Abe Kornelis scripsit:
The nearest analogy from literature I can think of at the moment is X
being a grammar text book and Y my essay, which conforms to grammar
in that text book. Is my essay a derivative of the grammar book?
Example is too far-fetched. What if Y were a separate book
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
My question still remains: Why is IBM in a very public way advertising
the benefits of Open Source and Linux, while at the same time lobbying
against Open Source in less visible (and less understood) public policy
circles?
That's not a question, it's an
daniel wallace scripsit:
Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
(1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
(2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on
the promise which the promisor should
daniel wallace scripsit:
When you impose a condition on another person's exclusive legal
rights you are asking that person to wave a legal right. After all,
the right is exclusive and no one may impose a condition without
that person's concious agreement to waive that right.
Very good. But
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
If I take a Hollywood movie, create a laugh track where I think
something funny happened, it is not my right to distribute the new
combined work.
Nobody disputes that. But Daniel is claiming that if you *do* in fact have
permission to create the movie + laugh
daniel wallace scripsit:
The most important
point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in
a ''new version'' covers only the material added by the later author,
and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public
domain status of the preexisting material.
Ken Brown scripsit:
I think Daniel makes an interesting point. But let me ask since you
emailed me your conversations. Who is the original owner of Linux?
Well (to be Clintonesque), that depends on what you mean by Linux. I'll
assume you mean the kernel. It also depends on whether a court
Ryan Ismert scripsit:
It seems to me that what Russell is suggesting (or what one could suggest,
even if Russell is not) is that the condition being imposed is not in fact a
condition on an exclusive right -- the distribution of a derivative work--,
as Daniel holds, but rather a condition
daniel wallace scripsit:
A unilateral permission can be granted only for something in which the
grantor has some legal right. A grantor's unilateral permission by it's
very definition can have no effect on the exclusive rights of another
person distinct from the grantor.
Very true.
When
Rod Dixon scripsit:
In addition to the point made, you might inquire whether what a machine
does when compiling code is an apt comparison to what an individual does
when translating text. My answer is no since machines cannot be authors
under Copyright law.
Questionless. But machines don't
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit:
If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions
exclusive to the copyright holder, a copyright holder could go to court
and use the copyright rights to overcome the impediment - that would be
an exercise of an affirmative right.
In
Peterson, Scott K (HP Legal) scripsit:
- rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as relating to
free speech;
Well, very good. Let's take free speech and plug it into your
explication of affirmative rights:
If, when impeded in some way from undertaking one of the actions
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
iii. NASA policy requires an effort to accurately
track usage of
released software for documentation and benefits
realized?purposes. See 3.F.
Such provisions are not allowed in an open source license. Reporting
requirements are viewed as
daniel wallace scripsit:
*sigh*
In the case of the GPL an original preexisting author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his preexisting
Preparing is what B does, not what A does.
There was a meeting of the minds so Author A and
Author B are in privity... they are not strangers to
Mark W. Alexander scripsit:
By my reading, Title 17 says that government works are not protected by
copyright. Period. NASA also notes that they are only under the
jurisdiction of U.S. federal law. No U.S. law does, or can, subject
government works to foreign copyright authority.
Well, I'm
Richard Schilling scripsit:
The WTO countries are supposed to recognize US copyright, as the US is
supposed to recognize the IP of the other WTO countries. Easier said
then done, but it's there.
Indeed. But are the Berne countries supposed to recognize our *non*-copyrights?
The U.S. as an
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the
distinction compilation-vs-derivative is rather obvious.
Whereas I think the distinction is very subtle and full of borderline
cases, of which the native executable is just one.
First thing you learn when
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
Article 5(3) of the BC says: The enjoyment and the exercise of
these rights ... shall be independent of the existence of protection
in the country of origin of the work.
Article 7(1) puts the duration of protection at life+50, but
article 5(1) states that an
Richard Schilling scripsit:
Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have
something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to
clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of
a license (for open source work in a business) is what
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So what happens when I download the code under a FOIA/public domain issue,
and then relicense under a BSD license? Don't I have the right to
relicense PD works?
You can do anything you want to with a public domain work except try to assert
a valid copyright on it,
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
So I have no right to create a derivative work of a public domain work and
release that derivative work under a license of my choice? For example, I
can not take PD code and incorporate it into Apache httpd? I must
misunderstand what public domain means, then.
Oh
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
It appears that with US government created works that every US
citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work,
Not so. See my other posting.
Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to
enter the public domain, and term expiry can be different
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
citizens do not, then does NASA?
Why, because
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
I don't think so, John. Anyone can do ANYTHING to a public domain work. No
license is required, whether it is to do plastic surgery or simply to put on
lipstick. If anything, the proper question is whether the degree of
creativity in the derivative work is
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
citizens do not, then does NASA?
Rodent of Unusual Size writes:
i don't think anyone has submitted it yet. the apache software
foundation approved version 2.0 of its licence, and would like to
submit it for osi approval. it's online at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
and i'm attaching the text version to
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
So now Person_C is in the position of having Program_C that
seemed to have been properly distributed to him under the GPL,
but which he can no longer use because his rights to Patent_A have
been revoked.
That's equivalent to the case where Program_C requires Patent_Q
Patranun Limudomporn scripsit:
I'd like to inform all of you that our project has been place a CUA Office
Public License (CPL) on our project website now at
http://cuaoffice.sourceforge.net/CPL.htm .
This looks like the Mozilla Public License. Can you specify the
differences between your
A private mail drew to my attention the following sentence in Section 7
of the GPLv2:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by *all* those who receive copies
directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Or is the legal world so badly broken that it is practically
impossible to reliably place software in public domain?
Pretty much. Dedications to the public domain have been rare to
nonexistent in the past, and nobody is quite sure whether they can
actually be achieved
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
P.S. If a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software and license it
to Australians, can a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software
and release it in Australian public domain?
I missed this before. No. The software is not PD in Australia and only
NASA could
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Assuming I did not, let me replace derived products with derived
works since product is difficult to define. I will also explicitly
include published test results in the derived works. A published
test result is a derived work, right?
No, at least generally not. When
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit:
That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot,
and does not seek to override the law.
But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one
can, at least within a single country.
You need to clarify what you mean by
Mark Shewmaker scripsit:
I also claim that since the Apache license can retract
Apache-patent-licenses for people making patent infringement claims,
that that retraction would have to apply to people using Apache-GPL'd
code.
Then, since the retraction applies to someone using GPL'd code,
Eben Moglen scripsit:
A developer, X, adds GPL'd code to Apache, and distributes the combination.
The combined code, including the GPL'd code itself, practices the
teaching of a patent, P, licensed under ASL2. A user, Y, asserts a
defensive patent claim of infringement by Apache. Is
Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
I'm not even sure the license still exists if you take out the
Contribution I made (embodying my patented method) and put
it in some other work.
It's hard to say, certainly. But consider this case: I have patented
a gear, and I give you a patent license to make
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Note that the above rules imply that what you say in documentation is
irrelevant. For example, if you write software that uses published
readline interface and instruct all your users to dynamically link
with GPL readline (for whatever reason), _your_ software is not
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
- Copyleft licenses maximize the freedom of the code
- BSD-like licenses maximize the freedom of the user
I think this works better if you say developer, not user.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.reutershealth.com
Robert Padilla scripsit:
NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3 is now posted on the web:
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.rtf
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Research/Software/Open-Source/NASA_Open_Source_Agreement_1.3.txt
I did a de novo
Eugene Wee scripsit:
For example, I wish to use the IBM Public license version 1.0, and I
change every instance of International Business Machines Corporation
or IBM to Example Corporation.
In this particular case, you can use the Common Public License, which templates
all instances of IBM
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
You don't need the clarification. Simply linking a program against a library
or loading machine readable code compiled from source code doesn't create a
derivative work of software.
Well, that may turn out to be the case. But there's enough dispute on
the point
Forrest J. Cavalier III scripsit:
As far as I understand it, when
moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable
executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB.
That's what's at issue. There aren't any cases in point, so we are forced
back on analogical reasoning. It
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
Here's the ruling:
http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2
Interesting, but I think it's easily distinguishable. This case involves
Softman, who bought collections of software from Adobe and repackaged them
for resale. The court treated this as a sale rather than a licensing,
Well, I have finally plowed through all nineteen pages of the Adaptive
Public License, and here are my comments on it.
This is a semi-reciprocal license like the MPL: you must share changes
by issuing derivative works under the APL, but APL works can be embedded
into a Larger Work (capitalized
Carmen Leeming scripsit:
A Distributor may choose to distribute the Licensed Work, or any
portion thereof, in Executable form (an EXECUTABLE DISTRIBUTION) to
any third party, under the terms of Section 2 of this License, provided
the Executable Distribution is made available under and
Rod Dixon scripsit:
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my
opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI
has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark
within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under
Clint Oram scripsit:
Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are:
1. Enable partners and customers to easily enhance/enrich/expand the product
through GPL-like conditions
2. Allow our company to roll 'contributed open source code' into our
commercial release. What do
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
We now want to change the license from part of the product to another one
that states:
1. our software is and will ever be open-source
2. their software can have any license they want
3. they cannot distribute our software to their customers (or anyone else)
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
Whether a serious competitor will arise using your LGPLed sources is
most likely unrelated to the licensing issue. Since you are going to
release the sources of your software (and allow modification?),
Release in the sense that they will provide those sources to
Ian Lance Taylor scripsit:
I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source
specification is so rigid.
I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here
step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much
sense.
We have so many
Chuck Swiger scripsit:
The list of OSI-approved licenses includes near-duplicates such as the
BSD license versus the SleepyCat license or the University of
Illinois/NCSA Open Source License, for one thing.
A tricky example, actually, since the Sleepycat license is reciprocal:
you have to
Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:
But GlueCode's license is OSI-certified and their license is clearly
distribution-limited:
http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
Simple. Their license is *not* OSI certified and they are misusing the logo
under false pretenses. (Their
So is it true that Rosen on Open Source Law and Dixon on Open Source Law
are the result of a fork?
--
All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part John Cowan
that cooks with lard and goose fat, the partwww.ccil.org/~cowan
that cooks with olive oil, and the part that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on
having files with identical content but different licenses?
If you are the copyright owner, you can issue as many licenses as you please,
and there is no conflict, any more than there is
Marius Amado Alves scripsit:
Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration.
It isn't closed-source, though. Anyone can clone it, and some people have.
--
Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead John Cowan
of the Open Source movement.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Bruce
Chris F Clark scripsit:
What part of OSD#6 prevents someone for charging to license the
software to one group and give the software away for free to another
as long as the same open source license is made available to both?
I'd say it complies.
--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
I suspect a copyright holder who issues a license would argue that the
license changes everything. As such, if you are in lawful possession of
software that is accompanied by a license, you are restricted to accepting
the terms of the license or rejecting
Rick Moen scripsit:
With rare exceptions, if you use a licence other than BSD (new or
old), MIT/X, GPL, LGPL, MPL, CPL, AFL, OSL, you're probably dooming
your project to gratuitous and pointless licence incompatibility with
third-party codebases and ensuring that it will be
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
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
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
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
63 matches
Mail list logo
