All:
OK, IANAL. Can someone who is explain FormGen vs. Micro Star?
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html
The judge says, 'we have developed certain criteria a work must satisfy in order
to qualify as a derivative work. One of these is that a derivative work
Hi people,
I refer to:
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/foss-exception.html
Has anyone contacted MySQL AB about the recent OSI license update, i.e. the AFL
is now version 2.1 rather than 2.0?
On that note, what about asking about the OSL, since they do claim they have
reviewed the most
I agree with every point Larry states. I also think that if an author
chooses to adopt a license (the GPL) or is concerned about compatibility
with the terms of the GPL, the author may find it prudent to take into
account the views of the drafter(s) of the GPL...especially if they
conflict
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
But what is it about the copyright law that leads you to believe that
the degree of triviality to wrap a copyrighted work as a black box
makes a difference in the definition of a derivative work?
For one thing, if the wrapper is too trivial we won't have sufficient
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, John Cowan wrote:
The sticky point is this:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary
On Jun 18, 2004, at 10:58 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
But what is it about the copyright law that leads you to believe that
the degree of triviality to wrap a copyrighted work as a black box
makes a difference in the definition of a derivative work?
For one thing, if the wrapper
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Agreed. For example, Apple has taken the GNU chess program and added a
different graphic front-end to make the Chess application run without
using X11 under MacOS X. Are Apple's changes to GNU chess original
enough to qualify as a derivative work?
I think John
Quoting John Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary compiled from the tarball?
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
If you examine the short stories in a theme anthology, there may be
strong connections between them too (and the stronger the connection,
the stronger the copyright available on the collective work as such).
But a theme anthology is still a
John Cowan wrote:
It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of
its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere
collective work, or aggregation as the GPL calls it. What,
then, is the status of a binary compiled from the tarball?
It evidently is a
On Jun 18, 2004, at 1:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Agreed. For example, Apple has taken the GNU chess program and added
a
different graphic front-end to make the Chess application run without
using X11 under MacOS X. Are Apple's changes to GNU chess original
enough to
On Fri June 18 2004 11:11, Rick Moen wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the concept of derivative work were further
clarified (in the software context) by our courts. But I can't see why
running it through a compiler would affect anyone's ownership.
Well, would it depend on the specifics of the
Quoting Ihab A.B. Awad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Fri June 18 2004 11:11, Rick Moen wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the concept of derivative work were further
clarified (in the software context) by our courts. But I can't see why
running it through a compiler would affect anyone's
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
When did I say no? A binary compiled from the entire tarball is a
derivative of the entire source module collection.
Of the entire collection, yes. But is it a derivative of *each* source
module as well?
And each binary module compiled from each of its modules is a
Rick Moen scripsit:
I just had a bizarre mental image of someone saying Nobody can safely
write songs about mad dogs and Englishmen any more, because one never
knows when the heirs of Noel Coward[1] might bring a lawsuit on a theory
of derivative work.
In a world in which the Commissioner of
Thank you for the clarification
On Fri June 18 2004 11:56, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Ihab A.B. Awad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Fri June 18 2004 11:11, Rick Moen wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the concept of derivative work were further
clarified (in the software context) by our courts.
Rick Moen scripsit:
Now, avoiding licence conflict is important, and there are often
significant issues there, but the allegation (supposedly Prof. Moglen's)
we were discussing was actual ownership of code -- the part about
a binary being a derivative work of various things.
Yes. Is
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
In fact, there are two tests that I know of for determining
derivative-work status:
1) If you never saw the original, your work can't be a derivative of it.
2) Otherwise, the abstraction-filtration-comparison test applies: we
reduce the
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
Someone decides to use X and Y together in a new program, Z. They
write a Z.c which includes X.h and Y.h, and then links Z.o with X1.o,
X2.o, Y1.o, Y2.o, etc to produce an executable Z.
Z derives from both X and Y: it depends on both and cannot stand alone.
Not
Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable
observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a derivative of
source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative of the original. In
a metaphysical sense, we can debate the point, but there is no debate in
the
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable
observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a
derivative of source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative
of the original. In a metaphysical sense, we can debate the
21 matches
Mail list logo
