Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion adapting requires making at least some change to fit. Yet you've expressly stated that the original software has not been modified. Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated. In the sense I'm using modified, a naked statue remains unmodified when clothing is draped over it. An artist might think differently. I would find calling such draping adapting to be a stretch of both the ordinary and the legal meaning of the work. Using a statute as a clothing rack is adopting but not adapting. Now if instead you had to twist one of the statutes arms around so that draped clothing would not fall, you've done some adapting. I don't think draping clothing over a statute creates a derivative work. Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the statute is going to support the argument. I'd want to see some case law. I won't know either until I see relevant case law. Alexander Terekhov seems to think he knows already. I think AT is on fairly solid ground when it comes to what consitutes a derivative work. His opinion seems consistent with those game console court decisions of the late 90s and early 2000s. And the literal meaning of the statute seems to support his position better than yours. Where I think he's completely out to lunch is in his interpretation of first sale. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking. I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak continues to exhibit strong symptoms of incurable cluelessness (typical among GNUtians). Well, for the sake of any possible benefit to anyone else, here's some clue: http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
David Kastrup writes: And if you think you can circumvent the reprinting permission by taking hold of a few cubic feet of actual copies, then cutting and pasting from them by a mechanical process, I very much doubt that the nominal possession of the physical copies will save you from having to obtain the copyright holders' permission for the resulting publication. I think you might get away with literally doing that without infringing the copyright[1] with actual pieces of paper. However, their is no equivalent for machine-readable media (except perhaps paper tape or punched cards). It's also so impractical as to be moot. [1] There might be a problem with the exclusive right to create derivatives. There is also the problem of taking hundreds of copies when the distributor clearly intended one copy per customer, but that's not related to copyright. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 00:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The FSF is not talking about giving (or selling or whatever) your copy (read first sale), but copy distribution. Under FSF's GPL-is-not-a-contract theory How is it not a theory? You don't have to click any I Agree on GNU GPL software. If you happen to find any program that forces you to click I Agree to install and use then file a bug with the developers. It's only , all copies of publicly available GPL'd works fall under copy distribution that have conditions. pursuant to the first sale because First sale immediately implies that you loose your copy on the act of giving it to someone else, either commercially or not. Giving a copy of what you have (copy distribution) is different than giving what you have (first sale). they are lawfully made and there's no contract that would restrict (impose enforceable conditions) on their distribution. Of course. There's no contract from the beginning. The GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of rights, some of them with conditions. Nothing else will give you certain rights granted by it, because the law's default is not to give them. Please stop deliberately lying. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] There's no contract from the beginning. Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up? quote This document represents the author's best effort to identify the principles of common law, Federal statutes, areas of state law (with reference to the California Civil Code), and appellate precedents that would apply to the construction of the GNU GPL in a GPL violation court proceeding. /quote Uhmm. Oh wait, I suspect you're in Europe. Go ask Welte's lawyer(s) http://www.ifross.de and/or http://www.jbb.de) why the GPL is a contract in the EU civil law countries too. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.ifross.de and/or http://www.jbb.de) why the GPL is a http://oss.fh-coburg.de/events/OSSIE04/schulz_contractional_relationships.pdf (Contractual Relationships in Open Source Structures, Carsten Schulz, JBB Rechtsanwälte, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up? Stop distorting intentionally everything people write. Well, did you already read that Edwards article? What exactly did I distort? Start on quoting original. [... the GPL is not a contract ...] http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 13:27 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up? Stop distorting intentionally everything people write. Well, did you already read that Edwards article? What exactly did I distort? Start on quoting original. [... the GPL is not a contract ...] http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] You continue to make gratuitous insults and absurd information. Nothing in there contradicts me. In fact, it contradicts you: the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. ^ So you can do whatever with _YOUR_COPY_ but you still can't redistribute copies of it. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. ^ So you can do whatever with _YOUR_COPY_ but you still can't redistribute copies of it. Downloads aside for a moment, the GPL permits reproduction, Under conditions. and, under the idiotic not-a-contract theory, it just can't compel me to relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the copyright law (17 USC 109) being the owner of all those NEW particular copies that I've lawfully made: Uh, you had no lawful right to make those particular copies: you had only _conditional_ rights granted by the GPL. I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. But you could not create them in the first place without the authority of the copyright owner. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's no copyright infringement and there's no contract violation (no contract says FSF). That's it. If you fetch 20 copies of some GPl'ed software, you can give away _those_ 20 copies in the manner you wish. But for each and every one of those you do so, you have to decrement the counter. Give one, you keep 19. Until you get to 0. But if you have one copy, and you distribute copies of it, you're making a copyright violation. In the earlier case, you may still be sued (and reading the history of your posts here would give a quite interesting character report) for trying to work around copyright law, so maybe still liable. But that's hypothetical. All you say is simply laughable, if it didn't smell of bad intention. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's no copyright infringement and there's no contract violation (no contract says FSF). That's it. If you fetch 20 copies of some GPl'ed software, you can give away _those_ 20 copies in the manner you wish. Where fetch means lawfully acquire. Something like buying a copy. Or having gained explicit permission to make such a copy. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. ^ So you can do whatever with _YOUR_COPY_ but you still can't redistribute copies of it. Downloads aside for a moment, the GPL permits reproduction, and, under the idiotic not-a-contract theory, it just can't compel me to relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the copyright law (17 USC 109) being the owner of all those NEW particular copies that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's no copyright infringement and there's no contract violation (no contract says FSF). That's it. I hear that GNUtian dak seems to confuse the copyright law (which establishes property rights subject to limitations under 17 USC 109, 117, etc.) with the contract law that is used to enforce licensee's promises by licensors of copyright IP. Well, regarding the GPL, GNUtian Moglen says that there aren't any promises at all to be enforced. http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] And I *really like* it. regards, alexander. P.S. quote source=http://www.nswscl.org.au/journal/49/Giles.html 3 The licensee's promises A licensee has the following possible obligations under the GPL: 3.1 Limits on distribution to put appropriate notices and terms on distributed copies of the program (GPL clause 1); to place prominent notices on modified files stating the existence and date of any modifications (GPL clause 2(a)); to license derivative works as a whole with no charge to any licensees (GPL clause 2(b)); to display a notice of terms on derivative interactive programs when distributed (GPL clause 2c); to include the source code in any distributed copies (GPL clause 3); not to distribute except as provided (GPL clause 4); 3.2 Legal rights abandoned to give up rights to sue for implied warranties (GPL clause 11); and to give up rights to sue for tortious claims (GPL clause 12). /quote ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 16:46 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: If you mean the omission of the rest of Moglens gospel... well, The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, Objection. I have permission (unilateral grant) to reproduce. ... under certain conditions. in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, Copies are lawfully made pursuant to the GPL's unilateral grant to reproduce. ... under certain conditions. in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. No. You must show that copies are not lawfully made. If they don't follow the copy conditions, they are unauthorized. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution I accept plaintiff's position that the GPL conveys valid *unilateral* grant to reproduce. ... under certain conditions. You're a robot troll, answering again and again as if reacting to certain string tokens with the same logic-void arguments. Regards. -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 17:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract: You're a joke. Now you try to drag everyone who reads you into a circular argument. I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of certain rights. One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES, MODIFIED OR NOT. ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS. But you're nothing but a broken robot. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract: http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html quote author=Moglen The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor. /quote Distribution is done under 17 USC 109, not GPL. I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak still can't grasp the difference between *unilateral* stuff and contractual agreements in exchange of promises. The promise to relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the copyright law (17 USC 109), and distribute only as mandated by the licensor, is a (imaginary or not) consideration (AFAICS missed by Ben Giles), but it's totally beside the point under Moglens theory in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor. Note also that idiotic Section 5 (which blatantly misstates the copyright law) is somewhat at odds with dak's ad-hoc attempt to fix moronic Moglens theory. regards, alexander. P.S. http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of certain rights. One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES, ^ 17 USC 109, stupid. MODIFIED OR NOT. Same thing (given that according to Moglen, the grant regarding derivative works is also unilateral and doesn't conclude a contract). ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS. 17 USC 117 (see also Council Directive of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, 91/250/EEC, Art. 5), my friend. But you're nothing but a broken robot. Your are incurably clueless, I'm afraid. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak Your lies about your plonking are as transparent as your lies about the GPL. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Rui writes: ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS. In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak doesn't believe that I've plonked him (he joined GNUtian ams). Hint: I working in team. And, BTW, all my plonks expire on annual basis. So don't be surprised to be re- plonked at some time in the future, GNUtians dak and ams. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rui writes: ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS. In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of. Where own means lawfully acquired in an exchange of consideration from somebody with the right to offer the software. Copyright law does not give you the right to run programs you have stolen off a truck, for example, or obtained by hacking into a server. Not even when those programs were derived from GPLed software or intended to be sold as such. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 19:02 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of certain rights. One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES, ^ 17 USC 109, stupid. You still confuse RECEIVED COPY with DISTRIBUTING COPIES, and then make absurd statements. Go read 17 USC 109. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
I wrote: In the US that is not a grant of the GPL. Copyright law explicitly gives you the right to run any program you own a copy of. David Kastrup writes: Where own means lawfully acquired in an exchange of consideration from somebody with the right to offer the software. I think you are confounding first sale with § 117. Copyright law does not give you the right to run programs you have stolen off a truck... In that case you do not own them. You merely possess them. ...or obtained by [cr]acking into a server. In that case you do own the physical copies and may have a right to run them, but when the copyright owner sues you the court will order destruction of your copies and payment of damages. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
John Hasler wrote: ... You're (almost totally) wrong, and (plonked) GNUtian dak is (mostly) right. The right to access the copyrighted content must not be confused with the incidental possession of the object that facilitates practical exercise of the right. It is access to the copyrighted material which has been parted with by the copyright owner in first sale, and it is that right of access which is alienable under the first sale doctrine, regardless of whether it is facilitated by tangible or intangible means. -- These Reply Comments are submitted on behalf of the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical Library Association and Special Libraries Association (the Libraries), in response to comments submitted pursuant to the Copyright Office's Request for Public Comment dated June 5, 2000. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] GNUtian dak is (mostly) right Gifts (in the context of this thread: accepted unilateral copyright grants) also fall under 'first sale. Sure, as long as you have proof that you were made a present of a copy without attached conditions from the respective owner of the rights. For example, if the copyright owner himself put software up with a permission for downloading _without_ specifying that the use of downloaded copies was subject to conditions. Price is irrelevant. Territorial hint: see the so called Linux-Klausel in the most recent UrhG, my dear (plonked) GNUtian dak. Sure. But the GPL is not a gift certificate. It is a licence. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court of Munich I judged that the GPL is a contract governed by the Sect. 158 of the German Civil Act (BGB) http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/158.html. I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be confusing the GPL with einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft. http://weblawg.saschakremer.de/index.php?p=24 --- Wenn eine Software unter der GPL veröffentlicht wird mag sich dies zunächst tatsächlich als einseitige Willenserklärung an eine unbestimmte Vielzahl von potentiellen Nutzern (oder Lizenznehmern) darstellen. Spätestens in dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Software von einem Nutzer aber konkret in Betrieb genommen wird, erklärt sich der Nutzer zumindest konkludent mit den aus der GPL resultierenden Lizenz- Bestimmungen einverstanden und unterwirft sich deren Bindungen (etwa was die weitere Verwendung des unter der GPL veröffentlichten Codes angeht). Eine solche Bindungswirkung kann aber nicht durch eine einseitige Willenserklärung, sondern nur durch einen - wenn auch durch Inbetriebnahme der Software möglicherweise nur konkludent geschlossenen - Vertrag begründet werden. Damit finden dann aber auch die §§ 305 ff. BGB Anwendung. [...] Das in Nr.5 der GPL festgeschriebene Selbstverständnis des Autors ist für die rechtliche Bewertung der GPL in Deutschland allenfalls ein Hilfsmittel, aber keinesfalls bindend. Vielmehr muss sich eine Erklärung nach ihrem materiellen Gehalt und nicht nach der Bezeichnung oder Zuordnung ihres Verfassers beurteilen lassen. Die Einräumung einer Lizenz (nichts anderes als eine Nutzungsvereinbarung) bedarf nicht nur eines Verpflichtungsgeschäfts (also der Abrede über die Einräumung des Nutzungsrechts), sondern auch eines Erfüllungsgeschäfts (die tatsächliche Übertragung des Nutzungsrechts). Diese Trennung ist aus dem allgemeinen Zivilrecht bestens bekannt, bei beiden handelt es sich um Rechtsgeschäfte. Das von ihnen genannte Beispiel des Preisausschreibens (als Sonderfall der Auslobung) als einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft passt für einen Vergleich mit der GPL gar nicht. Bei der Auslobung (oder dem Preisausschreiben) geht allein der Erklärende eine (schuldrechtliche) Verpflichtung ein, während der Rechtskreis des \Teilnehmenden\ nur erweitert wird, ohne auf Seiten des Angesprochenen zugleich Verpflichtungen zu begründen. Bei der GPL ist dem aber gerade nicht so: Hier sollen auch auf Seiten des Angesprochenen Verpflichtungen (etwa Software, die unter Verwendung des unter GPL stehenden Codes entstanden ist, ebenfalls unter der GPL zu veröffentlichen) begründet werden. Rechtliche Nachteile auf Seiten eines Dritten können aber (außer durch hoheitliches Handeln auf Basis einer entsprechenden Rechtsgrundlage) regelmäßig nur durch zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft begründet werden. Ihr Beispiel vermag mich daher nicht zu überzeugen. Auch im übrigen - ungeachtet der GPL - entstehen bei der Übertragung eines einfachen Nutzungsrechts auf Seiten des Nutzungsberechtigten rechtliche Beschränkungen: So kann der \einfach\ Nutzungsberechtigte Dritten nicht ein weiteres \einfaches\ Nutzungsrecht einräumen, sondern bedarf hierzu der Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers. Mag dieses auch \vorab\ durch den Rechteinhaber erklärt worden sein ändert dies nichts an der Tatsache, dass mit der Einräumung eines Nutzungsrechts eine Sonderrechtsbeziehung zwischen dem Rechteinhaber und dem Nutzungsberechtigten entsteht, die vertragliche Rechte und Pflichten auf beiden Seiten begründet. Dies alles kann nur durch zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft, also durch Vertrag geregelt werden, um etwa im Fall von Leistungsstörungen bei Fehlen entsprechender Vereinbarungen eine Lösung mittels des allgemeinen Leistungsstörungsrechts des BGB herbeiführen zu können. Im Übrigen muss der Verzicht auf den Zugang der Annahmeerklärung muss nach § 151 BGB nicht ausdrücklich erklärt werden, ausreichend ist, wenn dies nach der Verkehrssitte unterstellt werden kann - dies dürfte bei der GPL der Fall sein. Es spricht damit einiges für die Annahme eines (zumindest konkludenten) Vertragsschlusses bei der Einräumung eines Nutzungsrechts - auch unter der GPL. Letztlich könnte man auch ohne AGB zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass jedweder Haftungsausschluss in der GPL als Verstoß gegen den durch § 242 BGB normierten Grundsatz von Treu und Glauben nicht ohnehin unwirksam ist. --- regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court of Munich I judged that the GPL is a contract governed by the Sect. 158 of the German Civil Act (BGB) http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/158.html. I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be confusing the GPL with einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft. http://weblawg.saschakremer.de/index.php?p=24 I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak still seems to be confusing the GPL with einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft. Here's the Jaeger/Metzger theory that was used by the District Court of Munich: http://www.beck-shop.de/iis/produktview.html/op/4/tocID/360/prodID/252/catID/1/SessionKey/3B50E68C93D1767060AFC29E5A0DE00E/ (Jaeger / Metzger, Open Source Software, Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der Freien Software) http://www.beck-shop.de/downloads/3406484026.pdf --- A. Vertragskonstellation 1: Download von Freier Software direkt vom Urheber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 I. Der Vertragstyp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 1. Software als Vertragsgegenstand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2. Nutzungsrechte als Vertragsgegenstand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 3. Erwerb von Freier Software als Schenkung . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 a) Zuwendung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 b) Entreicherung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 c) Bereicherung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 d) Unentgeltlichkeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 4. Erstellung von Freier Software als Gesellschaftsbeitrag? . . . 144 II. Vertragsverhältnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 III. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 a) Anwendbarkeit der AGB-Vorschriften . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 b) Open Source Lizenzen als AGB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 c) Einbeziehung in den Vertrag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 d) Verstoß gegen die AGB-Vorschriften . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 e) Rechtsfolge des unwirksamen Gewährleistungsausschlusses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 a) Produkthaftung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 b) Vertragliche Haftung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 B. Vertragskonstellation 2: Erwerb der Software auf einem Datenträger direkt vom Urheber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 I. Vertragstyp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 II. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 C. Vertragskonstellation 3: Download der Software vom Server eines Dritten. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 I. Die Vertragsverhältnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 1. Urheber Dritter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 2. Dritter Nutzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 3. Urheber Nutzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 II. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 D. Vertragskonstellation 4: Erwerb der Software auf einem Datenträger von einem Dritten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 I. Die Vertragsverhältnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 II. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Inhaltsverzeichnis XI E. Vertragskonstellation 5: Individuelle Herstellung von Open Source Software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] (http://www.ifross.de) which advocates that contractual condition Oh my, this is fun (the GPL 2b is not for kids, so to speak): http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art7.html (Frei ab 18 Jahre) Well, I agree. :-) regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from first sale... other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his friend Metzger) creation aside for a moment. Well, looks like that in the meantime, the fellows have realized that exemption from first sale won't fly. HELLO? It's only you who speaks of first sale. The FSF is not talking about giving (or selling or whatever) your copy (read first sale), but copy distribution. You can't give a copy unless you have the right to do it. The GNU GPL sets the conditions for you to have that right. Nothing else grants it to you. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from first sale... other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his friend Metzger) creation aside for a moment. Well, looks like that in the meantime, the fellows have realized that exemption from first sale won't fly. HELLO? It's only you who speaks of first sale. Really? Final judgment regarding injunction against Sitecom by the District Court of Munich I and appellate Judge Hoeren's feedback aside for a moment, go ask your comrade dak translate pages 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 of http://www.vsi.de/inhalte/aktuell/studie_final_safe.pdf. Please try to NOT miss the stuff behind footnote 284 (attributed to Welte's attorney Jaeger together with his colleague Metzger). The FSF is not talking about giving (or selling or whatever) your copy (read first sale), but copy distribution. Under FSF's GPL-is-not-a-contract theory, all copies of publicly available GPL'd works fall under copy distribution pursuant to the first sale because they are lawfully made and there's no contract that would restrict (impose enforceable conditions) on their distribution. The GFSL (German Free Software License created by Axel Metzger and Till Jaeger) concedes that the first sale preempts it (GFSL being a non-negotiable licensing contract accepted by a licensee when exercising the copyright license granted in the GFSL... just like the properly construed GPL): no reciprocal (contractual) obligations on part of redisrtibutors under first sale (without some other explicit manifestation of assent to the contrary, that is). And copies (in both source and object code form... accompanied by additional copies under 17 USC 117) of computer program works made in the course of downloading from the authorized distributors do fall under the first sale. Go ask the Libraries Association (and also Time Warner, Inc.): http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg07922.html regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Isaac wrote: [...] URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html These cases really do not appear to be on point These cases are not really cases to begin with (that's apart from fact that orders were limited to netfilter/iptables code only, and said absolutely nothing about larger combined work as a whole). Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (law suit). http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html quote It's a Small Welte After All Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router until it complied with the GPL. /quote Well, the injunction was about netfilter/iptables code and nothing else. No word about the router. http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117 quote Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, /quote Sitecom's objection (not really appeal) to the injunction had really nothing to do with the GPL. And the subsequent ruling by the same district court discussing the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney) was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside for a moment. quote and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results. Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) /quote See also: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/1e07a593e5e09d59 http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/3bdfe293b33c6b6e regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, I should have said that copyright doesn't establish exclusive right to designed to fit. Ok now? Just from your words: To fit is one definition of adapt. Adaptation is one form of derivative work. Derivative work is an exclusive right of copyright. Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software could be described by any of the three verbs in or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software could be described by any of the three verbs in or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like builds on are irrelevant because they don't constitute creation of derivative literary works under copyright law. It's not that hard to grasp, stupid. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives like human translations from one programming language to the other with the same set of protected elements in both original work and derivative work (which falls under modifications in the BSD case) Even in this case the derivative work can have its own copyright statement and license. It must retain the BSD copyright statement and license, but that still only applies to the original work. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives like human translations from one programming language to the other with the same set of protected elements in both original work and derivative work (which falls under modifications in the BSD case) Even in this case the derivative work can have its own copyright statement Not its own. A non-derivative compilation (i.e. not based in the derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. Derivative works are under copyright of both its (lawful) creator(s) and the owner(s) of the original work. and license. It must retain the BSD copyright statement and license, but that still only applies to the original work. It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each constituent work can be under its own license. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software could be described by any of the three verbs in or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like builds on are irrelevant because they don't constitute creation of derivative literary works under copyright law. It's not that hard to grasp, stupid. Sorry I was so stupid as to read the actual law instead of simply believing what you say. You can have software that builds on other software but does not recast, transform or adapt it. You can have software that builds on other software and does recast, transform or adapt it. In the latter case it's a derivative work. Embedded spell checkers and Game Genie notwithstanding, there is still plenty of water that courts haven't tested. I would look at specifics and not just assume that because the original source code is unmodified, that there's no derivative work. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Now you are citing someone who says Such innovations rarely will constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act. Someone == United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Rarely implies it is possible. That mild and polite wording doesn't subvert the clear message. (Hint: See generally Nadan, supra, at 1667-72.) regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You must be reading something that isn't there. The independent status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) in the sense that it does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material is the same in both cases. All I'm reading is that in both cases a new copyright exists, contrary to your statement: A non-derivative compilation (i.e. not based in the derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. I think I'm getting past the expose fallacies for the benefit of newcomers stage and getting into a feeding the troll stage. You won't read much more of me in this thread. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You must be reading something that isn't there. The independent status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) in the sense that it does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material is the same in both cases. All I'm reading is that in both cases a new copyright exists, Sure it exists. contrary to your statement: A non-derivative compilation (i.e. not based in the derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. In the case of a non-derivative compilation, the new copyright that covers that work (as a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged) is indeed its own and just can't be preempted by the copyrights in the constituent works (there's no exclusive right to prepare [non-derivative] compilations). OTOH, derivative works can't be prepared without permission (that's apart from 17 USC 117 adaptations) and are under multiple copyrights: new copyright plus copyright(s) covering all those protected elements from the preexisting work. So it's not its own copyright. Got it now? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On 05 Aug 2005 09:04:01 -0400, Bruce Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, I should have said that copyright doesn't establish exclusive right to designed to fit. Ok now? Just from your words: To fit is one definition of adapt. Adaptation is one form of derivative work. Derivative work is an exclusive right of copyright. Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software could be described by any of the three verbs in or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion adapting requires making at least some change to fit. Yet you've expressly stated that the original software has not been modified. Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the statute is going to support the argument. I'd want to see some case law. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On 03 Aug 2005 13:44:55 -0400, Bruce Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. That's really interesting. What legal jurisdiction are you in? U.S. law is different. Here, derivative works have separate copyrights independent of copyrights on the material they're derived from. Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a different license is allowed. Material contributed by the author of the derivative work would not be subject to the BSD license. Derivative works have separate copyrights, but distributing an inseparable derivative or collective work, such as a program in object form requires complying with the copyright/license provisions of the original material. The BSD license does have terms, just not onerous ones. The advertising clause was a potentially onerous one. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Suppose I created a painting designed to fit under the Mona Lisa and Copyright protects software as literary works, not paintings. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Steve wrote: Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you're the copyright owner in original works). Are you saying that if one creates a derived work from BSD-licensed software, they can apply any additional licensing terms they wish to the compiled binary output... but those terms would not apply to the source code itself? I must say, that's an extremely BIZARRE distinction to wrap my head around! I see nothing bizarre here. Apart from the (lack of) obligation to disclose source code of derivative works, it works similar to the CPL, for example. A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement... See CPL section 3. REQUIREMENTS. Eh, as long as he didn't modify any BSD'd code, all his works are GPL'd and they are separate (literary) works from BSD'd (literary) works from A. And a combination (compilation) of all those works is another non-derivative (under copyright law, not metaphysically) work and it is subject neither to GPL nor BSD. You've lost me on this point as well. Are you trying to say that incorporation of another project's code into your own project does not constitute a derived work so long as you don't modify the code you've incorporated? It doesn't constitute a derivative work under copyright law. Why is it then that if I build an application on MS-Windows using the Cygwin port of GCC, even though I haven't altered a single line of GPL'ed code, I am still forced to license my work under the GPL... because Cygwin dynamically links my code to a GPL'ed DLL. No. That's because you've been fooled (not really forced) by the FSF's baseless propaganda regarding linking, I suppose. I understand that compilations are not subject to the GPL or BSD (i.e. I could create a proprietary IDE by packaging a BSD'ed text editor and the GCC compiler). However, it's always been my understand that LITERALLY embedding someone else's code in your own software (including static or dynamic linking) subjects you to the GPL. That's the entire purpose behind the LGPL, isn't it? See http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf and also nice review of that book at http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html. Here's what Rosen had to say about the LGPL: The LGPL, therefore, is an anomalya hybrid license intended to address a complex issue about program linking and derivative works. It doesnt solve that problem but merely directs us back to the main event, the GPL license itself. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. That's really interesting. What legal jurisdiction are you in? U.S. law is different. Here, derivative works have separate copyrights independent of copyrights on the material they're derived from. Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a different license is allowed. Material contributed by the author of the derivative work would not be subject to the BSD license. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a different license is allowed. Use is irrelevant because as far as copyright is concerned, it is permitted per 17 USC 117 and the BSD doesn't seek to override 17 USC 117 user rights in contractual manner. Regarding derivative works beyond the scope of 17 USC 117 adaptations (note that 17 USC 117 adaptations may be transferred/distributed only with the authorization of the copyright owner), the modified source code must retain the BSD license: different license is not allowed. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does this not mean that an incrementally-growing list of contributors must be acknowledged through retention of their copyright notices in derived works? As long as the copyright notice and contributor list only has to be maintained in the source code or license file, it is not a practical problem, even with 100's or 1000's of names. Text is cheap. The problem with the old license was that the contributors should be acknowledged in advertisements, where space is much more scarce. For that matter, doesn't this verbiage imply that works deriving from BSD-licensed code must be licensed under the BSD as well... since the copyright notice, list of conditions, and disclaimer (basically the entire contents of the license) must be retained in redistributions of source and binary forms, WITH AND WITHOUT MODIFICATION (i.e. derived works)? The BSD license does not cover the modifications, it merely allows for the modifications. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
