Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: [...] [0]: Many projects, specially system parts of GNU, have special clauses or use the Lesser GPL to allow mixing with non-free software. Tell me how does that work. Say on hurd (which doesn't have Linus' exception to the GPL'd kernel). On what basis are all those projects allowed to wrap GPL'd stuff with lesser silliness (to allow mixing without contamination) and what's your problem with someone doing the same but with respect to non-kernel GPL'd component(s). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:14:51 -0500 Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank you. If you license your code under a Free Software license, then you recived that permission[0]. The FSF doesn't care for people who wish to restrict users of their freedom; it has the opposite goal, to protect those freedoms for past and future generations. And the GPL is the tool to achive this goal. Don't get me wrong - I subscribe to (what I perceive to be) the goals of Free Software. I cannot understand the apparent obsession with equating dynamic linking with preparing a derivative work, as achieving that goal would be, IMHO, a significant reduction in the rights currently available to the users of any Free or non-Free OS, independent of the license terms. As for what the licencing terms of a non-free operating system are I wouldn't know since I don't use non-free software to begin with. It doesn't matter as long as the copyright statutes are not interpreted or changed to support a very broad interpretation of the concept of a derivative work. This, IMHO, is exactly what would happen if the FSF's interpretation of the effect of dynamic linking were to prevail. [0]: Many projects, specially system parts of GNU, have special clauses or use the Lesser GPL to allow mixing with non-free software. Which only makes persuing the dynamic linking issue even more futile. Kind regards, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:59:23 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tell me to respect the wishes of the author, and I'm all with you, even if these wishes seem - at first sight - rather outlandish. But this lunatic fight to get the scope of copyright extended, by exactly those people who originally wanted to abolish all forms of copyright, is one of the saddest quixotic battles I know of. You don't get it. The FSF is not fighting for the laws that give the GPL teeth. But while this insanity prevails, nothing is gained by pretending it isn't. Have you stopped to think about the implications of having dynamic linking (where, remember, nothing more than a number of references to a library are contained in the compiled code) legally equated with producing a derivative work? It would be tantamount to declaring all source code derivative works of the OS. Where the source code is useless without the system, this position is tenable. If you are writing for an API for which more than one implementation exists, this is not as likely. If we take the GPLed readline library as an example, if I remember correctly, some party implemented a non-GPLed readline clone that was source-compatible. Once this clone was available, the GPL of the readline library was effectively turned into the LGPL: it did no longer extend to source code that could be compiled to use either library. In a similar vein, if you are programming for published standard like Posix, and possibly one that has several implementations, you can't be held to be deriving from any particular implementation of the standard. Where you are concretely interfacing with special Linux-only kernel functionality, things would get more muddy without the kernel exception. What's the difference between a function call in source code, and its compiled counterpart? Who claimed a difference here? OK, the GPL didn't take dynamic linking into account in its strategy, and the effect of GPL'ing libraries was less than expected. But then stubbornly pursuing a strategy that, when successful, would be an effective strengthening of the restrictions the copyright statutes already impose, shifting the balance even further towards the large corporates, can only lead to a Pyrrhic victory. You are not getting it. Really. It is not the strategy of the FSF to strengthen the copyright statutes, but merely don't use less than what is claimed by other parties and established in the court already. The FSF would like nothing more than legal and unanimous precedent that says that linking to unique interfaces does not constitute derivation in any manner. Whether this precendence comes about by a court case against the GPL itself or any different licence, is a secondary consideration. If you want no defense against people unilaterally taking your work and turning it as proprietary as the laws allow, use the BSD licences. The explicit and expressed purpose of the GPL is to make the code it covers not be subvertible in this manner. The use of a GPLed library doesn't subvert the code. It fails to extend the GPL to the program, but the whole take of the FSF on user does the linking is merely sour grapes (doesn't the GPL itself not say that it doesn't limit the user from using the program?). The GPL covers copying and redistribution. If no use can be made of the product except by linking it to an FSFed library, then the responsibility, of course, also rests with the distributor. In a similar vein, a weapon manufacturer can't circumvent weapon law by shipping weapons and ammunition separately and claiming that it falls entirely into the user's responsibility to combine two completely harmless items into something covered by arms' laws. This isn't about Alexander. This is about risking to get judgements that will throttle any and all independent software developers even more effectively than the current hideous patent initiative of the Council and the European Commission. You wanna write an app for our OS? Ask our permission first. Thank you. Good reason to switch to a free operating system, if it does not yet suffice that MS reserves the right in its EULA to destroy your system remotely in the interest of Digital Rights Management without being held accountable for any damages. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I said earlier in this thread, it is _not_ a matter of law, but of morality. It is abundantly clear that the FSF considers any form of linking to a library as preparation of a derivative work, and as such, we all should simply honour the wishes of the copyright holders not to link non-Free software to GPLed libraries. It seems rather risky (if not foolish) to me to rely solely on morality when it comes to defending freedoms. And I don't see a need for that. To the best of my knowledge, none of the few who have seriously tried to circumvent the GPL have prevailed in court. Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Suppose the Earth consists of constaneously combusting pink cheese... Okay. And your question is? and _you_, of all people, call others stupid frequently. My questions were meant to highlight absurdity in your org's line of reasoning, genius. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin Dickopp wrote: [...] I have no idea what you're aiming at. I'm not surprised. Since it becomes subsequently clear that you have no idea what you are aiming at either, hardly a surprise. If the works of A and B are combined to form a derivative work by an entity C, and the act of Combined as in what? Can you print two different stories (bought electronically) on the same sheet of paper (to form a combined printout) or not? That certainly falls under fair use _unless_ you choose to redistribute them again. For that you need a licence. Printing them in one pass is certainly illegal in the GNU Republic... Nonsense. It just does not give you a licence to redistribute. unless you happen to be entitled with a privilege to prepare derivative works of both and they both came to you under compatible licenses, right? Preparing derivative works is pretty much your right. Redistributing them isn't. Redistribution is illegal unless you have a licence to do so. The GPL is a blanket licence for redistribution of the GPLed work. However, it demands no additional restrictions. If the other material on the page has an incompatible licence and one can't cleanly separate the parts into on the page into separate components, the whole is a derivative work and can only be distributed as a whole under the GPL or not at all. It is not that hard to understand. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it went for EURO 6.50 on ebay a couple of weeks ago. http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7133325141 A few years ago, I crossed a street at a red traffic light. Nothing happend; I wasn't punished in any way. Therefore, it is now clearly proven that pedestrians are allowed to ignore traffic lights at will, right? Martin ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Geez. Visit a clinic. Are you this silly that you cannot even produce one message without having to resort to personal attacks? Yes, you're reading a mailing list. I'm reading and replying on newsgroup. And I'm replying to a mailing list. Reply to mailing list *only*, *^%(%^$^*%$*. Dear paragon of intelligence, do you happen to know the deal with mail-to-news-gateways for mailing lists? When you are reading a mailing list gated to a Usenet group, there is no way that anybody can answer to mailing list only. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:12:29 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
Martin Dickopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative
work of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly
covered by a non-limitative list of illustrations.
The enumeration illustrates the way in which based upon
should be construed. A program in source code formar references
a library, but is not based upon the library in the sense
of the definition in 101 USC 17 (which would require an
adaptation, transformation, etc. of the material in the
library).
That depends on what you mean by etc. It would not, according to the
words of the law, require an adaption or transformation, since the list
of illustrations is not limitative.
But that doesn't mean that the judge can suddenly decide
whatever she pleases is a derivative work. The list is
indeed not limitative, but neither is it non-existant.
In other words, actions very substantially similar to those
in the enumeration would have to occur for something to
be considered a derivative work.
You seem to believe that the definition could just have well
been anything the judge finds acceptable, and that is just
not correct in any jusrisdiction.
Once you claim that a dynamically linked executable is a derivative
work of the libraries it uses, you have precious few arguments left
to argue the source code is an independent work.
That depends on how the program has been created and other details. If a
program uses the ISO-standardized C library API, and uses no components
of a particular C library while it is being created, then a derivative
work of the program and a particular C library is created the moment the
program is run (and therefore linked with the library).
What you say here is that you do not believe a source code program
like this:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
printf(Hello world\n);
}
is not a derivative of the standard 'C' library, but that the
copy that is created at run time in memory is a derivative
work of both the source code and the standard 'C' library
(or for Alex, a compilation, but that doesn't matter because
the same protections are extended to compilations as to
derivative works).
What you also say is that the dynamically linked executable,
that only contains references to the standard 'C' library,
is _not_ a derivative work. This is not what the FSF says.
But I can also
imagine different circumstances under which a derivative work is already
created when the programm is written.
This is obviously happening when one takes an existing
source code, and modifies it.
I do believe that a look at a work is not enough to judge if it is a
derivative work of something, but the act of creation has also to be
taken into account. Imagine I take a program FOO and make some
modifications to it, forming a derivative work BAR. And now imagine a
different case where I write a program BAZ which is identical to BAR,
but I wrote it all myself and I didn't even know FOO existed. Even
though BAR and BAZ are identical bit by bit, I believe that BAR is a
derivative work of FOO, but BAZ it is not (regardless of the fact that
that might be hard to prove).
You're describing clean-room reverse engineering.
My opinion is therefore that there isn't a single rule, but that it can
only be decided on a case-by-case basis if something is a derivative
work of something else.
It don't think so. If you write a Harry Potter story you're obviously
preparing a derivative work. If you write a story that features
wizards, you'd not be making a derivative work unless you would
copy specific Rowling-isms.
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
{Dangerous Content?} Credit/Debit card update
Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message). Warning: Please read the yoursite-Attachment-Warning.txt attachment(s) for more information. This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service -- The original e-mail message contained potentially dangerous content, which has been removed for your safety. The content is dangerous as it is often used to spread viruses or to gain personal or confidential information from you, such as passwords or credit card numbers. If you wish to receive a copy of the original email, please e-mail helpdesk and include the whole of this message in your request. Alternatively, you can call them, with the contents of this message to hand when you call. At Mon Mar 14 14:53:17 2005 the content filters said: MailScanner: Found a form in HTML message Found a script in HTML message Note to Help Desk: Look on the MailScanner in /var/spool/MailScanner/quarantine/20050314 (message j2EKq12u002406). -- Postmaster MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] is not a derivative of the standard 'C' library, but that the copy that is created at run time in memory is a derivative work of both the source code and the standard 'C' library (or for Alex, a compilation, but that doesn't matter because the same protections are extended to compilations as to derivative works). Copyright law doesn't establish exclusive right to prepare compilations (in addition to exclusive right to prepare derivative works). The term compilation doesn't include derivative works. So it does matter. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Can I ask all you guys a question? Can you keep the personal attacks off the mailinglist/newsgroup/whatever? The copyright debate is at least interesting, but I don't need my inbox clogged by this flame war crap. Thanks! This message was signed with GNU Privacy Guard, available at http://www.gpg.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkI2F/sACgkQt65ZG5ykqBKM2QCfZRTOyfHveIAw7Q0qxoNqfWVu Gf0AoKMdJy0yp3hzKLVz4Ina/3xpPjVk =r0w/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
