Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
An idea parallel to "fair use" is present in the Berne Convention, under the name "fair practice": Article 10 (1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. The details of code and interpretation do of course vary from country to country. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > >> >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called >> >> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for >> >> >>Xdebug". >> >> > >> >> > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. >> >> >> >> It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of >> >> the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments. >> > >> > IMO just copying a tiny bit of code or copying various comments does not >> > make something a derivate. I mean, com'on, other people can come up with >> > those same comments or tiny bits of code. >> >> This seems to me to be no different from citing a paragraph from a >> book, which is perfectly legal under normal copyright law. > > There is no such thing as "normal copyright law". Not all jurisdictions out > there have any concept of what is known commonly as "fair use", which is the > only thing I can think of that would allow you to quote a paragraph from a > copyrighted book without the copyright holder's permission. You're right. >> If a code fragment is used in another program, matters might be >> different, though. > > Why? Quoting from a book is often done to illustrate something, or otherwise give an example. I can't see how a code fragment could be considered an example of something, if it is actually executed as part of a program. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called > >> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for > >> >>Xdebug". > >> > > >> > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. > >> > >> It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of > >> the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments. > > > > IMO just copying a tiny bit of code or copying various comments does not > > make something a derivate. I mean, com'on, other people can come up with > > those same comments or tiny bits of code. > > This seems to me to be no different from citing a paragraph from a > book, which is perfectly legal under normal copyright law. There is no such thing as "normal copyright law". Not all jurisdictions out there have any concept of what is known commonly as "fair use", which is the only thing I can think of that would allow you to quote a paragraph from a copyrighted book without the copyright holder's permission. > If a code fragment is used in another program, matters might be > different, though. Why? - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [xdebug-general] Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
me> Universal Commercial Code s/Universal/Uniform/ (whoops) This and other Model Acts, on which a lot of state laws in the US are based, may be found at http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ulc.htm . Cheers, - Michael
Re: IRAF component relicensed
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote >> In this particular case, the modifications consist of changing the >> output language from C to something else. That sounds fairly major; >> the entire parsing engine would have been hand-translated to the new >> language. > It's probably not that hard. I wasn't saying it was hard. "Major" is an orthogonal dimension. > The manner in which a yacc-generated parser operates is not obvious > to somebody who does not understand it, but it really isn't > complicated. That doesn't prevent replacing it (and the various constant-generating parts of the generator proper) from being a relatively major change to the parser generator. -- Henning Makholm "Han råber og skriger, vakler ud på kørebanen og ind på fortorvet igen, hæver knytnæven mod en bil, hilser overmådigt venligt på en mor med barn, bryder ud i sang og stiller sig til sidst op og pisser i en port."
Re: [xdebug-general] Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
> > The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning > > (in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense > > interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code > > you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them) > > -- even an unpatched but independently compiled binary -- is a > > "derived product" in this sense. > > Which country is this in? I doubt that this works the same way all over > the world. Any links to dutch or even european jurisprudence? As others have pointed out, it's actually "derived (or derivative) work" that has a legal meaning in the context of US and UK copyright law. I don't know about Dutch jurisprudence, but here's the relevant article from the Berne convention (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1978/5.html ), which doesn't use the "derived work" formula anywhere: Article 12. Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works. > > There's a legal instrument for control over other people's use of a > > name -- it's called a trademark. ... And in any case, > > adding that clause doesn't give you any legal recourse that you didn't > > already have under the legal definition of a "confusingly similar" > > trademark. (I think -- IANAL, and I'm going on US/California law.) > > There is no trademark for PHP for the simple reason that it is WAY too > expensive to have a worldwide trademark. I can not afford to have a > trademark. Because of that, I will keep my license clause as I do not > want people to make a derivate called "Xdebug+" for example. At least in many US jurisdictions, a trademark needn't be registered to be valid -- if it has demonstrably been used in trade, it can be enforced against another party even if that party has since registered it. (Registration may be required preparatory to enforcement in court, though, and trademark can be lost by failing to defend it.) See Planetary Motion v. Techplosion 2001 (http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-10872.man.html ) for a US appellate court case in which the registered owner of a trademark sought out and purchased a prior owner's rights in order to strengthen an infringement claim against a third party. > Also, I do not care a single bit about whatever law some state in the US > has, it's not of my concern. I cite US/California law because it's easiest for me to research. Unless a case hinges on peculiarities of state law (never the case when we are talking about copyright or patent, and rarely when we are talking about contract and trademark topics that are covered by the Universal Commercial Code), case law created in an appellate jurisdiction is generally recognized by that court's "sister circuits", i. e., the entire US legal system. Outside the US is of course another story; compare and contrast, anyone? I think that you would need to enforce intellectual property law violations in the country where the violation happens (the violator hasn't agreed to a "choice of governing law" clause). > regards, > Derick Cheers, - Michael
Re: IRAF component relicensed
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 10:45:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to > > BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of > > BSD UNIX and the whole AT&T vs. BSD issue. > > In this particular case, the modifications consist of changing the > output language from C to something else. That sounds fairly major; > the entire parsing engine would have been hand-translated to the new > language. It's probably not that hard. The manner in which a yacc-generated parser operates is not obvious to somebody who does not understand it, but it really isn't complicated. I'd be surprised if it was more than a day's work. The hardest part is probably figuring out what they actually did, so as to create something compatible. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [xdebug-general] Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > >> Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream > >> versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the > >> Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a > >> new upstream version containing that patch.) > > > See, that is something I wouldn't like distributions to do with any code > > It is your right to hold that opinion. However, no license that tries > to enforce it will be considered free by Debian. This is not > negotiable. End of story. I'm not sure if you read the license, but something like this is not in there. Derick -- Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
Scripsit Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: >> Debian packages frequently contain changes from the upstream >> versions. (These patches are generally sent upstream, but the >> Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without waiting for a >> new upstream version containing that patch.) > See, that is something I wouldn't like distributions to do with any code It is your right to hold that opinion. However, no license that tries to enforce it will be considered free by Debian. This is not negotiable. End of story. -- Henning Makholm "Jeg mener, at der eksisterer et hemmeligt selskab med forgreninger i hele verden, som arbejder i det skjulte for at udsprede det rygte at der eksisterer en verdensomspændende sammensværgelse."
Re: IRAF component relicensed
Scripsit Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > One suggestion: you might be able to make the necessary modifications to > BSD yacc, which I think descends from the original UNIX yacc by way of > BSD UNIX and the whole AT&T vs. BSD issue. In this particular case, the modifications consist of changing the output language from C to something else. That sounds fairly major; the entire parsing engine would have been hand-translated to the new language. -- Henning Makholm "Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!"
Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called >> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for >> >>Xdebug". >> > >> > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. >> >> It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of >> the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments. > > IMO just copying a tiny bit of code or copying various comments does not > make something a derivate. I mean, com'on, other people can come up with > those same comments or tiny bits of code. This seems to me to be no different from citing a paragraph from a book, which is perfectly legal under normal copyright law. If a code fragment is used in another program, matters might be different, though. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [xdebug-general] Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > The trouble, I think, is that "derived product" has a legal meaning > (in the context of copyright) contrary to your common-sense > interpretation. Anything other than an exact copy of the source code > you distribute (or, if you distribute binaries, exact copies of them) > -- even an unpatched but independently compiled binary -- is a > "derived product" in this sense. Which country is this in? I doubt that this works the same way all over the world. Any links to dutch or even european jurisprudence? > There's a legal instrument for control over other people's use of a > name -- it's called a trademark. It is governed by different law and > the criteria for infringement are different (e. g., "tarnishment" for > use of your product's name in a way that devalues the trademark, such > as by using it to refer to a shoddy derived product). For instance, > Linus Torvalds has registered "Linux" as a trademark precisely to deal > with this concern. The legal entities behind Apache and PHP have > probably also registered these trademarks and act as necessary to > defend them (necessary in order to retain ownership of the trademark > -- again different from copyright law). > > When you impose non-exact naming constraints in your license, I think > you are implicitly dragging in additional trademark considerations, > and that complicates the interpretation of the license as free or > non-free. I don't think anyone is hostile to your intention, but > there's a history of dispute over the details. And in any case, > adding that clause doesn't give you any legal recourse that you didn't > already have under the legal definition of a "confusingly similar" > trademark. (I think -- IANAL, and I'm going on US/California law.) There is no trademark for PHP for the simple reason that it is WAY too expensive to have a worldwide trademark. I can not afford to have a trademark. Because of that, I will keep my license clause as I do not want people to make a derivate called "Xdebug+" for example. Also, I do not care a single bit about whatever law some state in the US has, it's not of my concern. regards, Derick -- Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [xdebug-general] Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called > >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for > >>Xdebug". > > > > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. > > It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of > the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments. IMO just copying a tiny bit of code or copying various comments does not make something a derivate. I mean, com'on, other people can come up with those same comments or tiny bits of code. regards, Derick -- Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is the xdebug's non-free license necessary?
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > I am totally fine if people put it in distributions as php4-xdebug. > > AFAIK freebsd's ports already have this, and so will Mandrake in the > > forseeable feature. It would be silly of me to prohibit this, and this > > is what IMO the license never intended to prohibit. > > Even if the Debian package contains differences from the upstream > version? Your license only permits use of the name "Xdebug" for > unmodified versions; as stated above, Debian packages frequently contain > changes from the upstream versions. (These patches are generally sent > upstream, but the Debian maintainer will often apply a patch without > waiting for a new upstream version containing that patch.) See, that is something I wouldn't like distributions to do with any code as it's IMO highly confusing for users if their distributions version of a package does something not-documented, or something not at all (although it's documented). Unless it's a security problem a distribution should be pure (except from perhaps changing some default directories or something like that). If a distribution wants something fixed, then they can send a patch to the developer. If it make sense it will get incorporated, but it's also very possible that a proposed patch is a bad implementation, or performance killing and in that case a packaged version will be suboptimal. And there is usually one person that gets the blame: the author. regards, Derick -- Xdebug | http://xdebug.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ACCOUNT DEACTIVATED
This account is no longer active. Thus, your mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
