Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Fedor Zuev wrote to Jeremy Hankins: On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: [I'm taking this off-list, as this is no longer really relevant there.] Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under Sun RPC license, not under GPL. So, GPL irrelevant there. If someone takes GPL code and Sun RPC code and puts them together to form a new work that work is what's known as a derived work. It is not very accurate defintion. Simply puts them together do not always create derivative work. *Both* licenses must be simultaneously satisfied in order for the resulting (derived) work to be distributed. No. *Both* license is irrelevant there. *Only* license to the combined derived work is relevant. Not _you_, not _distributors_ or _users_ of GLIBC, but only GLIBC _developers_ should satisfy the terms of Sun RPC license. So the GPL most certainly is relevant.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL. Section 2.b of the GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Section 2 talks about the creation of derived works, which is what the FSF is doing when they include the Sun RPC code. When FSF include Sun RPC code, that code was licensed to FSF under Sun RPC license, not under GPL. So, GPL irrelevant there.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) [snip] One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit ritual suicide and the work would still be free. But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? Maybe. GPL defines work based on the Program twice: First, it clearly refers to derivative work under copyright law -- The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. -- Second, it refer only to modify itself -- You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above -- Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit ritual suicide and the work would still be free. But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc code? I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) [snip] One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit ritual suicide and the work would still be free. But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is. I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? Maybe. GPL defines work based on the Program twice: First, it clearly refers to derivative work under copyright law -- The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. -- Second, it refer only to modify itself -- You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above -- Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) IMHO. Work need not be completely independent to be original. It is enough, iа there a some original contribution in it. There is a 1) SUN RPC - supposedly, original, copyrighted bu Sun. 2) GLIBC - original as well, because of major original contribution, made by GLIBC developers. 3) modifiication of (2) literally equivalent to (1) One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new original work of authorship. Assuming that the reported clarification is accurate (i.e., BSD except that you can't distribute the original by itself), there are two questions to be answered: 1) Can you take a work based on the Sun RPC code and further modify it to be exactly like the Sun RPC code, and distribute that? No 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? Maybe. GPL defines work based on the Program twice: First, it clearly refers to derivative work under copyright law -- The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. -- Second, it refer only to modify itself -- You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above -- Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not. In order for the code to be GPL compatible the answer to one of those questions must be Yes. MHO, of course, is that the more likely yes answer is to be found from (1), as (2) is clearly false. In fact, if the answer to (1) is no, I have trouble seeing how it passes the DFSG at all.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable. Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc code? I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
* Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Huh? I'm assuming you transposed 'would' and '_this_ license' in your second sentence. But even then I'm not sure I understand it. I never said that the GPL was applied to the Sun RPC code. I said that it must be distributed under the terms of the GPL -- meaning that the Sun RPC license must match the terms provided in the GPL. Otherwise it can't be distributed. (Hrm. Or could it? If the FSF made the modification, being the copyright holder, they needn't do so under the requirements of 2.b of the GPL. So perhaps *they* can still distribute it But that wouldn't make much difference, as no one else would be able to modify it or link it with GPL code.) -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). Licensing of the whole work does not imply by default the licensing of the every part of this work under the same license. It is not imply even licensing of a part of work at all. GPL specifically guarantees, that you can distribute under terms of GPL any work, based on GPL-ed work. SUN RPC is a part of GLIBC, but it is not a work, based on GLIBC. So, GPL is not guarantees, nor that you distribute it at all, nor that you distribute it under GPL. Section 2.b of the GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Section 2 talks about the creation of derived works, which is what the FSF is doing when they include the Sun RPC code. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030829 18:05]: Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry. I was very unclear. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not a work, derived from GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, extracted from GLIBC is not GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first definition, it is not a work based on the GLIBC. It is simply SUN RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any compatible license. Because only work, based on GPL-licensed work should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN. But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL. Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no license to the code whatsoever). You seem to impley that the FSF has permission from sun to apply the GPL to the relevant code. Otherwise would _this_ license not be allowed to be treated as under GPL, but under a compatible license. Do you have a proof for this permission? Well, Sun distributes glibc, doesn't it? -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. I'll have to pass on this one, as I've never heard of anybody being sued for this at all, but I counter-invite you to come up with an example of anybody coming up with the same expression of the same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and *losing*. Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. I don't think any case law exists (or ever will exist) on the subject, so we'll have to work with the statutes - which, at least in the US and EU, are fairly clear that independant innovation is a valid way to avoid copyright issues. No, independent innovation is a valid way of *gaining* copyright on a work. The way you demonstrate it's independent from other works, is by demonstrating it's *different* to other works. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgp62NKCclbZ3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. What you both seem to be arguing here is a question of fact, not of law. The question that is asked is: Was the work copied or not? That's what juries (or judges when there is no jury) do in civil cases. They try the facts.[1] You would be hard pressed to get a jury to agree that two identical thousand page novels were developed independently. However, if a jury decides that they were, there is no law stating that copyright infringement has to have taken place, or the works didn't have enough originality to be copyrighted in the first place. We return you now to your regularly scheduled thread. Don Armstrong 1: At least in the US system. I can't speak for the legal systems of any other country with any degree of acuracy. -- Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. -- Oscar Wilde http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpB5tsnWBen3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is, well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages and the connection is still opaque to me.) Assuming that the reported clarification is accurate (i.e., BSD except that you can't distribute the original by itself), there are two questions to be answered: 1) Can you take a work based on the Sun RPC code and further modify it to be exactly like the Sun RPC code, and distribute that? 2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with the GPL? In order for the code to be GPL compatible the answer to one of those questions must be Yes. MHO, of course, is that the more likely yes answer is to be found from (1), as (2) is clearly false. In fact, if the answer to (1) is no, I have trouble seeing how it passes the DFSG at all. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:13:04PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another work which happens to be identical to the original Sun RPC code. In such a case, there are two possible interpretations under copyright that must be considered: The rest of the argument holds based on this hypothesis. Unfortunately for your argument, the hypothesis is false - incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work, distributing that to a second person, who subsequently refines it further is clearly a derivative work of the original Sun RPC code. It's not independant creation at all. These are therefore not two possible interpretations under copyright. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpI5yy8MF9xl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:13:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: We interrupt this thread to bring you new and exciting information: On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: Every copyright case that's lost by the defendents is an example. That's the point: if you come up with the exact same expression, then either you've copied, or there's a lack of originality in the work to start with. What you both seem to be arguing here is a question of fact, not of law. The question that is asked is: Was the work copied or not? Well, sort of. Anthony is arguing that it was copied. I am arguing that *if* it was not copied, there has been no copyright violation. Anthony then repeats No, it was copied. I'm not sure what he thinks this accomplishes. I have an endless supply of hypothetical scenarios where it was not copied, regardless of how many he changes. Any one of them demonstrates how the license is incompatible with the GPL. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp8H11b8324K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: ... You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. AFAIK, this is called lack of originality|creativity and there a lot of cases worldwide. At least I can remember several cases for the last decade only in Russia. If you google 'lack of originality copyright', you probably get some examples yourself. Of course, if you can independently reinvent the same work, it prove that work unoriginal and, therefore, does not deserve copyright protection at all. Because of that, sides often prefer not to wait judge's verdict, but settle the case out-of-court.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? -- Henning Makholm What has it got in its pocketses?
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of
someone incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing
it to a second person, who subsequently refines this work to create
yet another work which happens to be identical to the original Sun
RPC code. In such a case, there are two possible interpretations
under copyright that must be considered:
{
Provably independent creation of a work identical to another,
pre-existing work that enjoys copyright status is not an
infringement of the first work's copyright.,
Creation of an identical work, even if provably independent (no
copying took place from the original work), still infringes the
copyright of the earlier work.
}
The problem here is the provably independent -- by hypothesis the
work is based in part on the original Sun RPC code. So Sun's terms,
along with those of the GPL, still apply. So the first option is
clearly irrelevant.
Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
copyright infringement, the only way the GPL can be internally
consistent is if it does *not* require authors to relinquish their
right to pursue infringements against the copyright of their
original, independent work; otherwise, the paragraphs cited above
are meaningless, and actually leave an author who chooses to
distribute his code under the GPL with no right at all (or no
practical means of enforcement) to control the creation of copies of
the original work, only the right to create new derivative works and
license (or not license) them under terms of his choice.
I'm having a lot of trouble parsing this (single!) sentence. On the
face of it you seem to be saying that someone who licenses something
under the GPL ought to be able to come along later and add extra
restrictions to the license, and that RMS could not possibly have
intended otherwise when the GPL was written.
If the GPL
really did require this, we would have a problem, because the
copyright holder of the Sun RPC code hasn't granted us this
permission. However, I don't believe that this is the intended
meaning of the GPL; rather, I understand the paragraphs above to
have the plain meaning that the GPL does *not* contest the copyright
of the original code, and therefore code whose license bears a
special provision regarding its disposition when in isolation is GPL
compatible.
It's a good thing the GPL doesn't contest the copyright of the
original code, because it would lose. Instead, if there is a
conflict, no distribution is possible. I completely fail to see how
the section of the GPL you quoted is relevant.
The Sun RPC code is *still* licensed under Sun's terms when it is
distributed as part of a GPL work. But the GPL says to the
distributor (in essence): License all portions of the work to
distributees under the terms of the GPL, with no extra restrictions.
If you cannot, don't distribute. Clearly, don't distributed X block
of code by itself is a restriction not found in the GPL, therefore
it's not GPL compatible.
Of course, there may or may not have been a clarification, I don't
know. Though I certainly distrust getting it third (or more) hand.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that Sun has a problem with
the code being distributed as part of a GPL work.
As is often said, law is not like programming; I have no algorithm
that can tell me which of the above legal outcomes actually
corresponds to the state of law in any given jurisdiction.
True. But my understanding is that traditionally d-l has erred on the
side of caution. That would suggest that if there is doubt we should
seek to clarify that doubt before assuming that there's no problem.
--
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Utah :-) Richard Braakman
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Indeed. I'm glad to see the disposition of #181493 is in such assertive hands. -- G. Branden Robinson|It is the responsibility of Debian GNU/Linux |intellectuals to tell the truth and [EMAIL PROTECTED] |expose lies. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Noam Chomsky pgpFEGJNRUy2V.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 14:51, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued ^^ Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Trade Secrets work like this in some countries, and you can even tell people about them and still claim them to be your Trade Secret. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:03:13PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Um, where in the world can *ideas* be copyrightable? Utah :-) Not what you had in mind, but damnit, now I'm going to have to go watch _Raising Arizona_ again. :) Maybe it was Utah... -- G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the Debian GNU/Linux | long road from capitalism to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying pgprpfyNud2Cx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them) You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right. Nice to see we're working towards consensus. You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpNIzMNiSjRM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. This is not a fair request, at least within the U.S., because such cases will tend to get settled out-of-court with a gag order on the parties forbidding disclosure of the terms of the settlement. For example, it is at least plausible that this maybe been the case in the USL v. BSDI (a.k.a. ATT v. UCB) lawsuit. We still don't know what was admitted to by whom under that settlement. Computer source code, because of its formal nature, is particularly *likely*, in fact, to lead to such instances that you ridicule as vanishingly unlikely. Personally, I consider the possibility of anyone being able to get away with a defense of that form exceedinly unlikely. Ah, the argument from personal incredulity. -- G. Branden Robinson| It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse. pgpm7pmJVwCxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au: You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access to the original work. Different people independently coming up with the same expression would perhaps be evidence for there being insufficient originality for there to be any copyright in the work. A case where this might arise would be translations of a short poem. A translation of a haiku would normally be covered by copyright, but it is not inconceivable that two people could independently come up with identical translations of the same haiku, particularly if both people do a dozen versions each.
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:36:13PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:10:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 11:51:49AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like
`solitaire.exe',
but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of
things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under
the terms of the GPL.
This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless
you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright
behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them)
You're wrong, and we'll ignore anywhere where you may be right.
Nice to see we're working towards consensus.
You have founded your argument upon laws which are inimical to
copyleft licenses, and which do not apply throughout the US or EU -
and which we still haven't seen any concrete examples of.
I can't rebut this any more than I can rebut an argument that says
But if local law prohibits commercial use of software, then
non-commercial-use-only clauses do not add any extra restrictions and
are therefore both DFSG-free and compatible with the GPL.
You're invited to demonstrate an instance of someone coming up with the
exact same expression of the exact same copyrightable idea being sued
for copyright infringement and winning on the grounds of independent
reinvention. For bonus points make it an instance where they had access
to the original work.
I'll have to pass on this one, as I've never heard of anybody being
sued for this at all, but I counter-invite you to come up with an
example of anybody coming up with the same expression of the same
copyrightable idea being sued for copyright infringement and
*losing*. I don't think any case law exists (or ever will exist) on
the subject, so we'll have to work with the statutes - which, at least
in the US and EU, are fairly clear that independant innovation is a
valid way to avoid copyright issues.
Furthermore, I invite you to find a country where laws which support
your position actually exist. Otherwise we'll have to dismiss your
argument as handwaving.
More handwaving, for your entertainment:
The set of all possible relevant legal statuses of the Sun RPC code is
as follows:
{
The Sun RPC code is not an independent, copyrightable work in its own
right, or does not enjoy copyrighted status.,
The Sun RPC code is an independent, copyrightable work in its own
right, and enjoys a copyrighted status.
}
If the code does not contain sufficient original expression that it
would be copyrightable, then the Sun RPC license does not matter; no one
is bound by it, and it can simply be ignored.
If the code is copyrighted, then we must consider the case of someone
incorporating the Sun RPC code into a work and distributing it to a
second person, who subsequently refines this work to create yet another
work which happens to be identical to the original Sun RPC code. In
such a case, there are two possible interpretations under copyright that
must be considered:
{
Provably independent creation of a work identical to another,
pre-existing work that enjoys copyright status is not an infringement
of the first work's copyright.,
Creation of an identical work, even if provably independent (no
copying took place from the original work), still infringes the
copyright of the earlier work.
}
In the first case, the original terms of the Sun RPC code no longer
matter. So long as we have no intention of taking the original Sun RPC
code and distributing it independently (I imagine we don't have a copy
to do so with even if we wished), we can do anything we want to with the
code, because it has been successfully laundered by passing through
glibc as permitted by the original license.
In the second case, we would have to consider the language of the GPL,
which says:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
Under a regime where independent creation of a given expression is a
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case: But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them. Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpFzJqyDaI8N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:03:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:33:41PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case: But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them. Nor is Not being able to change it to look exactly like `solitaire.exe', but you can't do that, either. And yet we can still distribute lots of things that you can change to look exactly like `solitaire.exe' under the terms of the GPL. This is essentially false, as Branden has already commented. (Unless you happen to live in one of those freaky countries where copyright behaves like patents, but I think we'll have to ignore them) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpXqqnCj9ytE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:27:08PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either. If you're trying to distribute the product alone, then the GPL has absolutely no relevance. If you're distributing it with something, GPLed or not, then it's apparently the same as MIT/X11, which is GPL compatible. [If this were valid, then the GPL wouldn't be incompatible with the Artistic license either]. No, that's not the case, since the Artistic license isn't MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. Therefore, in order to link a GPLed application with glibc, I need to be able to distribute the source code to glibc under the GPL as well. Again, under _the terms of_ the GPL. From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. Which isn't correct. You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. Consider, as another example, the following program: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.0 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # All rights reserved find /foo -type f | grep 'aj' | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed 's/aj/AJ/g'` mv $a $x done and the following derivative: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.1 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # May be freely used/copied/etc under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. export LANG=C word=$1 if [ $word = ]; then word=aj fi worduc=`echo $word | tr a-z A-Z` find /foo -type f | grep $word | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed s/$word/$worduc/g` mv $a $x done Version 1.1 and third party derivatives are clearly under the GPL, but that doesn't mean you can use it to make a copy of version 1.0 that's under the GPL, any more than you can start with a blank page and convert that to a copy of version 1.0 without violating copyright. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpFKYpVp3q7o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL. From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. Which isn't correct. You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. Consider if a package consisted of two files. One is 'hello.c', and the other is 'fsf-funding'. The license for hello.c says You may only distribute this along with a copy of fsf-funding, md5sum value. The license for the package as a whole says: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. The licensor of the package does not own the copyright to hello.c, and therefore cannot be construed as implicitly licensing it under the GPL. You can distribute the end product under the GPL. You cannot remove fsf-funding and distribute the result. Are you seriously suggesting that this is acceptable under the terms of the GPL? It's just another form of the invariant sections we've had so much fun with in the GFDL - data which cannot be detached or modified. If not, please refine the statement You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. appropriately. I believe that once you have refined it to exclude all the gratuitously non-free examples I can invent, it will also exclude the sunrpc code. Consider, as another example, the following program: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.0 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # All rights reserved find /foo -type f | grep 'aj' | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed 's/aj/AJ/g'` mv $a $x done and the following derivative: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.1 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # May be freely used/copied/etc under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. export LANG=C word=$1 if [ $word = ]; then word=aj fi worduc=`echo $word | tr a-z A-Z` find /foo -type f | grep $word | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed s/$word/$worduc/g` mv $a $x done Version 1.1 and third party derivatives are clearly under the GPL, but that doesn't mean you can use it to make a copy of version 1.0 that's under the GPL, any more than you can start with a blank page and convert that to a copy of version 1.0 without violating copyright. If this were true, then for all cases where multiple licenses applied to a given sequence of bytes, then you would have to obey _all_ of them. In the copyright law we use in this world, you only have to obey _one_ of them. (Note that this is distinct from combining multiple sequences of bytes under different licenses into a single work - then you do have to obey all of them) Under the GPL, I can take version 1.1, delete the first two stanzas, replace $word with aj and $worduc with AJ - simple modification to optimise the script. I now have a copy of version 1.0 that is under the GPL. At no point did I look at version 1.0 while performing this optimisation, so it is in no sense a derivative work of 1.0. If this did _not_ hold, then a corporation would be able to produce a GPLed program, and a set of modifications which you were not permitted to make - by implementing them and licensing them differently. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpGovijTPmP0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL. No, it's not what you said. What you said is we can't distribute it under the GPL, a.k.a. We can't take this, say its license is the GPL, and redistribute it as such, which obviously is correct. What aj said is We can take this, *pretend* its license is GPL, and distribute it as such. Provided the license is GPL-compatible in the way we distribute it, we can do that, as long as we don't actually modify the license terms. -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org Stop breathing down my neck. My breathing is merely a simulation. So is my neck, stop it anyway! -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462. pgpLiFUaltUGL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. Which isn't correct. You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. Consider if a package consisted of two files. One is 'hello.c', and the other is 'fsf-funding'. The license for hello.c says You may only distribute this along with a copy of fsf-funding, md5sum value. The license for the package as a whole says: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. The licensor of the package does not own the copyright to hello.c, and therefore cannot be construed as implicitly licensing it under the GPL. If the package as a whole just includes hello.c and fsf-funding, then there's no independent material to put a copyright on, and trying to put the GPL on it is meaningless. But let's go with it, and assume that's not the case. You can distribute the end product under the GPL. You cannot remove fsf-funding and distribute the result. But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove the fsf-funding document isn't one of them. So only one of your statements above is true. By contrast, modifying the program to look exactly like another one, say the source code to Windows solitaire, is already prohibited by copyright independent of the license on hello.c, or whatever other program you decide to start from. Certainly, the Sun license goes about this in a different way -- using its license to forbid you to go back to the original Sun RPC code and distribute it -- but the result's exactly the same, and no more harmful than copyright law in general. If you want to get an opinion from Eben Moglen or similar on it, and pass that on to Sun and the glibc folks, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but as far as this goes, it's making an issue out of a triviality. Are you seriously suggesting that this is acceptable under the terms of the GPL? It's just another form of the invariant sections we've had so much fun with in the GFDL - data which cannot be detached or modified. It's not this though -- it's the exact opposite. You can modify Sun RPC to your heart's content; you just can't take out all the modifications and end up with the single original source file Sun gave out. If not, please refine the statement You need to be able to distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which you can; the original parts don't matter, since if you're distributing those, you're not bound by the GPL at all. appropriately. Hrm? I can rephrase if you like? If you take foo, that's BSD licensed, then anyone you give it too, no matter what you might say about the GPL, can use it under the BSD license. It's only when you hook foo up into some other code that you have the copyright too (like Windows or glibc) that what you say about the license is of any relevance. If this were true, then for all cases where multiple licenses applied to a given sequence of bytes, then you would have to obey _all_ of them. I have no idea where you've pulled that claim from, but it's not correct. If I take Capital-AJ 1.1 I can make Capital-AJ 1.1aj1 with whatever new features I want. The only thing I can't do is the equivalent of: cat Capital-AJ-1.0 | grep -v 'All rights reserved' | dd of=Capital-AJ-1.1 and say Oh, but it's not a copy of Capital-AJ-1.0, it's some changes I made to Capital-AJ-1.1! Under the GPL, I can take version 1.1, delete the first two stanzas, replace $word with aj and $worduc with AJ - simple modification to optimise the script. And get sued for copyright infringement, no matter how vigorously you wave your hands. I now have a copy of version 1.0 that is under the GPL. No, you have a *copy of version 1.0*. Which concers the copyright of version 1.0, which you have no license to. At no point did I look at version 1.0 while performing this optimisation, so it is in no sense a derivative work of 1.0. Considering version 1.1 has only ever been distributed along with 1.0, that seems decidedly implausible. Considering the opitmisations aren't valuable, and the features are (at least in comparison to the rest of the script), you're almost certainly lying. Just as you would be if you claimed the comments in SCO and Linux's mallocs were so similar due solely to coincidence. If this did _not_ hold, then a corporation would be able to produce a
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL. No, it's not what you said. What you said is we can't distribute it under the GPL, a.k.a. We can't take this, say its license is the GPL, and redistribute it as such, which obviously is correct. What aj said is We can take this, *pretend* its license is GPL, and distribute it as such. Provided the license is GPL-compatible in the way we distribute it, we can do that, as long as we don't actually modify the license terms. There's no difference between these two things. Not that it has any relevant to the current discussion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpZYZIoKqSjr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:45:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: You can distribute the end product under the GPL. You cannot remove fsf-funding and distribute the result. But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove the fsf-funding document isn't one of them. So only one of your statements above is true. Which is the whole point; I constructed a test case to demonstrate a logical flaw in your statement. Now, translating this back to the sunrpc case: But that means you can't distribute the end product under the terms of the GPL, which include (in part 2) the ability to make modifications only taking into account a few random things. Not being able to remove everything but the sunrpc code isn't one of them. You have, in effect, precisely stated why I do not believe the sunrpc code to be compatible with the GPL. [I have a few pages explaining why most of the other points in your mail were wrong, but I'm skipping them for now as that isn't directly relevant]. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpZkqw6R0DwZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Consider, as another example, the following program: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.0 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # All rights reserved find /foo -type f | grep 'aj' | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed 's/aj/AJ/g'` mv $a $x done and the following derivative: #!/bin/sh # Capital-AJ version 1.1 # Copyright (c) 2003 Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] # May be freely used/copied/etc under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. export LANG=C word=$1 if [ $word = ]; then word=aj fi worduc=`echo $word | tr a-z A-Z` find /foo -type f | grep $word | while read a; do x=`echo $a | sed s/$word/$worduc/g` mv $a $x done Version 1.1 and third party derivatives are clearly under the GPL, but that doesn't mean you can use it to make a copy of version 1.0 that's under the GPL, any more than you can start with a blank page and convert that to a copy of version 1.0 without violating copyright. Actually, under some circumstances, you can. If the expression in 1.0 is such that it could reasonably be independently derived from 1.1, then this is evidence that there was little (if any) originality in 1.0. There is a big difference between a blank page and Capital-AJ version 1.1. I freely admit that this analysis is grounded on U.S.-centric notions of reverse engineering and originality as a relevant concept to copyright. In other jurisdictions, copyrights more closely resemble patents, and independent innovation is no defense to a claim of copyright infringement. Anyway, I find your illustration unhelpful and unsupportive of your thesis. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpLU4a1UkQb4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC. Which we are, viz The Debian Distribution. ...which means the license violates either DFSG 5, DFSG 6, or DFSG 8. If the fact that we *are* the Debian Project or *are* a group of developers of products or programs are facts that render us compliant with the license, then the license is not DFSG-free. Who you are, or what you do (apart from the copyright-protected activity of distribution of the Work-in-Itself) does not matter to a Free license. If it does, the license is not Free. If citing who we are or what we do is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement, then the license is discriminatory. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgp62z5djjdud.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is. That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL. No, it's not what you said. What you said is we can't distribute it under the GPL, a.k.a. We can't take this, say its license is the GPL, and redistribute it as such, which obviously is correct. What aj said is We can take this, *pretend* its license is GPL, and distribute it as such. Provided the license is GPL-compatible in the way we distribute it, we can do that, as long as we don't actually modify the license terms. There's no difference between these two things. Not that it has any relevant to the current discussion. I think we've argued about this before. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200206/msg00157.html -- G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the Debian GNU/Linux |above, but it is too long to fit [EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpNjZ0fxp4d6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:45:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: By contrast, modifying the program to look exactly like another one, say the source code to Windows solitaire, is already prohibited by copyright Not always. -- G. Branden Robinson|It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux |screaming mob pounding on a greasy [EMAIL PROTECTED] |spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |lie the carcass of a dead horse. pgp3DqrYfOrLf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as well as, eg, the Artistic license does. I humbly submit that only the GPL and BSD licenses pass the DFSG as well as the Artistic license does. 10. Example Licenses The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. Richard Braakman
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. If there's a valid interpretation that makes things legal, then that should be the default. Only if there are no such valid interpretations, or if the copyright holder states their interpretation, is it appropriate to worry about this. Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Not being able to distribute the original Sun RPC code alone is not a problem, so long as we're able to distribute any variants of it that we may actually want. If you're really concerned about other possible caveats, please feel free to contact Sun to work on getting a clarified license. However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as well as, eg, the Artistic license does. The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how you can claim it is compatible. And yes, the Artistic license is a good comparison. That isn't compatible with the GPL either. I repeat, *this* is not a DFSG issue, but rather one of being able to realistically distribute the code at all. If we can't legally combine GPLed code with glibc, that would be pretty disasterous. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpgadZL2A5G9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. That's not the copyright holder whom you're presuming for. And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either. If you're trying to distribute the product alone, then the GPL has absolutely no relevance. If you're distributing it with something, GPLed or not, then it's apparently the same as MIT/X11, which is GPL compatible. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpY2vq5L1gOf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote: A distributes a program developed by A based on Sun RPC to B. B cannot turn around distribute the program to C unless they repackage it as a product or program developed by B. This isn't the case: A may license or distribute it to anyone [..] as part of a product or program developed by [A], and thus may provide a license to all comers, including C. The fact that A can distribute and provide a license to all comers isn't the issue. The issue is whether B can legally distribute to C. A strict reading would seem to preclude this, but if someone can dig up where the copyright holder said MIT/X11+restriction, that would indicate that someone goofed in the phrasing and didn't really mean all of the implications of 'developed by the user.' It definetly wouldn't be the first time that someone wrote a legal document that could be read one way when they really meant it to mean something different. Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpSbbNMQ33S9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. If there's a valid interpretation that makes things legal, then that should be the default. Only if there are no such valid interpretations, or if the copyright holder states their interpretation, is it appropriate to worry about this. Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Not being able to distribute the original Sun RPC code alone is not a problem, so long as we're able to distribute any variants of it that we may actually want. If you're really concerned about other possible caveats, please feel free to contact Sun to work on getting a clarified license. However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as well as, eg, the Artistic license does. The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how you can claim it is compatible. These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. LGPL, section 2. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgplz6H0huGMc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. If there's a valid interpretation that makes things legal, then that should be the default. Only if there are no such valid interpretations, or if the copyright holder states their interpretation, is it appropriate to worry about this. Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Not being able to distribute the original Sun RPC code alone is not a problem, so long as we're able to distribute any variants of it that we may actually want. If you're really concerned about other possible caveats, please feel free to contact Sun to work on getting a clarified license. However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as well as, eg, the Artistic license does. The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how you can claim it is compatible. These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. I said, earlier, that I don't think this applies - the relevant code cannot be reasonably considered independent. Have a look at the code - it's heavily modified for glibc. However, you're looking at the wrong license. Look at the license of all the GPLed applications which link to glibc, instead. Are *they* compatible with the sunrpc license? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpkxAX5G27zZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 10:22:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. That's not the copyright holder whom you're presuming for. Oh, I misread that. It's not really important anyway; being incompatible with the GPL directly is just as bad. And their intentions are: MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? I'm not particularly convinced it's not compatible with the GPL, either. If you're trying to distribute the product alone, then the GPL has absolutely no relevance. If you're distributing it with something, GPLed or not, then it's apparently the same as MIT/X11, which is GPL compatible. [If this were valid, then the GPL wouldn't be incompatible with the Artistic license either]. Anyway, here's an expanded form, written as a deductive sequence: An abbreviated form of the so-called viral part of the GPL says that everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the GPL. We interpret this as crossing library boundaries - vis. openssl and GPLed code. Therefore, in order to link a GPLed application with glibc, I need to be able to distribute the source code to glibc under the GPL as well. Note that the system library clause of the GPL: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. does not apply, because the component does accompany the executable in our case. From this I can conclude that I need to be able to distribute any given component of the glibc source code under the GPL. So, I need to be able to distribute the sunrpc code under the GPL. I cannot do this, because the restriction on distributing it alone is in conflict with clause 6 of the GPL, which prohibits any further retrictions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpiLHfImFQqZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:08:30PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how you can claim it is compatible. These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. I said, earlier, that I don't think this applies - the relevant code cannot be reasonably considered independent. Have a look at the code - it's heavily modified for glibc. However, you're looking at the wrong license. Look at the license of all the GPLed applications which link to glibc, instead. Are *they* compatible with the sunrpc license? The same text appears in the GPL. If you're really going to argue that the code in question cannot be reasonably considered independent, the original license clause is a no-op. Why are you worried about what the license says about distributing in isolation something that you believe cannot be isolated? If it can be distributed as a separate work, the GPL says it's ok that this separate work carry a different license. If it can't be distributed as a separate work, then at a minimum, that term of the license is a no-op -- and at most, there may be nothing left that the original authors can claim copyright on. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpYxJhoJTaQg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:38:49PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: The same text appears in the GPL. If you're really going to argue that the code in question cannot be reasonably considered independent, the original license clause is a no-op. Why are you worried about what the license says about distributing in isolation something that you believe cannot be isolated? Not the same thing; I *can* isolate any given line of code from anything. That doesn't make it reasonable to consider every line of code independant, in this context. If it can be distributed as a separate work, the GPL says it's ok that this separate work carry a different license. It says that only if you don't distribute them both together. We do distribute them together. If it can't be distributed as a separate work, then at a minimum, that term of the license is a no-op -- and at most, there may be nothing left that the original authors can claim copyright on. Let's try this from the other end. I stipulate that the GPL guarantees all components *can* be distributed under the same terms as the GPL. I should therefore be able to take any such component and work with it under the terms of the GPL. This does not hold for the sunrpc code. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpL5wIB9LCjV.pgp Description: PGP signature
