'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case 466
Here's John Leyden's story at the Register about the ruling.
LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."
An anonymous reader writes with some background (or do a search on Slashdot for DeCSS ;)): "Read the DVD-Jon lawsuit story here and here" and notes that "'the prosecution decided to charge Johansen with a data break-in, rather than handle the matter as a copyright case.' The court said that DeCSS could be used both legally and illegally and referred to similar cases outside the computing industry. The court said it was difficult to conclude on Johansen's intentions with DeCSS, but there was no conclusive evidence."
Hip Hip . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hip Hip . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
this could make me to believe in justice again
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:4, Informative)
Peace,
Chuck
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:2, Insightful)
If Norway laws cet updated acording to the EUCD, and you have broken the EUCD before it was working in Norway, you will of course get judged by former Norwegian laws, not any new laws.
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:5, Informative)
Norway does not have to implement any EU directives whatsoever. Why? Because they are not a member of the EU
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry that I have to tell you this, but Norway's deal with EU through the EEC deal force Norway to implement a lot of EU directives - including the EUCD.
The Norwegian Department of Culture is expected to release a law proposal in february. If you want to do something about it, join Electronic Frontier Norway. [www.efn.no]
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:3, Informative)
They might implement it (in this case, I don't see why they should), but they certainly don't have to by any treaty.
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:4, Insightful)
What a surprise! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, I have no idea exactly how or if the Norweigan courts rule on evidence, but in the U.S. courts, in criminal trials, it's "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there wasn't enough evidence to rule in favour of guilt, then by law, he is innocent.
Kierthos
Indeed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)
The judges (according the the Aftenpost article) went one step further than that and said there was "no evidence" to convict. This implies (to my untrained legal eye, which nonetheless is legally bound under pain of imprisonment to obey every single law in the land, every E.U. directive, and every libel law in Australia, because ignorance of the law is no excuse) that none of the evidence provided by the prosecution would lead the judges to convict Jon.
One small step forward for justice. That feels like such a hollow thing to say when thousands have disappeared from US streets to be held secretly (and legally) in internment camps.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:3, Insightful)
> One small step forward for justice. That feels
> like such a hollow thing to say when thousands
> have disappeared from US streets to be held
> secretly (and legally) in internment camps.
It's not hollow. Not to the young man who had three years of his life stolen from him because he wanted to play a DVD. Now, barring an appeal by the prosecution, he has that life back again.
Today is a victory for justice. Rejoice, and don't feel guilty about rejoicing. Without the celebration of victories, how can we possibly find the heart to continue to fight all these injustices? We would give up hope, and that would help no one.
Fight on, and don't give up hope. The great victory of Justice, Liberty, and Peace may be closer than you think.
"Lightning shines on wavey beach, and all clouds are made right:
Happiness Appears!"
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2, Informative)
Try learning something before you parrot the government propaganda you so readily lap up, you f*cking ignorant bigoted piece of sh*t.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to me that the U.S. government is doing what it wants to do and is making the rules up as it goes along. And yes -- the "media" is buying this and regurgitating just what it's being fed.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you heard this one? [charlotte.com]
"Five months later, the alleged proprietor of a small-time document mill is at the center of what appears to be the only criminal case of its kind in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks -- one in which secret evidence has been presented against the defendant. Atriss remains in jail, now on $500,000 bond -- an amount consistent with a murder charge -- but prosecutors will not say why he poses such a serious risk or give him a chance to respond."
This is going too far. Our government is pissing all over the constitution. We are *not* at war until congress makes a declaration of war, and even then, US citizens have the right to see the evidence that is being used against them. I hope every one of you dumbasses who voted for the dumbass currently in charge is happy with the dictatorship that's forming right before your eyes.
Norway (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what happened if he was american
Sklyarov anyone?
Re:Norway (Score:2)
Re:Norway (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Norway (Score:2)
Re:Norway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Norway (Score:4, Interesting)
The same should apply to the harm that the MPAA did to Johansen.
Re:Norway (Score:5, Informative)
His company was acquitted, not him. Even if they were, he still spent a certain amount of time in a US jail, away from his family. He will never receive compensation for that time.
So, it seems that the USA and Norway are not equal. Especially as I don't remember a case where Norway attempted to use it's laws against someone not even in the country.
Re:Norway (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually he did. He even testified at a New York court. See e.g. this press release [eff.org].
read the entire verdict here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:read the entire verdict here (Score:2, Informative)
That page is not the verdict, but contains a link to it.
The actual URL is http://www.domstol.no/archive/Oslotingrett/Nye%20a vgjorelser/DVD-jon.doc [domstol.no].
Don't you just hate it when official documents are made public in M$Word?
Very nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jon was prosecuted in a Norwegian court, under Norwegian law. Believe it or not, in countries like that consumers still have rights. (And judges has brains).
This won't even affect the EU version of DMCA either, since Norway isn't a member of the EU.
Re:Very nice... (Score:2)
They do?
From the /. article: "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."
Re:Very nice... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not supreme court (Score:5, Informative)
It ain't over till the fat geek burps...
Re:Not supreme court (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not supreme court (Score:2)
No double jeopardy rules? (Score:2)
Re:No double jeopardy rules? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No double jeopardy rules? (Score:2)
Re:No double jeopardy rules? (Score:4, Informative)
There is no such thing as 'double jeopardy' in Norway.
Re:Not supreme court (Score:2, Informative)
MPAA and it's lawyers have no jurisdiction in Norway (last time I checked).
It all comes down to what the NORWEGIAN prosecutors standpoint on the issue is. Somehow I seriously doubt that she will bring this any further after the wrist slap from the court saying that there was no evidence at all that he had broken any laws.
Re:Not supreme court (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to break an Norwegean law to risk being put in jail. US laws has no effect outside the US
Re:Not supreme court (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair to the person who did this, she only sued because the coffee was abnormally hot (third degree burns requiring a skin graft). McDonalds knew about the risk. She initally just wanted McDonalds to pay her medical bills. McDonalds refused.
Re:Not supreme court (Score:2)
Can't anyone get it right? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't anyone get it right? (Score:2)
No it isn't. Did you want him convicted?
I can see why you're frustrated with people getting things wrong over and over again, but overall, this could hardly get better.
Re:Can't anyone get it right? (Score:3, Informative)
Norway, Europe & The World (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though Norway is not part of the EU, I'm sure people over here will pay attention and (hopefully) it will help sink that DMCA-like abomination the EC has been mulling over for a few years now for good.
It's happening. People are starting to pay attention. With most households owning a DVD player, things like "region code" are filtering down to the masses, and people are a lot more receptive when you attempt to explain how CSS, end-to-end encryption and the DMCA affect what they can (and are allowed) to do with digital media they payed for.
And most people do not like it one bit.
Re:Norway, Europe & The World (Score:2, Informative)
Mulling?
It has already passed all the legislative stages in the EU and is now in force. All that matters now is that the member states will incorporate it into their national legislation -- something which they are obliged to do under EU law.
Re:Norway, Europe & The World (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Norway, Europe & The World (Score:5, Interesting)
Personal property (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Personal property (Score:4, Informative)
Article here [olemiss.edu], here [216.239.39.100] and here [acm.org]. (Three ways to get to the same article.)
Movie Rights.... (Score:4, Funny)
The sad thing is no one will watch it except for the underground hackers who have the skills to hack the CSS and watch it on their Linux box.
Video Tape (Score:2)
its simple
Re:Video Tape (Score:2)
I guess because you pay tax or some other fee to watch the shows, so it doesn't really matter if you watch them at the time of broadcast or later, you payed anyway, you even pay for shows you don't watch...
I did write something about that in my journal [slashdot.org]...
Re:Video Tape (Score:5, Insightful)
When the VCR was introduced, the industry DID try and prevent it from being released to the public. IIRC, Disney was also a major lobbiest in trying to get the court to believe that VCRs were evil and would drive the whole movie/television industry broke.
I believe the court case that covered "time shifting" of content was a close vote.
Re:Video Tape (Score:4, Interesting)
Hilarious! (Score:3, Insightful)
-Jack Valenti, during the Betamax controversy
You know that you've got no leg to stand on when you try to sidetrack the thought process from something as innocuous as recording television and try to spin it into something as dangerous as overtones of dominance against women, sexual assault, and premeditated murder.
Thanks Jack. Stick to Hollywood fiction. It apparently suits you well.
WRONG -- They tried to sue and lost (Score:2)
Re:Video Tape (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, I saw this all on an episode of Ally MacBeal.
Re:Video Tape (Score:2, Interesting)
The U.S. District Court (And later the Supreme Court) ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use.
Correcting errors (Score:5, Informative)
This is incorrect. We have _not_ implemented INFOSOC in our laws yet. Therefore, Jon Johansen has _not_ been found innocent under a INFOSOC-"enabled" law. We probably will have to, though, due to WIPO. :-(
Also, this was _not_ in the Norwegian equivalent of a Supreme Court. It was in one of the lowest courts. Økokrim (the ones prosecuting) has 14 days to ask for the case to processed again, in a higher court.
Re:Correcting errors (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. The INFOSOC directive is also known as the European Copyright directive. (EUCD) [ukcdr.org] The status for implementation in the different states is here [wiki.ael.be]
We probably will have to, though, due to WIPO.
The Wipo Copyright Treaty (WCT) [wipo.org] is not the main problem. If you look at article 11, the "technological measures" (DRM) need not be "protected" against circumvention if it restricts acts that are "permitted by law".
The problem is that the EU (due to intensive lobbying and lack of citizen attention) has massively overimplemented the WCT. Thus the EUCD art. 6 demands that member states forbid circumvention even for many otherwise legal purposes.
Please note that the EUCD was passed years ago, and has to be implemented in national law. (Deadline Dec 22 2002, only Denmark and Greece made it.) That is, unless somebody challenges it before the European Court for being invalid. (I hope...)
Re:Correcting errors (Score:2)
You guys don't have double jeopardy protections? In the US, if you are found not guilty, that's the end of it. They can't try again. If you are found guilty, though, you can appeal.
The verdict (Score:3, Informative)
GET READY (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the first battle. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is just the first battle. (Score:2, Informative)
Not neccesarily so. As representatives from EFF Norway told on their press conference today, the EUCD/Infosoc directive leaves room for interpretation, and a very loose version of the law could very well be implemented. Also, see this page [www.ivir.nl].
Re:This is just the first battle. (Score:2)
You're talking about the Wipo Copyright Treaty (WCT) [wipo.org] If you look at article 11, the "technological measures" (DRM) need not be "protected" against circumvention if it restricts acts that are "permitted by law".
The main problem is still the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) [ukcdr.org] I don't know how strongly Norway is bound by that. (Norways is not member of the EU, but is in the EEC)
Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
Infosoc (Score:5, Informative)
Norway is not part of the EU, but still takes most new EU-laws and directives and implements them into their own law. The irony of them implementing the Infosoc-directive (Euro-DMCA) mentioned above is that they're almost the only ones doing it [slashdot.org]. So far, only Denmark (*sigh*) and Greece has implemented the directive.
Let's hope that he asks damages (Score:2, Insightful)
Paai
Re:Let's hope that he asks damages (Score:5, Informative)
not really a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not really a victory (Score:4, Funny)
Not the supreme court (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone who actually read the Aftenposten article [aftenposten.no] will of course know this already.
Also see the articles on CNN [cnn.com] and The Register [theregister.co.uk].
Participate in the CNN Quick Vote! (Score:2, Interesting)
Can they appeal (Score:2)
It IS a victory, only a partial one (Score:2, Insightful)
TO DO:
- extend this ruling to the rest of the world
- state that it is legal to bypass copy-protections to make copies allowed under fair use rights
2600? (Score:2, Insightful)
Victory (Score:5, Interesting)
Score one for the good guys. This counts as a big win for Linux users, as we now have a case to cite. While that might not mean much here in the United States, it is a shininhg example that not all circumvention software is intended for use in pirating.
It also marks a major slap in the face for the MPAA, who needs one at the moment. They've been throwing their weight around too much the last few years, and it's about time they got put in their place. Now, all we need is a similar precident here in the US, and our rights to do what we want (privately, of course) with things that we buy will be ever the slightest bit safer.
I happen to have the DeCSS code (and no, I won't send it along, so don't ask). I haven't compiled it yet. I kept it around in the event that my DVD ROM would go to hell (which it did), so that I could boot into Linux and simply watch my DVDs. I wasn't going to rip them, burn them and ship them off to my friends. I was just going to watch them. Now, I happened upon a DVD player for free, so I really don't need it at the moment. It's just nice to have around, just in case.
Slight error in the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the finding of the court it is unlikely that the prosecution will use their oportunity for appeal, firstly to the local circuit court, and from there into the supreme court.
Other stories... (Score:4, Informative)
CNN Europe [cnn.com]
Neowin(Netherlands) [neowin.net]
ABC News [go.com]
Google News [google.com]
History of DVD Jon:
DeCSS show trial opens in Oslo [theregister.co.uk]
The Register, UK - 10 Dec 2002
for his role in creating and distributing the DVD cracking DeCSS
AllegedDeCSS hacker faces two years [zdnet.co.uk]
ZDNet.co.uk, UK - 10 Dec 2002
utility that unwraps the copy protection found on DVDs, known as Content
No jail time sought for teen in Norway DeCSS trial [itworld.com]
IT World - 17 Dec 2002
In closing arguments Monday, prosecutors called for Jon Lech Johansen, the 19-year
old Norwegian charged with using and distributing DeCSS, a program that can
Prosecutors: Confiscate DeCSS hacker's computers [hollywoodreporter.com]
Hollywood Reporter, CA - 16 Dec 2002
owned on his Linux-based computer, for which DVD software had not yet been
DECSS AUTHOR JON JOHANSEN PLEADS INNOCENT TO COMPUTER BREAK-IN
2600 News - 09 Dec 2002
Jon Johansen, author of the DeCSS computer program which removes the encryption
from DVD video discs, has pleaded innocent in a Norwegian courtroom to
Stories on DeCSS in the US:
Supreme Court won't hear DeCSS case [com.com]
ZDNet.com - 06 Jan 2003
utility by a court order, but he could be sued again if he decides to
Supreme Court Withdraws Stay in DVD Encryption Case [internet.com] - InternetNews.com
US court lifts order in DVD decryption case [out-law.com] - Out-Law.com
Update To Pavlovich DeCSS case; Stay Lifted [slashdot.org] - Slashdot
Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do... (Score:4, Insightful)
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Laws that say "I bought it, I own it, it's MINE."
More and more, corporations are attempting to retain control of their products after consumers have purchased them. This is not only unfair to consumers, it is profoundly contrary to the American tradition of property ownership.
(And, yes, I understand the distinction between "purchasing" and "licensing." I object to the imposition of legal fictions that assumes "licensing" in situations where the commonsense reality is that the transaction is a purchase).
Re:Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do.. (Score:5, Interesting)
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit. "the last thing we need is a legal ruling making it official and unambiguously legal".
He also mentioned that in most other countries this would not be the case, but that "the US has one of the strongest personal property laws out there".
Re:Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not very likely. Although whether one is profiting from copying does have some bearing on whether copying falls into the "fair use" exception to copyright, it is not the only thing considered. Copying entire books and selling them is almost certainly not fair use and thus illegal (if the book is copyrighted and you do not have permission of the copyright owner) even if you do not profit from it.
There could be a number of other reasons why the publisher doesn't sue--most likely, because someone making and selling a handful of copies doesn't dent the publisher's profits enough to make it worth the cost of sending lawyers after the person doing the copying. If some organization were making and selling thousands of unauthorized copies--even if they were doing it without profit--you can bet the legitimate publisher would go after them, and the publisher would win, too.
Also, keep in mind that unlike trademarks, copyrights can be selectively enforced without diluting the copyright--if they choose not to prosecute some copyright violations, it does not affect their copyright.
IANAIPLBIDWWTOARB. (I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I do work with them on a regular basis.)
Re:Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me weird, but I'll take the publisher's executive word over you comments, in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary....
Overturning-the-EUCD-HOWTO (Score:5, Interesting)
The EUCD has been passed. This means that the member states must implement it in their national legislation. They should have done so by Dec 22 '02 but only Denmark and Greece made it. Status reports here. [wiki.ael.be] Norway's not a member of the EU.
The EUCD can be overturned in two ways:
1. In the European Court.
This means that somebody challenges the directive for being invalid under the EU treaty. It could be. [www.ivir.nl]
It's hard to get a case before the European Court, so this would probably need backing by one of the member states. This is being looked into, but it's not easy.
2. Through normal legislative process.
The EUCD article 12(1) [ukcdr.org] states that "Not later than 22 December 2004" the Commission shall report on the application of the directive. Regarding article 6 (The bad one) "it shall examine in particular whether that Article confers a sufficient level of protection and whether acts which are permitted by law are being adversely affected by the use of effective technological measures [DRM]. Where necessary, in particular to ensure the functioning of the internal market
We definitely do intend to influence that report and have article 6 amended, but the entertainment industry is doing the same, so this isn't easy either.
On the other hand the directive was forged with very little public attention to article 6, so nearly all attention on the case would be in our favour.
Re:Overturning-the-EUCD-HOWTO (Score:4, Insightful)
But we have no influence on EU law, and can't vote for representaties which may influence the process. It's stupid, but that's what you get with a EU-ignorant population and a referendum.
Read-only laws, we have no write permission. Activists which are EU citizens will have to try to change the EUCD for us, through their elected representatives.
If a thief farts and noones there.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If a thief farts and noones there.... (Score:3, Funny)
That way, they'd never file a report, and you'd have to buy your CD collection all over again.
No thanks.
The Axis of Evil is expanding (Score:4, Funny)
Now Norway.
Is Massachusetts next? This is scary.
More on the verdict (Score:3, Interesting)
First two comments.
* The verdict can be appealed to "Lagmannsretten" (one step below Supreme Court) within two weeks. No statements yet in Norwegian media whether they will do that, but at least one legal expert "guessed" that they will not. The prosecutor (ØkoKrim - "Economical Chrime") will decide if they shall appeal, not MPAA!
* Norway have not yet implemented the European Unions directive on copyright, but they will probably do it soon.
Here is what I found interesting and amusing:
The law they used is mainly about "breaking in" og "gaining access" to "stuff" that is not yours and that is protected. The original law is very old, but was changed (about 20 years ago?) to include digital information.
Tha court mainly states that you cannot be convicted for breaking into something that is yours. (If you choose to break into your own car that is your prioblem, not the courts).
It also states that the methods used for breaking into something (it specifically addresses "reverse engineering"-techics") isnt unlawful in themselves. They are just unlawful if you are not entitled to the information the protection is protecting.
The next issue was that the keys themselves could be looked at as the information that was protected (not the content of the DVD). This is slightly more tricky, but firstly the judge said that the first key was not protected at all (this is clearly not breaking into anythin). Then she said that since the "real data" here is the movie, and that since he has the right to look at the movie, gaining access to the keys that protected this infomation could be not be regarding as unlawful.
The last point was whether the reason wasnt looking at the DVD, but to illegally copy DVDs. Several examples for "real life" was used here. It seems clear that you cannot the held accountable (in Norwegian law) if you sell/distribute goods with an legal appliance, even if it is used illegally. (If you sell an axe, you are not responsible if someone uses the axe for murder). There is however legal precedence stating if you know that the intent is clearly illegal, you can be hold accountable, even if the goods in themself is lega. The judge used an example from Supreme Court where a person was convicted for selling equipment for destilling alcohol. He was clearly aware that it was used for illegal purposed, but claimed that each part for legal to sell.
This means that if Johansen distributed/sold/developed deCSS when he knew that the main reason for this was to illegally copy DVDs, he could be convicted for that. Johansen claimed that his main reason was developing a Linux DVD player.
The judge referred several IRC-logs, where Johansen made statements like "Linux sucks", "I wish that all Linux fanatics would be shot" and "FreeBSD rulez" (and an e-mail where he states that Linux is a very good OS, but FreeBSD is better). (Several in the courtroom started to laugh at this time, and the judge had to tell them to be silent). She also mentioned that he didnt have Linux installed at at the time, and that the only thing he developed was a GUI for Windows. However, the court did not find it proved - beyond reasonable doubt - the Johansens main reason was to develop programs that could be used illegally. He terefore falls in the same category as thos selling/distributing goods that can both be used legally and illegally.
And as you all know: not guilty.
Re:Civil damage recovery? (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, he never did anything but write a GUI.
Second, he did everything in his power to get his face on TV and his name in the newspapers, bragging about having accomplished the feat, pretending to be a young genius, etc, etc; it took many months before he finally admitted to not being responsible for the actual DeCSS-code.
Third, he has gotten quite a fine reputation now; half this country believe him to be the genius he pretended to be, and there is no shortage of companies wishing to hire him, despite the fact that his reputation is based on lies.
Oh well.
Re:could... (Score:2)
No sovereign nation would accept that sort of behaviour from another, especially not an ally. So whilst yes, the US government could have him kidnapped, it would be an astoundingly foolish thing to do, and almost certainly against international law.
True, the US is far more powerful than Norway, but assumning that Norway is a member of the EU (I confess to forgetting exactly what countries are and are not), the EU would probably be bound to assist them. Trade relations between the EU and the US aren't exactly wonderful at the moment, and the EU is big enough that the US couldn't simply ignore it.
As you are aware, the US government is currently very keen to keep other countries at least tolerant of their stance against Iraq; the last thing it would want to do is turn its allies against itself. Politics, like most things, is all about give and take - "I'll support you in this, if you support me in that". Kidnapping Jon would not help their cause in other, more immediately important areas.
Bottom line - yes, they could, but no, they won't.
Norway is not a member of the EU (Score:3, Informative)
Norway is a member of Nato. Nato [nato.int]
Re:could... (Score:2)
Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had actually read the Register story [theregister.co.uk] you would have noticed that "It's best to see this as a delay -rather than a derailment - of the controversial measures"
The EUCD must still be implemented. Theoretically the member states who have not implemented this could be sued under the EU treaty (by the commission?) but since we are talking about all but two members this is not likely.
Hope still (Score:2)
There's hope still
Re:Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
As for that quote, it was something Jon uttered after having been seriously flamed for having stolen Fawkus code, which Fawkus later said he had not.