Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:13:03 +0100, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That might be a fair interpretation except that dynamic linking is pretty much rules out even without taking semantics into account. As you are undoubtedly aware, many participants in this newsgroup disagree with this statement. I won't repeat here what has already been said numerous times; search the archives if in doubt. Of course. Many people do disagree with the statement, but few disagree that the statement represents the FSF's position. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Case closed. You really seem to believe that your statements somehow become correct if you try to behave like a judge. Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: REPOST: Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part II Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] As for the US, Forward Inline Original Message Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch Subject: Re: Stallman rants about FreeBIOS Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [... why the GPL just can't work under copyright law ...] Just in case you'll come across an idiot proclaiming that the GPL works as an agreement (apart from Germany... where contractual limitation of first sale principle is held to be invalid)... well, research the topic of enforceability of contracts of adhesion and contracts in general yourself. Here's some hints, so to speak. You don't get it. The GPL is not a contract. You need not agree to it if you don't want to, but nothing else gives you the right to redistribute. So unlike EULA and the other madness, you don't need some click-through or whatever else agreeing to sell your first-born. The GPL states the price to pay for certain uses of the software. Whether you are willing to pay that price is up to you. If not, then those uses are barred. Not by the GPL, but by copyright law. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:02:36 +0100, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:11 +0100, Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can read about the position of the FSF here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation In particular, if the separate GPL'ed executable has no purpose on its own, but is created solely to circumvent the license of the library, then it is *not* okay. The quoted link seems to suggest that using pipes as IPC and execing a GPLed binary is a satisfactory work around. Not at all: | By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are | communication mechanisms *normally* used between two separate | programs. (Emphasis mine.) That suggests to me that the /mechanism/ of communication provides some hints... | But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, | exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be | a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger | program. ...but that the /semantics/ of communication is really decisive. That might be a fair interpretation except that dynamic linking is pretty much rules out even without taking semantics into account. IMO that plus the willingness to accept pipes and command-line arguments as normally ok adds up to an unjustified reliance on the mechanism of communication. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Part II Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] As for the US, Forward Inline Original Message Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch Subject: Re: Stallman rants about FreeBIOS Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [... why the GPL just can't work under copyright law ...] Just in case you'll come across an idiot proclaiming that the GPL works as an agreement (apart from Germany... where contractual limitation of first sale principle is held to be invalid)... well, research the topic of enforceability of contracts of adhesion and contracts in general yourself. Here's some hints, so to speak. 2 x Forward Inline Original Message Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.arch Subject: Re: Stallman rants about FreeBIOS References: ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bernd Paysan wrote: [...] if the terms are accepted. The GPL is a bare copyright license, not a contract. It merely misstates the law (go read both 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 to begin with) and just can't legally compel you to relinquish rights that you enjoy under copyright law (or any other rights; in contrast to other contractual OSS licenses*** written by real IP lawyers, not some obsessive and oppressive lunatic with the help of a law historian fond of spreading anti-copyright-and-patent anarchistic propaganda). quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 Adobe characterizes each transaction throughout the entire stream of commerce as a license.8 Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe. /quote s/Abobe/FSF See also http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF (Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.) Furthermore, FSF's expansive claims (just like SCO's -- see Tenth IBM's defense) are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. quote source=Open Source Licensing: Virus or Virtue? Even if the open source license [GPL] is binding, the copyleft provision may still not be enforceable as to independent proprietary code, in light of the intellectual property misuse doctrine. The doctrine is asserted as an affirmative defense to an intellectual property infringement claim. Much like an unclean hands defense, the misuse doctrine precludes enforcement of intellectual property rights that have been extended beyond the scope of those rights. [...] A successful misuse defense bars the misuser from prevailing against anyone on an action for infringement of the misused intellectual property, even against defendants who have not been harmed or affected by the misuse.[76] The misuse doctrine was judicially created, first in the patent context. Only recently has the misuse doctrine been extended to copyrights, building on the rich misuse history in the patent law.[77] Importantly, most courts have found misuse without requiring a finding of antitrust liability.[78] Thus, market power is unnecessary, as is any analysis of the competitive and anticompetitive impacts of the provision.[79] The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for misuse, but the courts have addressed an analogous provision—the grantback. A grantback provision requires that a licensee of intellectual property grant back to the licensor a license or ownership in creations made by the licensee. The typical grantback provision requires that the licensee give the licensor a nonexclusive license to any improvements or derivatives that the licensee creates based on the original licensed property. The idea is that the licensee would not have been able to make the improvement or derivative without permission of the licensor or at least access to the original; thus, the licensor should not be blocked by an improvement or derivative he and his intellectual property helped create. Giving the license back encourages licensors to license, since it mitigates the risk of becoming blocked by derivative intellectual property. Like a grantback, copyleft requires the licensee to license back its improvements. The copyleft provision is more expansive, though. [...] Although grantbacks have not come up in the copyright misuse arena, they have in the patent context—and as we have seen, the patent misuse cases form the underpinning for the copyright misuse doctrine. Courts have found that grantback clauses extending to improvements are not misuse, because the licensee in some sense developed the improvement with the help of the original patent. Where grantback clauses extend to preexisting or unrelated patents, however, courts have found patent misuse. Where the scope of [licensee's] 'improvements'
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html Moglen: Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now. The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' And the defendant says 17 USC 109, Judge. Judge: Case closed. Heck, what is so hard to understand here? Tell that to the courts. Copyright does not grant you permission to redistribute stolen goods. Before you gain any rights to copies, you have to legally acquire them, and that usually entails agreeing to the conditions of the party providing you with them. What is so hard to understand here? There is lots of downloadable software around with restrictions on use and redistribution: AFPL, shareware, even MS-EULA-ware. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] [0]: Many projects, specially system parts of GNU, have special clauses or use the Lesser GPL to allow mixing with non-free software. Tell me how does that work. Say on hurd (which doesn't have Linus' exception to the GPL'd kernel). On what basis are all those projects allowed to wrap GPL'd stuff with lesser silliness (to allow mixing without contamination) and what's your problem with someone doing the same but with respect to non-kernel GPL'd component(s). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:14:51 -0500 Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank you. If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish to restrict users of their freedom; it has the opposite goal, to protect those freedoms for past and future generations. And the GPL is the tool to achive this goal. Don't get me wrong - I subscribe to (what I perceive to be) the goals of Free Software. I cannot understand the apparent obsession with equating dynamic linking with preparing a derivative work, as achieving that goal would be, IMHO, a significant reduction in the rights currently available to the users of any Free or non-Free OS, independent of the license terms. As for what the licencing terms of a non-free operating system are I wouldn't know since I don't use non-free software to begin with. It doesn't matter as long as the copyright statutes are not interpreted or changed to support a very broad interpretation of the concept of a derivative work. This, IMHO, is exactly what would happen if the FSF's interpretation of the effect of dynamic linking were to prevail. [0]: Many projects, specially system parts of GNU, have special clauses or use the Lesser GPL to allow mixing with non-free software. Which only makes persuing the dynamic linking issue even more futile. Kind regards, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you, even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But this lunatic fight to get the scope of copyright extended, by exactly those people who originally wanted to abolish all forms of copyright, is one of the saddest quixotic battles I know of. You don't get it. The FSF is not fighting for the laws that give the GPL teeth. But while this insanity prevails, nothing is gained by pretending it isn't. Have you stopped to think about the implications of having dynamic linking (where, remember, nothing more than a number of references to a library are contained in the compiled code) legally equated with producing a derivative work? It would be tantamount to declaring all source code derivative works of the OS. Where the source code is useless without the system, this position is tenable. If you are writing for an API for which more than one implementation exists, this is not as likely. If we take the GPLed readline library as an example, if I remember correctly, some party implemented a non-GPLed readline clone that was source-compatible. Once this clone was available, the GPL of the readline library was effectively turned into the LGPL: it did no longer extend to source code that could be compiled to use either library. In a similar vein, if you are programming for published standard like Posix, and possibly one that has several implementations, you can't be held to be deriving from any particular implementation of the standard. Where you are concretely interfacing with special Linux-only kernel functionality, things would get more muddy without the kernel exception. What's the difference between a function call in source code, and its compiled counterpart? Who claimed a difference here? OK, the GPL didn't take dynamic linking into account in its strategy, and the effect of GPL'ing libraries was less than expected. But then stubbornly pursuing a strategy that, when successful, would be an effective strengthening of the restrictions the copyright statutes already impose, shifting the balance even further towards the large corporates, can only lead to a Pyrrhic victory. You are not getting it. Really. It is not the strategy of the FSF to strengthen the copyright statutes, but merely don't use less than what is claimed by other parties and established in the court already. The FSF would like nothing more than legal and unanimous precedent that says that linking to unique interfaces does not constitute derivation in any manner. Whether this precendence comes about by a court case against the GPL itself or any different licence, is a secondary consideration. If you want no defense against people unilaterally taking your work and turning it as proprietary as the laws allow, use the BSD licences. The explicit and expressed purpose of the GPL is to make the code it covers not be subvertible in this manner. The use of a GPLed library doesn't subvert the code. It fails to extend the GPL to the program, but the whole take of the FSF on user does the linking is merely sour grapes (doesn't the GPL itself not say that it doesn't limit the user from using the program?). The GPL covers copying and redistribution. If no use can be made of the product except by linking it to an FSFed library, then the responsibility, of course, also rests with the distributor. In a similar vein, a weapon manufacturer can't circumvent weapon law by shipping weapons and ammunition separately and claiming that it falls entirely into the user's responsibility to combine two completely harmless items into something covered by arms' laws. This isn't about Alexander. This is about risking to get judgements that will throttle any and all independent software developers even more effectively than the current hideous patent initiative of the Council and the European Commission. You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank you. Good reason to switch to a free operating system, if it does not yet suffice that MS reserves the right in its EULA to destroy your system remotely in the interest of Digital Rights Management without being held accountable for any damages. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I said earlier in this thread, it is _not_ a matter of law, but of morality. It is abundantly clear that the FSF considers any form of linking to a library as preparation of a derivative work, and as such, we all should simply honour the wishes of the copyright holders not to link non-Free software to GPLed libraries. It seems rather risky (if not foolish) to me to rely solely on morality when it comes to defending freedoms. And I don't see a need for that. To the best of my knowledge, none of the few who have seriously tried to circumvent the GPL have prevailed in court. Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Suppose the Earth consists of constaneously combusting pink cheese... Okay. And your question is? and _you_, of all people, call others stupid frequently. My questions were meant to highlight absurdity in your org's line of reasoning, genius. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin Dickopp wrote: [...] I have no idea what you're aiming at. I'm not surprised. Since it becomes subsequently clear that you have no idea what you are aiming at either, hardly a surprise. If the works of A and B are combined to form a derivative work by an entity C, and the act of Combined as in what? Can you print two different stories (bought electronically) on the same sheet of paper (to form a combined printout) or not? That certainly falls under fair use _unless_ you choose to redistribute them again. For that you need a licence. Printing them in one pass is certainly illegal in the GNU Republic... Nonsense. It just does not give you a licence to redistribute. unless you happen to be entitled with a privilege to prepare derivative works of both and they both came to you under compatible licenses, right? Preparing derivative works is pretty much your right. Redistributing them isn't. Redistribution is illegal unless you have a licence to do so. The GPL is a blanket licence for redistribution of the GPLed work. However, it demands no additional restrictions. If the other material on the page has an incompatible licence and one can't cleanly separate the parts into on the page into separate components, the whole is a derivative work and can only be distributed as a whole under the GPL or not at all. It is not that hard to understand. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it went for EURO 6.50 on ebay a couple of weeks ago. http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7133325141 A few years ago, I crossed a street at a red traffic light. Nothing happend; I wasn't punished in any way. Therefore, it is now clearly proven that pedestrians are allowed to ignore traffic lights at will, right? Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Geez. Visit a clinic. Are you this silly that you cannot even produce one message without having to resort to personal attacks? Yes, you're reading a mailing list. I'm reading and replying on newsgroup. And I'm replying to a mailing list. Reply to mailing list *only*, *^%(%^$^*%$*. Dear paragon of intelligence, do you happen to know the deal with mail-to-news-gateways for mailing lists? When you are reading a mailing list gated to a Usenet group, there is no way that anybody can answer to mailing list only. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:12:29 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative
work of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly
covered by a non-limitative list of illustrations.
The enumeration illustrates the way in which based upon
should be construed. A program in source code formar references
a library, but is not based upon the library in the sense
of the definition in 101 USC 17 (which would require an
adaptation, transformation, etc. of the material in the
library).
That depends on what you mean by etc. It would not, according to the
words of the law, require an adaption or transformation, since the list
of illustrations is not limitative.
But that doesn't mean that the judge can suddenly decide
whatever she pleases is a derivative work. The list is
indeed not limitative, but neither is it non-existant.
In other words, actions very substantially similar to those
in the enumeration would have to occur for something to
be considered a derivative work.
You seem to believe that the definition could just have well
been anything the judge finds acceptable, and that is just
not correct in any jusrisdiction.
Once you claim that a dynamically linked executable is a derivative
work of the libraries it uses, you have precious few arguments left
to argue the source code is an independent work.
That depends on how the program has been created and other details. If a
program uses the ISO-standardized C library API, and uses no components
of a particular C library while it is being created, then a derivative
work of the program and a particular C library is created the moment the
program is run (and therefore linked with the library).
What you say here is that you do not believe a source code program
like this:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
printf(Hello world\n);
}
is not a derivative of the standard 'C' library, but that the
copy that is created at run time in memory is a derivative
work of both the source code and the standard 'C' library
(or for Alex, a compilation, but that doesn't matter because
the same protections are extended to compilations as to
derivative works).
What you also say is that the dynamically linked executable,
that only contains references to the standard 'C' library,
is _not_ a derivative work. This is not what the FSF says.
But I can also
imagine different circumstances under which a derivative work is already
created when the programm is written.
This is obviously happening when one takes an existing
source code, and modifies it.
I do believe that a look at a work is not enough to judge if it is a
derivative work of something, but the act of creation has also to be
taken into account. Imagine I take a program FOO and make some
modifications to it, forming a derivative work BAR. And now imagine a
different case where I write a program BAZ which is identical to BAR,
but I wrote it all myself and I didn't even know FOO existed. Even
though BAR and BAZ are identical bit by bit, I believe that BAR is a
derivative work of FOO, but BAZ it is not (regardless of the fact that
that might be hard to prove).
You're describing clean-room reverse engineering.
My opinion is therefore that there isn't a single rule, but that it can
only be decided on a case-by-case basis if something is a derivative
work of something else.
It don't think so. If you write a Harry Potter story you're obviously
preparing a derivative work. If you write a story that features
wizards, you'd not be making a derivative work unless you would
copy specific Rowling-isms.
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] is not a derivative of the standard 'C' library, but that the copy that is created at run time in memory is a derivative work of both the source code and the standard 'C' library (or for Alex, a compilation, but that doesn't matter because the same protections are extended to compilations as to derivative works). Copyright law doesn't establish exclusive right to prepare compilations (in addition to exclusive right to prepare derivative works). The term compilation doesn't include derivative works. So it does matter. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Can I ask all you guys a question? Can you keep the personal attacks off the mailinglist/newsgroup/whatever? The copyright debate is at least interesting, but I don't need my inbox clogged by this flame war crap. Thanks! This message was signed with GNU Privacy Guard, available at http://www.gpg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkI2F/sACgkQt65ZG5ykqBKM2QCfZRTOyfHveIAw7Q0qxoNqfWVu Gf0AoKMdJy0yp3hzKLVz4Ina/3xpPjVk =r0w/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's the definition of a derivative work, taken (without permission, but fair use (still) applies :-) from 101 USC 17: | A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting | works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, | fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art | reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a | work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of | editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other | modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of | authorship, is a derivative work. Here's the definition of such as, taken from 101 USC 17 as well: | The terms including and such as are illustrative and not | limitative. I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a non-limitative list of illustrations. Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100 Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a non-limitative list of illustrations. The enumeration illustrates the way in which based upon should be construed. A program in source code formar references a library, but is not based upon the library in the sense of the definition in 101 USC 17 (which would require an adaptation, transformation, etc. of the material in the library). A book that refers the user to a dictionary for the definition of a number of words is not a derivative work of that dictionary. Both source code and dynamically linked executables refer to the libraries (and other resources such as the OS). Once you claim that a dynamically linked executable is a derivative work of the libraries it uses, you have precious few arguments left to argue the source code is an independent work. You have equally few arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the Operating System they run on. Do _you_ see a significant difference between a function or method call in source code, and its simple transformation into a machine-usable format in the dynamically linked executable? Isn't the latter simply a mechanical transformation of the former? -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
David Kastrup wrote: [...] So why are there numerous court decisions that deep linking of web site material constitutes copyright infringement? Deep Linking: Legal Certainty in Germany While Debate Continues in the United States September 11, 2003 With a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) (decision of July 17, 2003, file no. I ZR 259/00) finally resolved the controversy about the lawfulness of deep linking under German law. Previously, some German courts considered such practice to be lawful and others did not (see our Internet Alert of October 3, 2002). The courts which rejected this practice considered deep linking to be a violation of the data base rights of the website owner according to Section 87 b German Copyright Act (UrhG), which implemented the provisions of Directive 96/9/EC, the so-called Directive on the Legal Protection of Databases. In the BGH case, the plaintiff, which publishes the newspaper Handelsblatt, the magazine DMEuro and online versions of those publications, sued the Internet search engine paperboy.de, which analyzes a broad range of newspaper articles and provides deep links to those articles. The plaintiff took the view that paperboy's deep linking violated its copyrights in the articles and its database, and also violated Section 1 of the German Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). The Higher Regional Court Cologne dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and with its recent decision the BGH has now dismissed a further appeal by the plaintiff. According to the BGH, hyperlinking is not a use that can be reserved to the copyright or data-bank owner. Such linking is not unlawful, even if it enables the user to directly access a work product through a deep link. An owner who provides public access to a copyrighted work product on the Internet already facilitates its use by any Internet user. Even without a deep link, a user could directly get to the publicly accessible work product or data with the appropriate URL address. Thus, the deep link is just facilitating such access. In addition, the BGH did not consider deep linking to be an unlawful exploitation of the work of the plaintiff (Section 1 UWG). Users were not misled about the origin of the newspaper and magazine articles. The fact that the owner of the Internet site may lose some advertising revenues (because the user bypasses the home page and other pages) did not create a violation of Section 1 UWG. Without deep linking, the BGH believed that it would be practically impossible to make sensible use of the overwhelming amount of information on the Internet. The BGH has not opined about situations in which a deep link bypasses technical protection measures intended to limit access information. However, with the exception of these issues and other particular circumstances, deep linking is now considered to be lawful under German law. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum GNU Republic or Germany, dak? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A book that refers the user to a dictionary for the definition of a number of words is not a derivative work of that dictionary. So why are there numerous court decisions that deep linking of web site material constitutes copyright infringement? Are you implying that refering to dictionary does indeed create a derivative work? You have equally few arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the Operating System they run on. Why do you think is there a special exception/clarification regarding execution of executables in the Linux kernel licence? So are you of the opinion that every program, whatever the format (source or otherwise) is a derivative work of the Operating System (and as such could not be written without the prior consent of the owner of the OS copyrights)? If so, you're casting your nets so wide that any new work becomes a derivative work of everthing previously written. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A book that refers the user to a dictionary for the definition of a number of words is not a derivative work of that dictionary. So why are there numerous court decisions that deep linking of web site material constitutes copyright infringement? Are you implying that refering to dictionary does indeed create a derivative work? It depends on the particular use. If I encode a message by exclusively referring to word/lines/pages of a particular dictionary, then I have a quite different case than when I just say look up the term in a dictionary like Webster's. You have equally few arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the Operating System they run on. Why do you think is there a special exception/clarification regarding execution of executables in the Linux kernel licence? So are you of the opinion that every program, whatever the format (source or otherwise) is a derivative work of the Operating System (and as such could not be written without the prior consent of the owner of the OS copyrights)? I am of the opinion that it is stupid to ignore existing court cases and declare only those theories and cases relevant that one prefers oneself. The execution of the law does not depend on my opinion about its letter and spirit. People are generously dealing in advice here even where the case law indicates that in reality things are much less clearcut than they want to make believe. And that is simply reckless when giving advice. If so, you're casting your nets so wide that any new work becomes a derivative work of everthing previously written. It is not I that is interpreting the law in the courts. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you, even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But this lunatic fight to get the scope of copyright extended, by exactly those people who originally wanted to abolish all forms of copyright, is one of the saddest quixotic battles I know of. You don't get it. The FSF is not fighting for the laws that give the GPL teeth. But while this insanity prevails, nothing is gained by pretending it isn't. Have you stopped to think about the implications of having dynamic linking (where, remember, nothing more than a number of references to a library are contained in the compiled code) legally equated with producing a derivative work? It would be tantamount to declaring all source code derivative works of the OS. What's the difference between a function call in source code, and its compiled counterpart? OK, the GPL didn't take dynamic linking into account in its strategy, and the effect of GPL'ing libraries was less than expected. But then stubbornly pursuing a strategy that, when successful, would be an effective strengthening of the restrictions the copyright statutes already impose, shifting the balance even further towards the large corporates, can only lead to a Pyrrhic victory. If you want no defense against people unilaterally taking your work and turning it as proprietary as the laws allow, use the BSD licences. The explicit and expressed purpose of the GPL is to make the code it covers not be subvertible in this manner. The use of a GPLed library doesn't subvert the code. It fails to extend the GPL to the program, but the whole take of the FSF on user does the linking is merely sour grapes (doesn't the GPL itself not say that it doesn't limit the user from using the program?). People that are clamoring against the consequences of the GPL are clamoring against the consequences of copyright laws. Lobby for weakening the copyright laws, and the GPL will lose its teeth along with the other licences. I'd certainly welcome a world where derivative work lawsuits were not, in court, repeatedly and decidedly enforced even for trivial cases akin to linking. If you refer to deep HTML linking, then certainly clamouring that you believe it to be equally true for dynamic linking [because that would allow you to thwart those nasty developers of non-Free software who freeload off GPLed libraries (not that there are many, given that most library developers would like their code to be used)] isn't going to contribute to putting an end to that situation. But the ongoing practice does not support Alexander's fantasies. And as long as it doesn't, nothing is gained by pretenting that the GPL should in some manner have less validity than other licences. This isn't about Alexander. This is about risking to get judgements that will throttle any and all independent software developers even more effectively than the current hideous patent initiative of the Council and the European Commission. You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank you. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: ... I knew you'll bite. That's why I've omitted as such and said just linking, not linking as such. It's just like the upcoming EU patent law harmonization directive and software as such. Bwahahah. Seriously, if A and B are independent works in the copyright sense (as literary works), the fact that A calls B (references it) makes neither A nor aggregation A+B a derivative work of B. It's a mere aggregation (Sammelwerk), not a derivative work (Bearbeitung). The courts happen to disagree with your assessment, as can easily be witnessed if you Google for deep linking. And that is much less invasive than what needs to be done for linking computer programs. As usual, your legal advice is applicable only to a fantasy world of yours. -- 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:14:22 + Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 16:49 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:04 +0100 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is perfectly false in case of static linking as well. The distiction between derivative works and compilations is not that hard to grasp. Statically linked executable is a mere aggregation of a bunch of preexisting works. It is the same as an archive containing same bunch of dynamically linked components. FSF: the truth: Terekov: --- /|\ --- In this case, I'd place Stefaan right just before Terekov. Terekov seems determined to undermine the idea of all users being Free. The FSF tries to empower all users with Freedom. If empowering with Freedom is as far from the truth as Terekov in such a scale, then you're just plain presumptuous. Mind you, I'm _not_ talking about the moral issue here, but about the probable (IANAL, and AFAIK, there hasn't been a test case) legal status of binaries as derivative works. I believe a case can be made that a statically linked binary, through the fact that it contains, in a single unit not designed as an archive, code from the program and the library(ies), is a derivative work of them all. I also believe that a dynamically linked executable, which contains no code from the libraries it references, would not be held to be a derivative work. It is also quite clear to anyone reading the American (USA) copyright statutes that requiring a library, or anything, to run is _not_ a criterion for a derivative work. I further believe that pretending this is the case opens a can of worms better left shut. I'd like your opinion on that, BTW. But as I have stated quite clearly and unambiguously, I do not feel it's OK to ignore the wishes of the author or copyright holder, even if these do not seem to be conform to the definitions in the law. There's honour, and there's the law, and they don't meet all that often. There's not a requirement for a middle ground at everything. There are very few _requirements_ for a middle ground, don't you agree? Most often though, when there are two extreme viewpoints, the truth is somewhere in the middle. And as I said, the status of a binary as a derivative work is a legal issue, not a moral one (which you seem intent on ignoring). Consider that, for once. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] You see, there's no mention of POSIX or being needed to make the program work. I think one can reasonably say that a statically linked executable is covered by any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted as far as its components are concerned. Bzzt. According to the FSF, static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying. By that silly logic, even if you have permission to reproduce something, you just can't prepare compilations (hint: newspapers, catalogs, etc.) unless you also have permission to prepare derivative works. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] I asked you in private if you could provide decent arguments against why you consider the GNU GPL void, but you couldn't even provide anything to my inquiry. I don't recall receiving any private messages from you. You're a victim of my spam filtering, 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: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The thing is, you shouldn't forget that the GPL is intended as a viral license. I would agree that linking a library is within the realm of the law, but my suggestion is to just avoid most of the legal obfuscation here and just ask the maintainer of whatever library you are using how he feels about you linking it in proprietary software. This message was signed with GNU Privacy Guard, available at http://www.gpg.org On Mar 12, 2005, at 22:06, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] You see, there's no mention of POSIX or being needed to make the program work. I think one can reasonably say that a statically linked executable is covered by any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted as far as its components are concerned. Bzzt. According to the FSF, static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying. By that silly logic, even if you have permission to reproduce something, you just can't prepare compilations (hint: newspapers, catalogs, etc.) unless you also have permission to prepare derivative works. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkIzxOUACgkQt65ZG5ykqBLokwCcDpgebLLDGQgdm7rQpbMI74CE pgIAn07UiiQ7xhEbUgSWzmj1pFYIqVni =JuCz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
