We SHOULD be taking an individual work and analyzing it
for creative content. Not cooking up arbitrary hypotheses
and pretending they mean something
I am going to try taking some hours this weekend and verify one
of the programs + libcurl + openssl cases. I'll get back to you
next week.
I
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3
Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're
right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms
for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for
example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of
contractual obligation to provide access to
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're
talking ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those
bits that end up
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
Assume that programX
The difference is that when you talk about dynamic linking, the
'replacement' means fiddling with linker options or package
dependencies. It is indeed nonsense to conclude that doing these
things would change the copyright status of the program using the
libraries.
in the case of dynamic
You stole somebody else's work when you wrote programX. Piracy is
wrong. You are destroying the hopes and dreams of an entire
industry. [0]
[0] This appears to be the way it is explained to four-year-olds
You apparently do not have kids. Especially four-year-olds. Mine is
already 6 and he
Now seriously, can you please explain to me:
1. do you think programX is a derivative work of libopenssl?
2. why?
3. do you think programX is a derivative work of libnovossl?
4. why?
I keep making questions, and you keep giving me non-sequiturs.
You keep asking questions that
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric.
Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could
be anywhere from begging the question to a desire to focus on some
useful 10% of my questions
** David Nusinow ::
If someone is going to file a lawsuit, someone has to pay for it.
If the two sides live in different places, one of them has to
travel no matter what, and thus pay for that expense. If we say
that choice of venue clauses aren't Free, then the person bringing
the suit will
I'm guessing 'By electing to download the material from this web site
the user agrees: ... 2. to use a credit line in connection
with images.'
is a restriction on modification (DFSG #3).
I don't think a credit line is enough to trigger DFSG#3, because
it would fall under proper attribution
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who
I doubt that people who do not wish to become legally bound to appear
at the the author's home court whenever he files a frivolous lawsuit
can be meaningfully described as a group of persons that can be
discriminated against. If everybody belongs to the group, is it
meaningfull to
** Matthew Garrett ::
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that's already possible. The majority (all?) of licenses
that we ship don't prevent me from being sued arbitrarily.
The majority (all!) of license we ship do not demand that
The DFSG are not holy writ, but how about if I phrase it as
discrimination against licensors without money?
DFSG #5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
This implies, at least to me, that the _licensor_ is not
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric. Assume every work
eligible for copyright protection, for the sake of the argument, and
for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking ONLY about dynamic linking.
AND, to boot, that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way
of being in a .h file (for
FWIW, the phrasing comes verbatim from MPL 1.1. MPL 1.1 is DFSG-free,
right?
not according to
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FRCP 8(a) requires any such claim to explain why the court has
jurisdiction over the question and the defendant. How would your
pleading address this?
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Why would US citizenship not be sufficient?
Whose US citizenship?
The plaintiff.
No.
Because the Court has no bearing on what would a non-US-citizen
nor-US-resident (the defendant) will do. If the Court orders you (*)
to stop distributing some software and you don't, the Police gets
Whereas the alternative may be that licensors are unable to afford the
enforcement of their license. Would you prefer to discriminate against
them?
YES. Please. The DFSG #5 says you should not discriminate the licensee;
the licensor is OK. Debian does, in an active basis, discriminate against
** Mark Rafn ::
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact
that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program
is equivelent to linking the library with the
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL.
Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library
and
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they
were doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static
Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
linking against a
dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the US definition of a derivative:
-
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,
Remember: DERIVATIVE == TRANSFORMATION.
Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that Only the
verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications,
can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal.
The rest of your mail just ranted the same thing
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
I can't argue with someone who
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think
that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal
arguments surrounding the GPL,
** Sean Kellog ::
On Saturday 27 August 2005 09:08 am, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
That said, it looks to me like this license grants you the
right to use those game mechanics, including making and
distributiong modified versions of them. If you've
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Friday 19 August 2005 06:47 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Nope. There are other kinds of transformation that configure
derivative works: translation to other languages is one of them,
and it does not involve copying parts at all.
Translation is certainly
IANAL AFAIK there are about five versions of the Creative
Commons License.
He was talking about the attribution license...
Some of them are very restricting. e.g. don't modify my beautiful
painting. But a wiki is about allow others to modify ( improve it )
Question to [EMAIL
** Raul ::
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
cash flows
** Raul Miller ::
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf
** Michael Poole ::
Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
why that assumption is valid. As I explained above, his citation of
case law does not fit the facts.
The only good answer people in d-l
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a
work that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the
things
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
has a definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose
** Loïc Minier ::
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
From the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted...
So the particular
Agreed, and in the vast majority of the cases the translation is
a creative work. A babelfish translation would be a literal
translation.
an f2c translation is a literal (automatic) translation, so it's not a creative
work. The copyrights of the original work apply to the translated work
Derivative Works: the works or software that could be created by
the Licensee, based upon the Original Work or modifications
thereof. This Licence does not define the extent of modification
or dependence on the Original Work required in order to classify a
work as a Derivative Work; this
** Matthew Garrett ::
If you define source as the preferred form for modification,
then
http://cvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86
/drivers/nv/nv_hw.c?rev=1.7view=markup is not source. I, on the
other hand, believe that it is an acceptable (though borderline)
form of
Software patents are not legal in Europe. Period. The European
patent convention from 1972 explicitly excludes software from
patentability. Attempts to pass legislation that would have
allowed software to become patentable have failed. The worst
thing we could do now is give in to the
| 7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or
| publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using
| proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under
| conditions of this license;
While this is probably DFSG-free, it can be very obnoxious,
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Sunday 10 July 2005 09:53 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:51:17PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Glenn, don't you think he's talking about technologically
impractical. We all know how easy it is to circumvent click
wrap licenses. But you HAVE to
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Thursday 14 July 2005 09:16 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Because it takes away the rights the GPL already gave to the
recipient: the right to use the software, without having to
agree to nothing at all.
If you come upon the program on someone else's computer
** Michael K. Edwards ::
On 7/14/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But I'm not talking about USE, I'm talking about the
possession of a copy of the code. You are not permitted to
have a copy of the code without
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Thursday 14 July 2005 11:56 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
He affirmed that one has to agree to the GPL to possess a copy
of a GPL'd program.
WHAT?! No, never. Possession is not the issue, the issue is
copying. And I am not convinced that making an FTP
** Diego Biurrun ::
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:38:29AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:45:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:54:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek
wrote:
However, the reason Debian continues to include the mp3
decoder
Hi Gregor. Let's see if I can understand your motivations, and help
you.
** Gregor Richards ::
In response to An interface to the program, not the program
itself Am I the only person who fails to see this as a
significant difference? I don't think the freedoms of Free
Software should be
** Mark Rafn ::
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote:
The term Free Software is open to interpretation, the DFSG is
not the be-all-end-all of what is and isn't Free.
True. This is why I use and support Debian - it's the closest
thing I can find to my personal definition of
--
[]s,
Massa
//
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then
How can a text get lost? Hmpf.
* Michael ::
On 6/14/05, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050613 21:21]:
C'mon, Raul. The crack-smoking GPL refers to an
interpretation (non-contract license, functional use
results in a derivative work)
* Michael Below ::
Baltasar Cevc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[German text respectfully cut]
§ 15 Youth-Endangering Media
(1) If the inclusion of media in the list of youth-endangering
media has been announced according to § 24 par. 3 sentence 1, they
may not be
1. offered, given to or
* Måns Rullgård ::
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This looks like a bug in Germany rather than a bug in quake2.
Does the German government have a bug tracking system?
It's called Parliament :-) Actually, I don't know *how* is it called aus
Deutsch, but you know what I mean.
YMMV.
--
HTH,
* Sean Kellogg ::
On Saturday 11 June 2005 01:51 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
flexability, but can you point to the particular clause that
you feel hints at this sort of a requirement/prohibition?
Nope, I can only give you a link but as I understand it the
tests are commonly used.
* Sean Kellogg ::
On Saturday 11 June 2005 03:21 pm, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
Well now, this strikes me as a problem from a political
science perspective (my undergrad degree). Debian-legal, a
self-appointed group of various legal, political, an
* Marco ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It blatently fails DFSG 5, because the person modifying the
software may not have internet access for emailing the changes.
(Think perhaps a developing nation.)
I still do not believe that this is discrimination against
persons or groups. This is an
* Bernhard ::
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]:
The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about
the law.
Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and
hope you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask:
Are you sponsored by,
* Marco ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still do not believe that this is discrimination against
persons or groups. This is an unreasonable interpretation of
the original meaning of DFSG.5.
I, OTOH, do not believe that this is an unreasonable
interpretation of DFSG 5. Why should you
* Sean Kellogg ::
On Saturday 11 June 2005 05:10 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any
change. Doesn't this
De: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The phrase For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains appears in the text
of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to works based on the
Program. Such lack of attention to license detail from
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
expression from Transport Tycoon.
Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right.
--
Cheers,
Massa
De: Måns Rullgård [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my
response to Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in
reference to artworks, it's the fact that the game experience
plagiarizes
De: Per Eric Rosén [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A bit counterfact maybe but ...
Let's say, if I liked the concept of TTD (which I did), and
started to write a FreeTycoon like freeciv, without using any
material from TTD at all, and also without requiring original TTD
data for execution, how
De: Per Eric Rosén [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Rules and behaviour IMHO are (in Brasil at least) safe, even
from patents. What would be a good translation for mise en
scene? This is a concept that I find kind of difficult to
explain
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video
game is a literary work in the sense of having characters,
settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the
non-literal sense of Micro Star v. FormGen -- even by
This might be relevant if we planned on distributing only non-working copies
of Quagga.
The copies of Quagga that Debian distributes are non-working; try to execute a
Debian package...
Anyways, I'll repeat my earlier assertion: if working copies of Quagga do not
use functionality specific
De: Raul Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/13/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
We have a license to distribute said material and we are
abiding by the terms of the license. You might as well say
that book
68 matches
Mail list logo
