatia> oh right!
[21:47] <hypatia> thanks for the reminder, BobJonkman :D
[21:48] <BobJonkman> Said Mahatma:  I must go, for they are leaving and I am their leader
[22:14] <dscassel> woo, meeting!
[22:14] <dscassel> (not yet, of course)
[22:51] <alexbh> hi, can sombody help me ... i have a question about my RAM
[22:55] <hypatia> alexbh: ask away :)
[22:55] <hypatia> and in the future, don't ask to ask, just ask
[22:55] <hypatia> saves everyone typing
[22:56] <alexbh> ko... the thing is... my RAM use is almost 50% but I m not using anything
[22:56] <cxo> How do you know its 50%?
[22:57] <hypatia> alexbh: what processes are taking it up?
[22:59] <alexbh> with "top", I get: gnome-system-moonitor, firefox
[23:01] <dscassel> alexbh: are you actually running Firefox? Are all the windows closed?
[23:02]  * dscassel noticed a pretty serious memory leak in gnome-power-manager on my desktop machine. Had to get rid of it.
[23:03] <alexbh> i killed firefox now...
[23:03] <dscassel> That helps. :)
[23:03] <alexbh> but still... it is 23%
[23:04] <dscassel> 23% of what?
[23:04] <alexbh> and now... the only thing i have is the Xchat and the system montor
[23:04] <alexbh> 23% of use of RAM
[23:04] <dscassel> Yeah, but how much RAM? Trying to figure out if it's reasonable.
[23:05] <alexbh> ahh ok .. I have 1G so... 23% = 233 MB
[23:05] <dscassel> Like, right now, I have 40% RAM in use. But I've got Firefox and Gwibber going.
[23:05] <dscassel> alexbh: Yeah, that's not unreasonable for a gnome desktop.
[23:06] <hypatia> xchat is not exactly lightweight
[23:06] <alexbh> which one to use instead?
[23:08] <hypatia> i use irssi
[23:08] <hypatia> but it's commandline :s
[23:08] <hypatia> alexbh: http://quadpoint.org/articles/irssi , if you're feeling ambitious :)
[23:08] <alexbh> ummm  i ll have a llok
[23:08] <alexbh> look
[23:09] <dscassel> Look at it this way: you RAM isn't going to do you any good if you're not using it. :)
[23:13] <alexbh_> hi.... im here again.. this time via command line.. but still 22%
[23:16] <hypatia> alexbh_: ah, so it's not xchat
[23:16] <hypatia> must just be gnome then :/
[23:17] <alexbh_> i closed xchat and now i did login wit irssi
[23:55] <BobJonkman> We're all here for the meeting, right?
[23:57] <hypatia> i am!
[23:57] <dscassel> Yup!
[23:58] <BobJonkman> Yay!
[23:58] <BobJonkman> ...and anyone who's not here for the meeting, Welcome to the meeting! (any minute now)
[23:59] <dscassel> No txwikinger again. He's been busy lately...