Re: The death of copyright in software
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 20:04:19 -0500 rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:19:17 -0500 But only an idiot without knowledge about programming can argue that because a program performs the same well-defined function as another program (i.e. compiling 'C' code or performing an FTP transfer) its internal structures and algorithms have to be so similar as to be indistinguishable after applying trivial obfuscation. Idiot? Hmm Do you claim that there is only one way to write an FTP client (or server), a 'C' compiler, or any program that performs a well-defined function? I would be interested in your argumentation, as it would, mean that once a program performs a well-defined function it cannot be improved. Back in the eighties I wrote an interpreter that implemented a well-defined language. The second release was an order of magnitude faster because I went from a pure interpreter to an incremental compiler, but the interpreted language didn't change one jot. Would you maintain that both versions were identical after applying trivial obfuscation? -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself. -- Winston Churchill ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The death of copyright in software
On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:19:17 -0500 rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Run your C++ compiler code through the “abstraction-filtration-comparison” test in the hands of an expert witness in court and your source modules look like Swiss cheese with VERY large holes. If the programmer’s comments have been stripped (very likely) and trivial obfuscation steps have been applied, your copyright protection is virtually non-existent. If you strip out all the distinguishing characteristics, it's pretty obvious that on the remainder you cannot get copyright protection. If you strip the distinguishing stuff out of the typical novel, the result is no longer copyrightable either (e.g. Woody Allen's appreciation of War and Peace: It's about Russians, or a reduction of Romeo and Juliet to Boy meets girl, they fall in love, families don't want them to marry, etc). If you reduce the number of notes you look at to three or four, every piece of music is a copy of every other piece of music. It's obvious that you cannot claim copyright protection on fragments of code that anyone would write substantially the same because these fragments are determined in their expression by the hardware or other external influences. But only an idiot without knowledge about programming can argue that because a program performs the same well-defined function as another program (i.e. compiling 'C' code or performing an FTP transfer) its internal structures and algorithms have to be so similar as to be indistinguishable after applying trivial obfuscation. Using your overly broad approach you could equally claim that love stories cannot be copyrighted, or that pictures of the Eiffel tower cannot be copyrighted because when you strip off all the distinguishing characteristics (framing, lighting, etc) they are pictures of the exact same object. But the reality is that every photograph is copyrighted, no matter how similar or trivial the subject. You're free to make your own picture of the scene, but you're not free to copy someone else's picture. The same applies to source code. What the Lexmark case is about is that similarity between those parts of the code that are so determined by the function to be performed cannot be used in court as proof of copyright infringement. Quite obviously it does not mean that you can lift sections out of the gcc source code and use them in your own compiler because there is only one way in which a compiler can be written and hence you can do with the gcc code as you please. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless managers that don't understand that there are more possibilities than chaos on the one hand and the reduction of alternatives to zero on the other.-- Richard Hamilton in comp.sys.sun.hardware ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The death of copyright in software
On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:51:34 -0500 rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what is creative and original about copycatting the functionality of other Unix shells? The way in which it is done. Most novels deal with relationships between people, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be covered by copyright. And in any case, copyright is not about the ideas, but about the specific expression of those ideas. You can write a POSIX compliant shell that shares not one line of code with another POSIX compliant shell. You can write a C++ compiler that is structurally completely different from another C++ compiler, and there will be little doubt that both are protected by copyright. In the case of drivers, that must call specific routines in the OS and perform specific hardware manipulations, two implementations might be so close to each other as to be indistinguishable, in which case their would be no way to claim copyright infringement (unless, I suppose, there is hard evidence that one of the parties did indeed copy the code of the other). Most (business) programs implement some kind of standard (or pre-defined process). Surely you don't want to suggest that Payroll programs cannot be copyrighted? -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Life itself is a misery and nobody can tell what can be of it. Those that can tell what can be of it are those who cannot tell us because they are far from us (dead). -- Very profound scam ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Strawmen and Urban Legends
On 27 Dec 2006 21:07:02 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to those anti-swpatent folks vocoder would be unpatentable today... Overstating the case (like some of the anti-swpatent folk) doesn't help. Of course, a device that peforms a particular function, like a vocorder, can be patented even if it uses a DSP chip and software. You patent the complete device, not its components. By considering a general purpose computer plus an algorithm a device, the typical software patent makes it impossible to use an algorithm on any other computer. Some of these algorithms might be worthy of patent protection (for example the RSA algorithm, which is neither obvious nor trivial), but many patents have been granted for algorithms that were obvious and trivial (like using XOR to flash a cursor). Unless the patent offices manage to understand how writing software works, we're better off with copyright protection. Well, what do you want from people who write software like a poem? (but still don't understand what copyright is...) :) Most programmers don't write software like poems. It's written much like one would write mathematical formulae. And quite clearly, we would not have seen much progress in mathematics if patents would have been granted on Newton-Raphson or FFTs. One of the problems is that a lot of people discoursing on software patents don't know what software is. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Strawmen and Urban Legends
On 28 Dec 2006 06:59:04 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: Of course, a device that peforms a particular function, like a vocorder, can be patented even if it uses a DSP chip and software. You patent the complete device, not its components. That's a clever suggestion :) Patent a complete device e.g. cell phone, HDTV...Boeing 747... No matter that those devices are combinations of hundreds, if not thousands, of patented technologies developed over decades... You don't patent a technology, you patent an invention, which has to be described in such a way that a person skilled in the art can make and use the invention (which BTW happens to be one of the problems of so-called software patents, because they are never described using the terms or methods used by software professionals to describe or document software). The fact that an invention uses components that are not protected by patents (though at one time they might have been patented) does not preclude it from being patented. The fact that a device is patented does not imply that all its components are themselves patented. Unless the patent offices manage to understand how writing software works, we're better off with copyright protection. My dear little friend... I can assure you that the USPTO has enough people who understand software, they just need to spend more time on each application. In any case, the results aren't stellar. The EPO is already doing a great job as far as software patents are concerned. And you are an authority on these matters. Most programmers don't write software like poems. It's written much like one would write mathematical formulae. Oh yeah, just like mathematical formulas... When was the last time that you wrote a mathematical formula ? High school calculus ? I am not a mathematician (I am a crystallographer by training and a programmer by trade), so I hardly ever engage in writing down theorems or proofs. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that software is not written as a poem, but rather as a set of logically coherent statements in a restricted language, much more like mathematics. And quite clearly, we would not have seen much progress in mathematics if patents would have been granted on Newton-Raphson or FFTs. Oh yeah, a patent on a fast practical method of computing well-known Fourier transform would have a catastrophic impact on the progress of the entire field of mathematics. Your logic is flawless... I think you're missing the point - progress in certain fields of endeavour occurs through sharing of ideas and discoveries, rather than by granting monopolies on them. Finding the right balance between the ability to benefit (economically) from software inventions and the stifling effect of a monopoly is not easy. Specifically in the case of software patents, the chasm between the way software is described, specified and written, and the language into which a software invention is cast for the sake of patentability makes it very difficult to know whether a particular algorithm is patented, and to develop workarounds. In addition, the value of the patent after it has expired is seriously reduced by the absence of formal specifications, source code or a reference implementation. One of the problems is that a lot of people discoursing on software patents don't know what software is. This is so evident from your comments. Why don't you go and take some elementary CS and EE classes ? Aparently, they didn't teach you much about the (lack of) value of argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad personam. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The mushroom philosophy of product sales and support: Keep your customers in the dark, feed them a lot of manure and hope they will grow and flourish. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:27:20 +0100 (CET) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is clearly a deriviate work, the program changes how it works if you remove the GPLed library/script/whatever. It also stops working without the GPLed library/script/whatever. Factual errors (and opiate) aside, If you wish to have a discussion, please provide reasons why these are factual errors. Otherwise you can put everything aside, just like someone else likes to do on this list. The OP said that his program works without the GPLed scripts: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: | These GPL scripts are not necessary to use the application, they just | add more functionality. Which you turn into: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: | It also stops working without the GPLed library/script/whatever. Now that's a factual error, isn't it? Plus, you insist on using the word deriviate, which does not exist in English, hence my reference to another word that ends in -iate. The rest of your message is just extrapolating what I wrote into things that I didn't write, so it is futile to respond to it. You seem to argue that the OP's source code is a derivative work because it uses #include type statements. As a person making a living writing source code, I find that a very disturbing thought. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:19:13 +0100 (CET) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Importing is done at run time. [...] We both are assuming things meant by importing that the OP might not have meant. You don't get it - one cannot write a (useful) 'C' program without a few #include statements (which will cause the preprocessor to import the header files). I take it that you have never written any C code. There's a fair chance I've been writing 'C' code longer than you (and if you were born after 1979, I have been writing in 'C' longer than you've lived). With which of the following statements do you have an issue: - one cannot write a (useful) 'C' program without a few #include statements - #included files are imported by the preprocessor Notice that this post is not a derivative work of unistd.h even though I quoted 13 lines from it. There is this thing called fair use that exists. If I understand your argument correctly, you're arguing that copying 13 lines from a file is fair use, whereas writing require file makes the source code a derivative work of file. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Governments are like babies: digestive tracts with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. The better run ones from time to time get clean diapers... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:03:11 +0100 (CET) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The scripts of the OP are written by the OP, and contain no code of the GPLed script. The program by the OP imports the GPLed script, that is all that matters. It is especially asinine because it makes every source program a derivative work of the OS or at least the libraries it uses. If the program actually imports the script, yes. Common usage does not. Importing is done at run time. The OP's scripts themselves do not contain a single jot of the GPLed script. Ergo, they cannot be derivative works. Obviously, if substantial parts of the code of the script would be included in the OP's script, the matter would be different. If writing . /foo/bar in a shell script makes the _source_ code of the shell script a derivative work of /foo/bar, programming essentially becomes impossible, because then you cannot write those 10 characters without the permission of the author of /foo/bar. It does not make things impossible, or even near impossible are you try to purport it. You are free to not to use the program after all. You don't get it - one cannot write a (useful) 'C' program without a few #include statements (which will cause the preprocessor to import the header files). If that makes the source code a derivative work of the header files, you'd have to ask the permission of ATT, and Sun before you'd be allowed to write even just the following line (on my Solaris system): #include unistd.h because that would be a derivative work of unistd.h, which is copyrighted by ATT and Sun: $ cat /usr/include/unistd.h /* Copyright (c) 1988 ATT */ /*All Rights Reserved */ /* THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF ATT */ /* The copyright notice above does not evidence any*/ /* actual or intended publication of such source code. */ /* * Copyright (c) 1996-2001 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. * All rights reserved. */ Notice that this post is not a derivative work of unistd.h even though I quoted 13 lines from it. How then can the source code of a program be a derivative work when it merely references the header file? Or how can (the source code of) a script be a derivative work of another script when it contains the line: . /a/gpled/script -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only have originated in California. --Edsger Dijkstra ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On 14 Dec 2006 15:48:30 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose I want to err on the safe side, let's consider for a while that what I asked before is not allowed. Does it seem less questionable (or more clearly allowed) for me to prepare a zip file containing GPL'ed script files and put it as a separate download on my site (telling the users to unzip this file in a certain directory of my app) ? The GPL'ed script files will be unmodified (containing the license and all the original code) - but the file and directory structure may not be as in the original distribution. This would make patently clear that your scripts and the GPLed scripts are unrelated works. The GPL gives you the right to prepare and distribute derivative works, and re-arranging the layout of the files and directories is not a problem as long as the result is distributed under the GPL. As to your own scripts, whether they call other scripts through script . script or `script` they remain IMHO wholly original works as long as you have not copied code from these scripts. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. (Sir William Drummond) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:05:41 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You don't get it - one cannot write a (useful) 'C' program without a few #include statements (which will cause the preprocessor to import the header files). If that makes the source code a derivative work of the header files, you'd have to ask the permission of ATT, and Sun before you'd be allowed to write even just the following line (on my Solaris system): The usual consensus seems to be that the resulting binaries being derivative works of the header files is irrelevant for typical header files since they contain definitions that have to be just so, and thus are void of copyrightable creative content. Quite a lot of creative work can be done with macros :) For similar reason, C++ header files are believed to be more murky legal ground, particularly where templates are being involved. But also extensive class and inline information obviously is not free for the taking just because it is compiled by inclusion. The problem is not the compiled program, but the source. Our OP says: The scripts are in ruby, basically what I do is: require 'gpl_script' GplClass.do_work Similarly in Python I would do: import gpl_script GplClass.do_work() These GPL scripts are not necessary to use the application, they just add more functionality. Whereupon Alfred ejaculates: This is clearly a deriviate work, the program changes how it works if you remove the GPLed library/script/whatever. It also stops working without the GPLed library/script/whatever. Factual errors (and opiate) aside, it is quite obvious that he believes the source code to be a derivative work of the GPLed Ruby or Python scripts. He uses functional criteria - the program changes how it works, instead of does the source contain a substantial amount of source code from the GPLed script. According to his interpretation, source code that references other source code through an include mechanism becomes a derivative work. This is why I argue that if this were to be true, programming would be impossible. Compiled source code is clearly another matter, as it quite easily can contain substantial amounts of material not related to the source code itself. The fact that the compiled version of the code might be a derivative work of, say, the C++ headers, does NOT mean that the source code is a derivative work of the same. The same applies to script files, where the copy in RAM that is being interpreted, and where the GPLed script has been included for execution would be a derivative work of both scripts. Again, that does not mean that the original script becomes a derivative work. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- And as crazy as this sounds, people tend to be able to manage systems better if they have a good internal mental model of how the system works. --Logan Shaw ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Copyright notices on GPL'ed software
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:05:31 + Dave (from the UK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decided to take on further development of the project, so created a new project on Sourceforge http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ for a new chess program 'ChessDB' for which 99.9% of the code is the code from Scid, with minor changes here and there. What copyright notices should be left and/or added to the source. Why not read the GPL? This is what it says: | 2. 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, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: | |a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices |stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. | |b) 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. | |c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively |when run, you must cause it, when started running for such |interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an |announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a |notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide |a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under |these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this |License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but |does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on |the Program is not required to print an announcement.) You can add your own copyright notice (which then also serves to meet the requirement of clause 2a). Of course you should leave the original copyright notices in place. You don't want to create the impression you wrote the code, do you? -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Shun those who say we have eyes in order to see, and instead say we see because we happen to have eyes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On 13 Dec 2006 15:23:33 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, My application consists of a collection of scripts (full source distributed) licensed under a license that I'll call A. I want to distribute with my application, the source version of a script licensed under GPL. This script (source) will be imported and used at runtime by my application. Is this allowed when license A is not compatible with GPL ? Yes. Your scripts are not based on or derived from that script, so it cannot have an influence on the copyright status of your original work. It's what is called mere aggregation in the GPL. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- You don't have to spend the rest of your life exercising yourself to death. -- SPAM can be fun :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using a script licensed under GPL in an application licensed under a license that's not compatible with GPL
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:03:37 +0100 (CET) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My application consists of a collection of scripts (full source distributed) licensed under a license that I'll call A. I want to distribute with my application, the source version of a script licensed under GPL. This script (source) will be imported and used at runtime by my application. Is this allowed when license A is not compatible with GPL ? Yes. Your scripts are not based on or derived from that script, so it cannot have an influence on the copyright status of your original work. It's what is called mere aggregation in the GPL. This is completely wrong. The source code is not merly aggregated, it is actually imported by the program. And thus constitutes a deriviate work. It is exactly the same situation with linking a binary. It would be a different situation if it was a program that would execute the GPL script. In which case the result of this process on the computer where it is running would be a derivative (not deriviate - you must be thinking of opiate :) work of both scripts. The scripts of the OP are written by the OP, and contain no code of the GPLed script. They cannot be a derivative work of the GPLed script. They use the functionality of the script, just as they use the functionality of the script interpreter that is used to run them. A bash script is not a derivative work of bash. A script that sources or calls another script is not a derivative work of that script. Where I can have some (but not much) sympathy for the claim that a compiled program that is dynamically linked to a library should be considered a derivative work (a functionally identical, but statically linked program would contain material from the library), the idea that include type statements create derivative works is asinine. It is especially asinine because it makes every source program a derivative work of the OS or at least the libraries it uses. If this type of reference is recognised as creating a derivative work, it becomes impossible to write a program, because the copyright statutes forbid the preparation of derivative works without the consent of the copyright holder. If writing . /foo/bar in a shell script makes the _source_ code of the shell script a derivative work of /foo/bar, programming essentially becomes impossible, because then you cannot write those 10 characters without the permission of the author of /foo/bar. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- When the need is strong, there are those who will believe anything. -- Arnold Lobel ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:59:12 + Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ter, 2006-12-05 às 18:49 -0600, John Hasler escreveu: Rui Miguel Silva wrote: When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that it becomes public property after 20 years (as in patents)? I can buy a lease on a piece of land that expires after 20 years. Nonetheless, the law recognizes that lease as property. The lease, not the land. Of course, that would then only prove that intangibles, like the lease, can be owned, and hence are property. I believe that the crux of the matter is that more and more of our economic activity has become intangible. We've become very efficient at producing food - barely a few percent of the population in Europe and the USA. Even if you take the services to the farming community into consideration (producing tractors and other farming implements, veterinary services etc.) the fact remains that we have to find gainful employment for 90% of the population. Add to that the increase in productivity of all manufacturing processes, and it's not difficult to see that we need a lot of new things to keep people gainfully employed. Some of these things are material objects, such as cell 'phones, but even more of them are services. Almost all of them are in the category nice to have - people can survive quite well without texting, or emailing, or GPS devices. The challenge for a society is to maintain a social structure that motivates people. Once you've put the food production of millions of people in the hands of a few tens of thousand, you need to make sure that they find value and motivation in what society offers them. Whether that is culture or cars, fancy clothes or holidays on tropical isles - society has to motivate enough people to produce what it needs to survive, or face extinction. This means that somehow intangible values (such as sitting in meetings or playing a gig) have to be valued as much as a loaf of bread, or a steak. That way, we can all happily work at things we're good at, whilst acquiring tokens (money) that allow us buy food, clothes, lodging and all the objects and services that motivate us. Software, recorded music, books, movies etc. all can be reproduced cheaply and easily, but are expensive to produce (have you ever considered how many people are involved in making a movie?). If you make it impossible for people to recoup the costs of producing the movie, because it's easy and cheap to copy a DVD, and the DVD is still there after you've copied it, how are you going to motivate people to pony up the money to pay wages to a film crew, set creators, costume designers, caterers etc? This is why intangibles have to be property of sorts - because ultimately you will have to exchange them for food or clothes. The alternative is that only land will have real value. Welcome to the middle ages. Of course the system is no longer well adapted to the current technological and social circumstances. Patents, for example, are still quite effective when the players are of equal size. The knowledge they contain becomes public and cross-license deals are signed. What they do not allow is smaller players to challenge the big ones. But don't forget that there were no really large (by today's standards) companies when the patent system was designed. So to a degree it still works as designed, and it's hard to fault a system for not catering for situations and technologies its designers could not even dream of. So let's work at designing a better system - better adapted to our needs and technologies. But make sure that system supports the large majority of people who create nothing but intangibles, or you'd better buy yourself a nice, large, fertile plot, and lots of weapons to defend your property, because those of us who are left will be back to farming and fighting. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- I don't understand that attitude. Don't we want email that has dancing bears, cute little videos, musical tunes, animated waving hands, sixty fonts, and looks like it's been done with crayolas? Good grief, man, think like a three year old! -- Norm Reitzel discussing HTML email ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 02:29:50 +0100 (CET) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So bohoo. You're a troll. Steven quite the opposite of a troll. He is probobly one of the saner people on these lists. Resorting to petty name calling just because you disagree with him isn't very nice, or useful. Me tips hat. Thanks, kind sir. My apologise for the obvious name mistake. Moenie worrie nie, as they say in South Africa. You can't be right all the time, now can you? :-) -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On 5 Dec 2006 15:01:00 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of the characteristics of property to be treated as a form of property by the law. The law his given certain property-like attributes to things which would not otherwise have them. Lumping these together as intellectual property suggests that it is natural for them to have those and other attributes of physical property. No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as property. We have no problems considering land (real estate) property, but traditionally Bantu societies do not consider that land can be owned by an individual. There are no natural characteristics of property, just accepted ones. Naturally, various interests would like this to be the case, and using the term intellectual property plays into their hands. The same goes for using terms like theft and stealing when referring to copyright infringement. Of course. People will try and protect what butters their bread. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- You don't have to spend the rest of your life exercising yourself to death. -- SPAM can be fun :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 16:43:24 +0100 (CET) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You cannot own intangible objects. If they're objects they're not intangible. Unless you're into perversions like OO. In any case, what you say is bollocks. A company is intangible, but it can be owned (I happen to own one very, very small company :). -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only have originated in California. --Edsger Dijkstra ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 + Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right is not property. So land cannot be property by your definition. You can say there's enough similar characteristics, but there are also many totally dissimilar characteristics so it can't be like property. There are quite a lot of differences between real estate and stocks, but no-one questions that both are property. Immateriality, duplicability at (marginally) zero cost, non scarse, etc... Stocks can be duplicated. Water isn't exactly scarce on this planet, but people can own springs. And mind you, good software is hard to find. Copies of good and bad software is something else, but the copies do not make the software - people do. And while they are creating software (good and bad) they have to buy food, and pay for lodging. So one way or another, software has to be something that pays for food, but that does not mean it should be packaged as a cereal. It's all about conventions. If we, as society, accept that something (and it doesn't matter what that something is) can be owned, it becomes property. Slaves were property not because of some inherent characteristic, but because society considered them property. Now it is true that once recorded on a computer medium, software (but also novels, music, pictures etc) can easily be duplicated at near zero cost. That does not matter as long as there is a consensus that these things should be considered property. Some people do not believe that real estate (or certainly land) should be considered property. Some people consider that companies should not be property. What matters is what is accepted by a majority of people. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- A ship in the harbor is safe. But that's not what ships are built for. -- Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Murray Hopper. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:19:39 + Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ter, 2006-12-05 às 22:21 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels escreveu: On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:46 + Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A government GRANTED and TEMPORARY MONOPOLY right is not property. So land cannot be property by your definition. When you buy a piece of land, does it say your contract that it becomes public property after 20 years (as in patents)? 90 years after you die (as in copyright in the US)? That's bullshit, what you just implied. It's not - when you purchase a piece of land the community as represented by the government gives you a monopoly on the use of the land (a limited monopoly, for you in all likelihood do not have the mineral rights). You can now decide what to do with the land, and stop others from growing corn, or building houses. The deeds prove it's your land, and you can ask the government to enforce your rights (like having the police remove illegal occupants etc.) You can say there's enough similar characteristics, but there are also many totally dissimilar characteristics so it can't be like property. There are quite a lot of differences between real estate and stocks, but no-one questions that both are property. Stocks represent a portion of a company's perceived market value. Stock exchange is like bingo but with a slightly bigger suicide rate. Stocks aren't property either. You own a portion of a company, but it's not property. Well, it's not real estate, but I can assure you that the SICAVs (shares in a trust company here in Luxembourg) I bought are my property. I can sell them, use them as collateral, etc. The digits on my bank account and the Euros in my pocket are also my property, and just like shares they are mere tokens - representations of intangible value. Believe you me, all this is property. Immateriality, duplicability at (marginally) zero cost, non scarse, etc... Stocks can be duplicated. Haha. That would be the instant death of stock exchange markets, which is strongly based on scarcity and perceived value of the item subject to scarcity. Indeed - and this is exactly what copyrights and patents try to achieve for creative works and inventive devices. But you'll have to agree that stock certificates _can_ be duplicated. And money _can_ be duplicated as well (we try and make it as difficult as possible of course). The fact that something _can_ be duplicated for far less than the value it represents is not an argument for it not having value. Water isn't exactly scarce on this planet, but people can own springs. People own the land that has springs, and as consequence they have the right to explore their land and what is on their land. They don't own *springs*. Go and tell that to Vittel, or Perrier. And mind you, good software is hard to find. Copies of good and bad software is something else, but the copies do not make the software - people do. And while they are creating software (good and bad) they have to buy food, and pay for lodging. So one way or another, software has to be something that pays for food, but that does not mean it should be packaged as a cereal. Drink a glass of water, and it's gone. It's no longer a glass of water but part of you. Now, when you copy digital content, what happened to the original? Did it disappear? No, it's exactly as it was before being copied. When you copy a stock certificate it does not disappear either. And just as a piece of software it represents the work of people. If you work for a year on the creation of a program (mind you, you're not paid for that software, you just sit down and write the next Visicalc), you have invested money in that program. Or that novel, for all I care. That software is what you have to show for a year's work, like the salary you get paid for a year's slog in the factory, or the wheat harvested by the farmer. Everything that we like people to do for us - from growing food to playing music - has a value. If we want people to write software, we either have to employ them, or to pay them for a cereal box like thing that happens to contain a CD with a copy of the software. You can keep copying, that spring will never dry out. It will - if you reduce the value of software to zero, no-one will write it. That is the spring - people writing software, not the original CD from which you're so happily copying. It's all about conventions. If we, as society, accept that something (and it doesn't matter what that something is) can be owned, it becomes property. Slaves were property not because of some inherent characteristic, but because society considered them property. Well, I don't accept terms which are being force-fed into our collective mouths, in a fierce attempt to make it an accepted convention. That is your right. But it does not mean that there are specific
Re: gpl licensing
On 5 Dec 2006 22:07:04 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as property. We have no problems considering land (real estate) property, but traditionally Bantu societies do not consider that land can be owned by an individual. There are no natural characteristics of property, just accepted ones. There are natural characteristics of physical objects, which are related to the laws we have about them. It is a characteristic of physical objects that if one person owns them, another person doesn't. That some societies don't allow land to be owned doesn't change that fact. However so-called intellectual property does not have this characteristic, because a copy is readily made and as good as the original. The law gives abstract works that characteristic by granting monopolies such as copyright and patents. The law gives that to real estate as well. If the law does not make land ownable, it is no longer property. To reiterate: the distinction between physical property and intellectual property arises from facts about the world, not just conventions of society. There is are classes of property that is tangible, and there are (ever more) classes of property that is intangible. Money on a bank account is just as much property as bullion. You can exchange digits on a bank account for bullion, and vice versa. I'm not claiming that there are no differences between apples and the copyright to a novel, but both can pay for the family dinner, and both represent the work of a human. One is tangible (and edible to boot!), the other mere symbols on a sheet of paper or bit patterns on a CD. Without intangible property (like money), we'd all be subsistence farmers. I grew up in Central Africa - you don't want to be a subsistence farmer, believe you me. Naturally, various interests would like this to be the case, and using the term intellectual property plays into their hands. The same goes for using terms like theft and stealing when referring to copyright infringement. Of course. People will try and protect what butters their bread. Some people will. People organised into companies are particularly liable to this. Because we (as society) have given companies a lot of obligations, like paying their employees even if sales are below expectations, or paying dividends to people who've entrusted their savings (which happen to represent the work they've done) to these companies, etc. It's not all rosy out there, but not all dim and dark either. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The mushroom philosophy of product sales and support: Keep your customers in the dark, feed them a lot of manure and hope they will grow and flourish. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
On 1 Dec 2006 03:04:36 -0800 miguelx6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going to develop a project for public administration. They will be the users of this software, they are not going to sell it. After finishing the project, I have to deliver all the sources to them, so I will not own the sources after that. My question is, could I use gpl libraries? I am working for a company and they are going to pay us for this project, but, as I am delivering them all the sources, I suppose ther should be any problem. It would depend on what the arrangement is between your company and the customer. I suppose that your company replied to a Call for Tenders, and that this CfT contained a list of requirements. In order to arrive at a price for the work, your company's commercial team would have asked your or another developer to estimate the volume of the work. In this estimate, the work represented by the GPLed libraries you want to use should have been taken into consideration, and compared with the cost of a commercial license of a comparable product (e.g. a database) or the cost of developing them yourself. It should have been clear at that time whether the CfT allowed the use of GPLed libraries or not. If not, and your company believed they could gain a commercial advantage through the use of GPLed libraries, they should have asked the Public Administration for an official clarification. If they could be used, and your company decided to use them, this should have been made clear in the Reply to the CfT. It thus all depends on whether your customer knows of, and agrees with the use of these libraries. It is not something that you can decide for yourself, as a developer. You need to consult with the commercial and legal heads of your company. If you're working for a small outfit (meaning you might be the technical, commercial and legal heads rolled in one), you should look at the contract you have, and clarify the issue with your customer. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: License Dilemma
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:07:44 +0200 Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: There are many ways to get paid for doing free software, they range from support to implementing features users want. You should explore the way that suits you the best. Patents are not required to make a living, they are only a hindrance in doing so. BUT I AM NOT DOING A SOFTWARE!!! AND I AM NOT IN A BUSINESS OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT !!! I am doing research in some industrial area!!! And I am using computer as a medium for distribution of my work. A same way writers or painters use papers to distribute their work. You will have to decide what it is you have created. If it is software (I know you said it isn't), it enjoys copyright protection. This means that your software cannot be copied, but the the idea is not protected, and can be re-implemented. In addition, software can (in the USA at least) be patented - this boils down to protecting the idea and/or algorithm. A painting or a book is protected by copyright. A device can be patented (and the engineering drawings copyrighted). Patenting something costs a lot of money, because the procedure is elaborate and arcane. You need to pay the services of a patent agent or attorney, and they don't come cheap. Copyright is automatic and cheap - you write it, draw it, paint it and you've got the copyright. A business process can be patented. The document describing it is protected by copyright. That means that anyone can write a book on your patented business method, but cannot use the method. AND IN CONTRAST with writers or painters I intend to give additional rights to users and colleges. This you can do with both copyrighted and patented things through a license. To copy and derive work for themself and friends. Then you should have a license drafted that allows people to prepare derivative works for their own use, but not distribute these works for copyrighted material, and/or a license that allows individuals to use your patented invention for personal use without paying a fee. But I am not intend to give up my rights in favor of publishers. Then you should stipulate so in your license, which will not be the GPL as it allows redistribution. But first you will have to decide what it is that you have produced/invented/designed/coded so that you can select the appropriate approach. Its so obvious, I don't see a point of discussion. You can't ask writer to give up his rights on his book. And to survive on answering questions from readers on hot line. Or rewriting some chapters by orders from readers. No, because books are meant to be read. Once you have written successful books, or produced successful research (like winning a Nobel prize) you can use your fame to make money on the lecturing circuit. This also works for failed politicians like Al Gore ;-) That pliantly insane. I think you mean patently insane -) Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Never explain by malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. However: Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:51:57 -0400 Stephen Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, however, the GPLed library in question is Qt, which is readily available both under the GPL and a commercial license. Presumably nothing in the example code insists that people use Qt under the GPL, so couldn't a case be made here that there is nothing GPL-specific in the example code, and hence the example code can be distributed? The OP proposes to distribute a number of examples in _source_ code. Not even the most rabid software liberators will argue that source code is a derivative work of either the libraries, or the language. Unless source code is plagiarised, or a modification of an existing work, it's original. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- And as crazy as this sounds, people tend to be able to manage systems better if they have a good internal mental model of how the system works. --Logan Shaw ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200 Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's library. This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the example program. I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the SDK library and the Qt library. The example in source format is an original work. Only when turned into an executable can it become a derivative of the library, and IMHO only then when it contains substantial parts of that library. The OP is proposing to add source code examples to his library. Assuming he did not base his source on existing source code examples of Qt, these examples are his original work, and not affected by the Qt, X, OpenGL, or whatever other license. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.-- Robert A. Heinlein ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:04:23 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
the example program.
I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
SDK library and the Qt library.
The example in source format is an original work. Only when turned
into an executable can it become a derivative of the library, and
IMHO only then when it contains substantial parts of that
library.
If its main purpose is to serve as an illustration, that is quite
likely what will ensue. For example, if it is a printed example in a
book, or part of a tutorial.
If its main purpose is to be compiled and run, things are different.
The purpose of a copyrighted work has no relevance on its status as a
derivative work. Little source code is written for inclusion in a book,
but none of it is (provided, obviously, it's not a copy-and-paste job)
a derivative work of the language it's written in, or the libraries it
references.
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
fprintf(The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog);
...
}
is not a derivative work of the Unix standard IO library, and this
doesn't depend on there being more than one implementation of said
library. It's not a derivative work of the 'C' language, or the Unix
OS, or anything. It's an original work.
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
the resulting source code will contain the whole of stdio.h, and as
such it's now most definitely something that is affected by the stdio.h
copyright (I leave it to Alexander to define if it's a derivative work,
a compilation, or anything he wishes).
But source code as such is never a derivative work of the stuff that
might or might not be called when the compiled program is executing.
For example, if one distributed an install kit that would
mechanically compile and link proprietary software with GPLed
libraries, it is perfectly conceivable that a court would rule that
going against the licensed as a whole demand of the GPL.
This is a weird example - distributing source code of a proprietary
product in order to compile and link it with GPLed libraries smacks of
putting the cart in front of the horse.
However, it would be hard to really nail down the infringing copy of
the GPLed library in this process as long as the distributor refrains
from providing his own copies or download tools for creating such
copies and no library stubs have been integrated into creating his
product.
Is a URL a download tool? Does the fact that there are instructions,
or even another package (Build tools for Schmoo) turn Schmoo into a
derivative work of the GPLed library it needs to be useful? Most
certainly not - the copyright status of the source code of Schmoo
doesn't depend on how useful its compiled version is with or without
something, but if the Schmoo source code is _itself_ a derivative work
- in other words, did the author use only his own work or did he
include source code from other authors.
What we write, as programmers, is source code. All the rest is merely
mechanical transformation, and has no effect whatsoever on the
copyright status _of the source code_.
The OP is proposing to add source code examples to his
library. Assuming he did not base his source on existing source code
examples of Qt, these examples are his original work, and not
affected by the Qt, X, OpenGL, or whatever other license.
That would be my gut feeling too (unless code passages were actually
taken from differently licensed example code) in this case (and
anyway, since the library is available identically in a non-free
version, one can't claim the particular protection of the GPLed
version), but there is also a murky borderline where things become
less clear even when the compiling and/or linking is done at the
client side.
The copyright status of the source code is not affected by where, how
and by whom it might be compiled, or the fact that it is quite useless
without being compiled and linked.
--
Stefaan A Eeckels
--
Modesty personified:
This was a thread between ignorant people until I jumped in.
-- richard in gnu.misc.discuss
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:10:45 +0200 Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the distributor can prove that one typical use case for a customer would be to let the code rot away without ever compiling or linking it (indeed a typical use case for example code), then the product does not implicitly include the library for its completion. has _nothing_ to do with completeness or usefulness. This should have read: Copyright has _nothing_ to do with completeness or usefulness. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed library. I license my source code under a non-Free license to Alex. He compiles my code, and links it with your GPLed library that happened to be on his system (or that he downloaded for the purpose, for all I care). Go ahead, sue me for copyright violation. URL:http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366 The Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. §101, is a little vague and doesn't say anything at all about software: A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work''. Now while we are not talking software here, the last sentence makes clear that even a work which as a whole represents an original work of authorship can be a derivative work. That's to be read in its entirety: A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work''. An original program in source code format, and contains function and/or system calls does not consist of revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications to the libraries or the OS. It's a wholly new work. It contains _no_ code from the libraries or the OS, and thus it cannot be a derivative work. Certainly constructs like String and toUpperCase are sufficiently generic to ensure that their use in a Java program doesn't make that program a derivative work of the String class. It's quite clear that the binary versions of a program are under the copyright of the constituent parts (especially because the [American] law clearly defines each instance of such a program, be it on disk, in memory, or in cache, as a separate copy of the program). It is - for me at least - just as clear that original source code is never under the copyright of facilities like libraries, the OS etc. it might, in compiled form, need to function. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself. -- Winston Churchill ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An original program in source code format, and contains function and/or system calls does not consist of revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications to the libraries or the OS. Sigh. But a literary work consisting of annotations does not contain material from the original work. It is, as a whole, an original work of authorship. You cannot annotate, revise, elaborate or otherwise modify without anything of the original work. Programs that use a library or an OS are not revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications of the library or the OS. It's a wholly new work. It contains _no_ code from the libraries or the OS, and thus it cannot be a derivative work. But in the literary case, exactly that does _not_ hold, according to the letter of the law. In the specific case of annotations, revisions, elaborations and other modifications, which supposes that there is a work that is revised, annotated, elaborated or otherwise modified. Are you claiming that all programs are modifications, elaborations, revisions and annotations of the OS and the libraries? The simple fact is that an original program in source code format is wholly independent of whatever it might need to be executed on a computer, and that it is under no circumstances affected by the copyrights of OS and libraries that might be used to turn the source code into a running program. I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs, or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever license he fancies, without any recourse for the copyright holders of the libraries and OSes that might - if the licensee so desires - be used to run the programs. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On 17 Oct 2006 06:57:50 -0700 Louis B. (ldb) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired. That was what I understood. IMHO, adding example source code that uses Qt constructs is absolutely fine. You could consider using the BSD license for the examples, so that people can use them without restrictions in their own developments. Guys, thanks for all the information. It was quite a read. It tends to get animated in here. Nice you didn't walk away in despair :). -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being increasingly capable. Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs (With thanks to Brian Hamilton Kelly) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:49:53 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An original program in source code format, and contains function and/or system calls does not consist of revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications to the libraries or the OS. Sigh. But a literary work consisting of annotations does not contain material from the original work. It is, as a whole, an original work of authorship. You cannot annotate, revise, elaborate or otherwise modify without anything of the original work. I have here a secondary literary work covering Ulysses, consisting pretty much exclusively of annotations. Where there are citations, they are short enough not to count as copyrightable in itself. But it certainly is a derivative work. Because it's raison d'être is to comment and annotate Ulysses. I did not claim that such works are not derivative works - it's pretty obvious that using the same cast of characters creates a derivative work, even though not a single sentence of the original novel is present in the derivative work (cfr. the new Peter Pan novel). Programs that use a library or an OS are not revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications of the library or the OS. Naturally. So one has to translate the examples from the context of literary works to that of computer programs. Where the idea that one could have a derivative work (or something else covered by the copyright of a library) that contains no code from that library is far less evident than in the case of literary works. In the specific case of annotations, revisions, elaborations and other modifications, which supposes that there is a work that is revised, annotated, elaborated or otherwise modified. Are you claiming that all programs are modifications, elaborations, revisions and annotations of the OS and the libraries? I am not claiming any such thing. I am just saying that the lack of direct verbatim inclusion of a copyrightable amount of material is not a necessity in the explanation for literary works, and so it is not obvious why it would have to be a necessary criterion in the case of software. I would go as far as to say that in the case of software, I cannot see how a program (compiled or not) that contains no code from another program or library could ever be covered by its copyright. Quite clearly, some (like the FSF) believe that because static linking came first, and resulted in executables that obviously were a combination of the program and the libraries linked to it, dynamic linking must have the same copyright implications. I for one, don't believe this to be the case, but IANAL. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Treason doth never prosper. What is the reason? For if treason prosper, none dare call it treason. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stefaan A Eeckels writes: I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs, or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever license he fancies, without any recourse for the copyright holders of the libraries and OSes that might - if the licensee so desires - be used to run the programs. I agree with you. A program that, when compiled, could be linked with Qt to form a useful program does not necessarily include any protected elements of Qt. But it may be based on such elements. It references functions, classes or methods implemented in the library. The names of these functions, classes or methods are not subject to copyright, or else none of the GNU re-implementations of existing libraries would be possible, even using clean-room approaches. In addition, re-implementations are without the shadow of a doubt based on the existing library even if they contain no protected elements. It all depends on the definition of based on, which here would be taking its inspiration and API from the existing library. You define based on for source code as not runnable in compiled format without the library and containing references to the library's API. The way I would define based on for source code is incorporating modified or unmodified source code from the library. Your definitions opens, IMHO, more cans of worms you'd ever wanted to open in an entire lifetime. Anyway, for Qt the point is quite moot, since an API-compatible library (Qt commercial) under a different license is available, and so source code written for Qt does not require a GPLed library version to run. The code might be useless without Qt, but not so without _GPLed_ Qt. I believe neither the existence of another library or another license, nor the usefulness of source code without the called libraries or the supporting OS has anything to do with its copyright status. Usefulness is not a criterion for software to be a derivative work or not. An OS (even compiled) is useless without a computer with the appropriate instruction set, but that doesn't make it a derivative work of the processor's microcode, design, or assembly language mnemonics (I still have Intel's 8080 Assembly Language manual, which mentions at the bottom of every page of the first chapter that the mnemonics are copyrighted: ALL MNEMONICS © 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 INTEL CORPORATION :). -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. --H. L. Mencken ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On 16 Oct 2006 07:37:56 -0700 Louis B. (ldb) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of this sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code showing how to use various elements of the sdk in various display enviornments. We have on example based on X11, another for OpenGL. I want to include a Qt example with my code, as well, since there has been some interest in it. The actual sdk being released contains no GPL components, and this would merely be an example of how to use the SDK and Qt. This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's library. Does including this example source code in my distrubuted tarball put the entire thing, including the sdk, under the GPL? Of course not - you're not including Qt, are you? If it's source code you wrote yourself, that happens to call Qt routines, then it is not subject to the Qt license. If it does, I'll be forced to leave out the Qt example source, altogether, and that seems silly to me. The source code is not subject to the license of the libraries it calls. And even if it were, simply placing the example under the GPL would be sufficient - why do you think that the license of the example would also apply to your library? Licenses aren't like viruses that jump from library to library through example programs. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Modesty personified: This was a thread between ignorant people until I jumped in. -- richard in gnu.misc.discuss ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: More GPL questions
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:59:18 +0200 (CEST) QuoteMaster Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Of course not - you're not including Qt, are you? If it's source code you wrote yourself, that happens to call Qt routines, then it is not subject to the Qt license. By linking to a GPLed library, which Qt is, you must abide by that license. He's not linking to Qt. He's providing sample source code that happens to use Qt for the GUI part (like other source code that uses OpenGL, etc). Also, the OP is _including_ GPLed source code into his library, not just linking it. No - he wants to make it easy for Qt users to use his library by providing an example. He wrote that example. It's his work. He quite clearly stated that: Louis B. (ldb) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of this sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code showing how to use various elements of the sdk in various display enviornments. The only thing that could be affected by the license of the libraries is the compiled program. The OP is providing source code - the source code you're so keen on. Maybe if you'd use a program that knows how to quote you'd be less susceptible to foot-in-mouth disease. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. -- Thomas Reed ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:23:19 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following section Introduction tries to cast some light on the actual usage of the word, and in the rest of the article, operating system is sometimes used to clearly indicate just kernel and kernel threads, sometimes in the terms of the encompassing system. My second edition Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering Copyright © 1983, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc. defines Operating System as: the software (programs and data) that initiates the interaction of the electronic and electromechanical components of a computer so that they constitute a useful system for carrying out computations. The operating system is responsible for sharing the computer equipment among users and is therefore sometimes identified by functional names such as /control programs/, /supervisors/, /executives/, or /monitors/, although these names have gradually fallen out of use. Chapter 1 of Kernighan and Pike's seminal The Unix Programming Environment (Copyright © 1984, Prentice-Hall) starts with: What is UNIX? In the narrowest sense, it is a time-sharing operating system kernel: a program that controls the resources of a computer and allocates them among its users. It lets users run their programs; it controls the peripheral devices (discs, terminals, printers and the like) connected to the machine; and it provides a file system that manages the long-term storage of information such as programs, data and documents. In the broader sense, UNIX is often taken to include not only the kernel, but also essential programs like compilers, editors, command languages, programs for copying and printing files, and so on. Still more broadly, UNIX may even include programs developed by you or other users to be run on your system, such as tools for document preparation, routines for statistical analysis, and graphics packages. Which of these uses of the name UNIX is correct depends on which level of the system you are considering. When we use UNIX in the rest of this book, context should indicate which meaning is implied. It would seem that what constitutes an Operating System has always been open to interpretation. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Governments are like babies: digestive tracts with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. The better run ones from time to time get clean diapers... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:02:05 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, what? The quoted section tries defining the term UNIX, not the term operating system. Notice the qualification time-sharing operating system kernel. If operating system would have been a synonym for kernel, Kernighan and Pike would not have felt it necessary to qualify the term. Both quotes indicate that already in the early 80s, operating system had a broader meaning than merely the kernel. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.-- Robert A. Heinlein ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:10:53 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not saying it was an established definition. I am saying that is was used pretty much synonymously. And I'm saying that it was not used synonymously in most circles, maybe in your circles. And in those days the term kernel wasn't even that used much, the operating system included everything you needed to use the computer (editors, compilers, and what not). Even before the 80s, kernel was a widely used and fairly well-defined term. From Ralston's Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering, 2nd Edition (Copyright © 1983 Van Nostrand Reinhold): The term /kernel/ (and sometimes /nucleus/) is applied to the set of programs in an operating system which implement the most primitive of that system's functions. The precise interpretation of kernel programs, of course, depends on the system; however, typical kernels contain programs for four types of functions: 1. /Process management/ (description elided) 2. /Memory management/ (description elided) 3. /Basic I/O control/ (description elided) 4. /Security/ (description elided) In some systems, the kernel is larger and provides for more than these classes of functions. In others, it is smaller. In my recollection at least, Unix was exceptional in that it provided, as part of the operating system, programs such as assemblers, compilers, text editors, link editors etc. that one had to pay for in other systems. None of the other OSes I worked with in the 70s (MVS, GEORGE, CP/M, AOS) included software development tools. Microsoft released a number of languages for CP/M (and TRSDOS) in the early 80s. Ryan-McFarland was another vendor of Fortran and Cobol for early microcomputers. Borland built its reputation with development tools for MS-DOS. Bundling development tools was so exceptional that all Unix vendors had unbundled them by the early 90s. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. -- Thomas Reed ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:31:53 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have any evidence of the term kernel being used before, or actually even outside of UNIX? I think it likely that UNIX was the main culprit for the informal erosion of operating system which has not really managed to make it fully back to academia (you'll find operating system theory courses, but hardly kernel theory). I quoted this section from Ralston's Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering, 2nd Edition (Copyright © 1983 Van Nostrand Reinhold) in my answer to one of Alfred's posts: The term /kernel/ (and sometimes /nucleus/) is applied to the set of programs in an operating system which implement the most primitive of that system's functions. The precise interpretation of kernel programs, of course, depends on the system; however, typical kernels contain programs for four types of functions: 1. /Process management/ (description elided) 2. /Memory management/ (description elided) 3. /Basic I/O control/ (description elided) 4. /Security/ (description elided) In some systems, the kernel is larger and provides for more than these classes of functions. In others, it is smaller. One could argue be that by 1983 Unix had already had such influence that the term kernel had been backported into descriptions of other operating systems. But even simplistic 70s OSes like CP/M consisted of a nucleus (BIOS/BDOS/CCP) and utility programs (such as PIP and FORMAT), and CP/M was never influenced by Unix. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Q: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world? A: Because they don't know they're ignorant. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using GPL software
On 1 Oct 2006 03:01:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So i'm rather confused by what does it really mean by linking? Taking code from your program, and code from a library, and making a single executable unit from the combination. In your case you have two independent programs, and thus the license of one of them does not have an impact on the other. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind. --H. L. Mencken ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:39:46 +0300 Johann Rost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I own a time series software package and I would like to donate the C+ + code to the open source. (Time Series is an area of mathematical statistics). I thought of using GPL as license - perhaps dual licensing (something like MySQL).. The investment was about 8 person years and there are several megabytes of source code and regression tests. Very interesting. I've worked in the statistical field for the past 15 years (collecting time series data so that others can work with it, for example with FAME). I'm sure quite a few of my colleagues would be very interested in such a package. I cannot maintain a server for this software pagage. So I would prefer to upload it to an existing server which has already an archive of free software. However I do not know where are such servers and what exactly are the steps. There are a number of organisations that host Open Source Projects for free: BerliOS www.berlios.de OpenSVN https://opensvn.csie.org GNA.org https://gna.org/ safehaus www.safehaus.org codehaus www.codehaus.org GNU savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/ java.net www.java.net javaforge www.javaforge.com Novell forge.novell.com They have various services, such as SVN or CVS version management, mailing list support, incident/bug reporting tools etc. I suggest you spend some time on each site to see which suits you best. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Shun those who say we have eyes in order to see, and instead say we see because we happen to have eyes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On 5 Sep 2006 00:24:19 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If your code was working before including GPLed code, the old code will still continue to work. So the amount of non-GPLed code will not decrease. If your code was not working before including GPLed code, there is nothing that can be decremented. And what if it wasn't working and I needed that little bit of GPLed code to get a vital program component finished? If that code is so important that your program does not function without it, and you cannot yourself solve the problem, then why don't you contact the author and ask for a different license? Code can be licensed under different licenses to different people, or even to the same person for different purposes. The situation under copyright law is that you _can not_ use someone else's work. The various open source licenses give you the right to do so while maintaining a number of conditions. Imagine that instead of the GPL, the author had used a no commercial use license. Would you then also feel that she unfairly restricted your ability to make money with your work? Why is it so difficult to grasp the idea that you cannot demand a right for yourself that you are not prepared to grant to others? Then don't use the GPLed code. Write your own code if you don't like the licenses from the code of others. I already know. But you don't seem to want to do this. If you don't like the license, don't use it. By the way: the copyright to the 300,000 lines remains with you. The other author can only sue for his 3 lines, regardless of whether you or anybody else happens to be infringing. But of course if I decide to use the GNU code then I am agreeing to surrender some of those rights, namely those withhold the source and/or license it under a different set of terms than GPL. No, you keep all the rights to your original work, and you can license it under a different license. It is just that you cannot do as you please with the work of others. It is not used in a reciprocating way if people choose to license it non-free. This is not about whether the original license is fair, but whether the use you can make of it will always count as fair. And according to you, fair means that you have to give up some of your rights (namely to choose exactly what terms to license your original work under), and a disclosure of the source code, when using GPLed code in an otherwise original work. So in order to make the use fair you have to give out your code under the same terms as the GPLed code, ie. GPL it. No - it is about granting the same rights to the author of the GPLed work, namely to determine how her work is licensed. If you want the right to decide fully over the license status of your work, then you have to grant the same right to fellow software authors. No. It is just an imprudent choice of licensing for your work if you want to get others to do the same and profit from it in the long run. In other words the point of the GPL is to create more open code with legal muscle, not just keep already free code free. I was RIGHT! Indeed. As was indicated several times, the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that there is a growing body of GPLed software, because the guy who wrote the GPL believes that this is the way software should be available. Microsoft believes that all software should belong to them, so that as many people as possible have to pay them to use it. This is why they systematically either kill off competing products (remember Netscape - it had to become Open Source because Microsoft destroyed the market for browsers), or buy them (FoxPro, Visio etc). These are different visions. We live in a free world (more or less). You have the choice not to use GPLed software, in which case you're no worse of than you would be if the GPLed software did not exist (apart from salivating). If I build a toll road on my property, you cannot decide that the advantage of my road is such -even though you're not prepared to pay the toll- that you should have the right to use it. By all means ask me to lower the toll, but don't suggest that somehow my building the road was amoral because now you can no longer bear to use the existing public roads. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather have one good soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts. --Leavitt ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:55:54 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it is obvious that you are intelligent enough that you do this sort of create disingenuous quoting out of context on purpose, too. What you hope to achieve by those tactics is beyond me. Never explain by malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. However: Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Isn't it amazing how a large number of evil morons can give the appearance of being a single evil genius? --Mel Rimmer ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On 5 Sep 2006 12:33:24 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: Well I could, and it depends on the type of project I have planned. If the project is not a commercial venture in any form, I have NO PROBLEMS with GPLing it, provided I am not going to reuse some of the original code in that program in another project (because it had become GPL... another problem with the GPL license. When you use GPL code, you agree to make the combined work GPL. If you then use some of your original code from said combined work (and it's been said here REPEATEDLY that your original code is yours) in another 100% original work, that also becomes GPL therefore essentially rendering all your original code that you worked so hard on worthless for non-GPLable projects). That's wholly incorrect - your work that was released under the GPL remains wholly yours, so you can take whatever is yours, and license it under another license. The GPL has _no_ influence on the author, only on the licensees. Every line of code you write remains yours to do with as you see fit. No, you keep all the rights to your original work, and you can license it under a different license. It is just that you cannot do as you please with the work of others. So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!: 1. Make non-GPL program. You don't make a non-GPL program. As far as you are concerned, you have the rights to your work, and you decide to make it available under conditions you choose. 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program. 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL. 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original* part of said combined work and put it in another original work, this time one with NObody else's code in it, 5. Release that closed-source and non-GPL as heck. Am I right? If not then GPL has forced me to give up some rights to my original work as a price for using those few lines of someone else's work. There IS a price! You are quite correct. The GPL doesn't force you to give up rights, the only thing you have to do (and that's got zilch to do with the GPL) is to respect the rights of others. No - it is about granting the same rights to the author of the GPLed work, namely to determine how her work is licensed. If you want the right to decide fully over the license status of your work, then you have to grant the same right to fellow software authors. Oh so you have to work it out with them, right? (if I want a non- GPL licensing scheme) Now, does this have and bearing on what I can do with my original works? Can I let someone use _my own_ 100% original code in their works WITHOUT demanding them to give me their own code for my use? I should be able to, considering those are _my original works_ and I can do WHATEVER I PLEASE WITH THEM since *I* made them! Am I right? You are right. You choose the license for the code you write, and others choose the license for the code they write. If a work contains code of more than one author, these must agree on a license. A commercial EULA is one possibility, the GPL another. To belabour the issue: your work is yours. Indeed. As was indicated several times, the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that there is a growing body of GPLed software, because the guy who wrote the GPL believes that this is the way software should be available. Aha! Thank you for confirming me. I've uncovered it! The evil motive of the GPL! Since they believe that's the way software should be, then they want ultimately _ALL_ software to be this way. It's an ideal of sorts. There's nothing evil in it. People are entitled to their views, and if enough other people come to share them, they become mainstream. If not, there's no-one who will come and force the GPL down your throat. Microsoft believes that all software should belong to them, so that as many people as possible have to pay them to use it. This is why they systematically either kill off competing products (remember Netscape - it had to become Open Source because Microsoft destroyed the market for browsers), or buy them (FoxPro, Visio etc). These are different visions. We live in a free world (more or less). The point is that there is a third view here, and it's the one I espouse: Software should be distributed the way the author chooses, provided it is reasonable. Reasonability is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Let's not start the next war. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Effective cryptography is not about strong cryptographic algorithms. It is instead about key management. -- Russell Nelson ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Q: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world? A: Because they don't know they're ignorant. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On 3 Sep 2006 18:50:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps you have misunderstood my statement. I'm saying that does GNU demand all your original work to be taken over if you use GNU code? I guess it does. That's what I mean by automatic -- you use the GNU code and then either you GNU your whole original work or you are violating the license. Not GNU - GPL. And no, the GPL does not, and cannot, influence what you do with your original code. Copyright law gives the author of a work (which is defined by the law) the right to control if and how it is copied and distributed. It is only when you have a work that contains the original work of more than one author that there is a problem - all the authors have to come to an agreement on how the combined work will be copied and distributed. The GPL is an offer from the author of a GPLed work to the (potential) author of a work that would use the GPLed work as a component. The offer says: you can use my work _if_ you either * do not distribute the resulting combined work * distribute it under the GPL. If the offer is not acceptable, you simply cannot distribute the combined work. You retain _all_ rights to your original work (this even if you would distribute the combined work under the GPL). You can also contact the author of the GPLed work and ask her if she would be interested in licensing it to you on other terms (like the payment of royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you can distribute the combined work under another license (or no license at all, in which case standard copyright provisions would apply). _None_ of your original work is _ever_ taken over by a GPLed work. But neither can you take over a GPLed work and use it for your own purposes without heeding the wishes of its author. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless managers that don't understand that there are more possibilities than chaos on the one hand and the reduction of alternatives to zero on the other.-- Richard Hamilton in comp.sys.sun.hardware ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:03:18 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As such, the author of the GPLed work has the right to require all works that contain the GPLed work, or are derivative works of the GPLed work, to be either not distributed, or distributed under the GPL. There's no need to muddy the water, Eeckels. Works that contain the GPLed work are not all derivative works of the GPLed work. In fact, in most usual and frequent cases they are not. Alex my mate, that's why I used or: all works that contain the GPLed work, OR are derivative works of the GPLed work, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:34:40 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you can distribute the combined work under another license (or no license at all, in which case standard copyright provisions would apply). Eeckels, Eeckels. No license is needed to distribute combined work under 17 USC 117 and 17 USC 109. I mean addition exact copies (e.g. copies of library programs inside executables or whatever containers and aggregations like jars or whatnot) made under 17 USC I've never subscribed to the idea that using a library (distributed with the OS or not) turns a program into a derivative work of said library. You're preaching to the choir here. But a program that presents itself as a unit, and is made up of components that work together and only together, I would consider to be something more than a mere aggregation. And as I have a sneaking suspicion I might prevail in court, I would sue. You have recycled your arguments over and over again, you keep regurgitating them like a seasick cruise ship passenger expensive cocktails, but you utterly fail to convince. 117 and distributed along with originals (e.g. downloaded, implied license to save bandwidth aside for a moment) under 17 USC 109. The notion implied license to save bandwidth does not occur in the copyright statues, Alex. It is a figment of your imagination. If you berate others for using words not in a text, you could do worse than refraining from more egregious practices yourself. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Isn't it amazing how a large number of evil morons can give the appearance of being a single evil genius? --Mel Rimmer ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together with 109), for example, doesn't require a license, stupid. Has your teacher failed to tell you that calling people names lends no credence to your arguments? As a matter of fact, it removes what little credibility you might have left. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- You know, it is almost always the case in the real world that something is fair when you like it and unfair when you don't. -- Jeffrey Siegal in gnu.misc.discuss ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:22:18 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:52:55 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sez who? Copying (and distribution) under 17 USC 117 (together with 109), for example, doesn't require a license, stupid. Has your teacher failed to tell you that calling people names lends no credence to your arguments? As a matter of fact, it removes what little credibility you might have left. So what? It makes it easier for occasional visitors to determine who is not to be taken seriously. You've got a point there. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Sometimes I wonder whether the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:54:10 -0500 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or perhaps you will have to write your own code. Ouch! that sucks :) -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- When the need is strong, there are those who will believe anything. -- Arnold Lobel ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On 4 Sep 2006 15:28:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] The GPL vision of software is more like how science is practiced Rather funny practice in the context of the GPL you're talking about. Most researches with the focus on industrial application (i.e. something that can be used to make products right now or pretty soon; and I mean most researchers in both private and public sector) file for patents like crazy. And research papers and reports are mostly all rights reserved. Not that kind of applied crap - I mean fundamental research, like mathematics. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Microsoft treats IT managers the way Proctor Gamble treats nine-year-old prospective consumers: lots of noise, bright colors, and jumping around. Other software vendors just wish they could be so successful. -- Cameron Laird in comp.lang.tcl ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
On 4 Sep 2006 17:19:44 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on constituent works. But you cannot create the compilation without the approval of the copyright holders of each of the constituent works. The compilation then is protected by copyright - but only to the extent that someone else can not put together the same compilation - i.e. it's the creative act of preparing the compilation that is protected. In essence, if you place a copy of your wholly original work and say, an unmodified copy of GCC together on a CD with some of your drivel, this is a compilation. To comply with the GPL, you'll have to include the source to GCC. Now imagine that you lifted the source code to the GCC 'C' parser from GCC, and used that in your MY-C compiler, then MY-C is no longer a compilation. It's more like lifting Hogwarts and its cast of characters from the Harry Potter novels (parser) and writing your own stories (back-end). MY-C is now a derivative work of GCC, and you'll have to include the source code to your stuff in addition to the code you lifted from GCC (but not the whole of the GCC source code). At least, that's how I see it, and how I believe a Court might see it. Thus, if I were the copyright holder, I would not sue you in the first case, and would most definitely sue you in the second case. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- I can understand that some people are cheap. I can't accept that they also appear deeply hurt when someone else makes money. -- Artur Swietanowski in c.o.l.x ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license question with non-GPL library
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:40:28 GMT Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For example is cairo or freetype considered a 'system' library, or would I need to redistribute their source as well? Is a link to their webpage sufficient? You can consider the complete GNOME framework (everything that GNOME installs) a system library in the GPL sense if your program is based on GNOME (i.e. requires a GNOME installation to compile and function). Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. (Sir William Drummond) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivativedistros
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:07:59 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Basically, it says that if you have a legal copy of a copyrighted work, you do *NOT* need the permission of the copyright owner to distribute it. This is why you can sell a book to a used bookstore, without having to contact the author and get permission. The question is whether I can cut the book into two parts and sell it to different people, or in different sales. Probably. I daresay this has never been tested in court :). Breaking a car down for parts is fine, but a car is not a literary work. And as such it is not interesting to split a book into chapters for separate resale. One could imagine doing so with a book that's a compilation of articles, for example. I'm quite sure that the copyright holders would not be interested in stopping this if they could. After all, the book has been sold and consideration has been received. The problem with a GPLed work is that the consideration is delayed. One gets the work for free, but if one wants to use it in a binary-only fashion one can't. It's very tempting - here is this lovely code that will save me a lot of time in my quest for easy gains, but there's this obnoxious license that I should abide by. Oh bother. To the dishonest person, trying to get around the license in creative ways comes naturally. Of course, the right behaviour is not to use the GPLed work. But I am not amazed that there are a lot of dishonourable people around who cannot resist the temptation... -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Governments are like babies: digestive tracts with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. The better run ones from time to time get clean diapers... ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivativedistros
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:13:14 +0200 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, it is so insightful that nobody wants to read it. LOL A right-wing organization buys large amounts of those books for close to nothing, cuts off the back half and introduction, binds the remains into new covers and sells and generally distributes them. In such a case, at least in Germany according to my understanding of the German authorship laws, the author would have a right to stop distribution of this material in spite of copyright exhaustion, as it infringes upon his artistic integrity. AFAIK, most if not all European countries have what is more accurately described as Author's Rights than Copyright laws. Under these laws certain rights are inalienable, which is not the case in the USA. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless managers that don't understand that there are more possibilities than chaos on the one hand and the reduction of alternatives to zero on the other.-- Richard Hamilton in comp.sys.sun.hardware ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:34:35 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs. One has the program in binary form, and one has the source. 2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the source code, gives the source CD away, or perhaps discards it. 3. Later, Party B no longer has a use for the program, so deletes all copies they have made of the binary CD, and then puts the binary CD up for sale. 4. Party C buys the binary CD. Question: who, if any, is obligated to provide source to Party C (if Party C wants it)? Party B. If B were selling a *modified* copy, or if B were making new copies and selling them, it would be different, but that's not the case here. Party B is distributing a verbatim copy, that it is or isn't a a new copy isn't relevant. What is relevant is first sale. That is, the owner of a lawful copy has the right to sell that copy. Thus, the sale can take place without accepting the license. The problem with the current copyright statutes and GPLed software is that the statutes were written before the arrival of the Internet. For example, it is not clearly defined what the status is of 500 downloads of the same file to one or more directories on one or more disks. For example, if I click 500 times on a Download the.rpm button, and as a result have the files the.rpm, the(1).rpm, the(2).rpm ... the(500).rpm on my hard disk, do I have 500 lawful copies, or just 1 lawful copy? In other words, is the fact that the data comes from a remote system (something that cannot be proved once the download is complete) material to the legal status of the copy? What happens if copies 2 to 500 happen to come from a cache? If I transfer each file to a separate CD-R, am I making copies even if I delete the original file on the disk? Assume that my intention was to produce 500 CD-Rs, can I ignore the transition via the hard disk? This is relevant even if a direct transfer from the server to the CD-R would be possible, as behind the scenes a transient image of the file will be written to disk, given the limitations of CD recording. The statutes assimilate executing a program with making copies, thus it would stand to reason that transient copies for the purpose of transferring to a removable medium are copies, and because they are not material to running the program, they would not fall under the relevant exemption. In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the courts become crucial. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Q: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world? A: Because they don't know they're ignorant. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:31:18 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [... first sale ...] In the absence of clear definitions, the interpretations of the courts become crucial. http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109. But that doesn't clarify the status of a copy downloaded to a hard disk and then copied to CD-R(W). One cannot directly write to a CD type device, because the file has to be written to another file that contains the filesystem. Is this intermediate copy lawful? It also doesn't answer the question about difference between the same file downloaded twice from a server, or downloaded once and then copied locally. There is no way that the resulting files themselves can be distinguished, so why would one be lawful and the other not? More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-2|3.pdf: Time Warner, Inc.: We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. Notice initial. This would imply that subsequent downloads do not create additional lawful copies. Library Associations: When technological change renders the literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that provision must be construed in light of its basic purpose and should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries. Indeed. The basic purpose is to allow a copy of the software to be treated as a book - you get the original media (possibly through the initial download), and then can use the program on your system(s). You can sell that single copy provided you do not keep the software installed on your system(s). Downloading the same program 500 times with the purpose of distributing these copies (and which results in exactly the same situation as if one downloaded once and copied 499 times) would not result in 500 lawful copies, and in order to proceed one would need to obtain the approval of the copyright holder. If this were not the case, the purpose of the law (allowing the copyright holders to control the copying of their work) would not be fulfilled. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Q: If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world? A: Because they don't know they're ignorant. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:52:37 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alfred, please don't send me copies of messages that are also sent to the group. Unless you mark the post Posted and Mailed or suchlike, it's against netiquette. It is commont netiquette to CC everyone, and it is specially done so on GNU mailing lists since non-subscribers can post to the list. I'm reading this in gnu.misc.discuss, and on Usenet one clearly marks when an article is mailed in addition to being posted. It would be considerate of you to add a standard line to your replies so that Usenet readers can avoid emailing you (alone) instead of replying to the group. Yes. If you buy a book, you can sell your copy. That is what first sale is about - the copyright holder can control copying, but once a copy has been sold (lawfully acquired), the copyright holder cannot control what is done with that copy. Yes, but selling your copy is distribution. So the person who sold the copy must accept the license and its terms; otherwise he is not allowed to sell/distribute it. No, that's exactly what first sale is about. You are allowed to sell your copy without accepting a license because the copyright holder does not have the right to forbid the owner of a copy to sell it. Remember that you do not have to accept the GPL to obtain a lawful copy, so all the provisions of the Copyright Statutes apply. First sale is one of them, and it limits the rights granted to the copyright holder. I don't see how the copyright holder gets into this mess. Selling the original copy is specifically allowed by the Copyright Statutes and is not distributing the work. I disagree, and the copyright statutes that I am familiar agree with me. If you buy 1 copies of FOO (book, CD, ...), and start selling them it is still distribution. No, you can sell each and every copy that you bought without asking the permission of the copyright holder. His rights are limited to controlling the copying of the work and preparing derivative works. Once the copies have been sold, the owner of the copy can sell, or destroy, or give away that copy (or use it to wallpaper his toilet). What he cannot do is make further copies, or prepare derivative works without the consent of the copyright holder. Have you never sold old books to a second-hand bookshop? Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- A ship in the harbor is safe. But that's not what ships are built for. -- Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Murray Hopper. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivativedistros
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:35:50 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109. But that doesn't clarify the status of a copy downloaded to a hard disk and then copied to CD-R(W). One cannot directly write to a CD type device, because the file has to be written to another file that contains the filesystem. Is this intermediate copy lawful? Uhmm. I think that all those intermediate copies fall under 17 USC 117 archival purposes (at least for programs ;-) ). Intermediate archival purposes. The transaction (start of downloading) conveys ownership. From that moment, you have a title to a copy being downloaded. You have the right to create archival copies. Including intermediate archival copies. You create archival copies first (initial downloading) and then they are deleted. A bit of a stretch (but read the statute's wording carefully). Still perfectly reasonable. No? I don't think so. This is one of the areas where clear definitions are lacking, and where some clarification by the courts (or the legislator) would be appropriate. You are effectively stretching the meaning of archival copy, which is meant to be something that is made to protect against the loss of your property, not to facilitate making CD-Rs. Your interpretation might seem reasonable to you, but the point of the court system is that your and my interpretation holds no weight. We can of course decide to act according to our understanding of the law, but more often than not the courts do not use the same interpretation as laypeople. It also doesn't answer the question about difference between the same file downloaded twice from a server, or downloaded once and then copied locally. There is no way that the resulting files themselves can be distinguished, so why would one be lawful and the other not? Both are lawful if you're within the limit (if any) imposed on number of copies that can be downloaded. The license is implied. C'mon, let's save environment and bandwidth. Saving bandwidth and trees is not what the Copyright Statutes are concerned with. Where I could find some sympathy for the preceding interpretation, here you're bordering on the risible. The result of this interpretation is that the copyright holder loses if not the the right, then certainly the ability to control the copying of her work. This is akin to tax evasion tricks, and in such cases courts tend to be quite unsympathetic. I'd venture to say they would be similarly unsympathetic to your interpretation. More quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-2|3.pdf: Time Warner, Inc.: We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium. Notice initial. This would imply that subsequent downloads do not create additional lawful copies. That doesn't follow. See above. In the case of the purchase of a copy, it should be rather obvious that paying for a single copy does not entitle you to the downloading of as many copies as your bandwidth permits, even if the server doesn't stop you from doing so. If you would then start to give those additional copies away, you'd certainly be violating copyright. [...] Downloading the same program 500 times with the purpose of distributing these copies (and which results in exactly the same situation as if one downloaded once and copied 499 times) would not result in 500 lawful copies, Sure it would. As for downloaded once and copied 499 times (in alternative) it's just implied license to save bandwidth. See above. Implied license means that the copyright holder can be deemed to have authorised certain copies when they are part of the intended use of the copyrighted material (e.g. viewing a web page makes a copy in the browser cache). In this case, the copyright holder did not intend to offer a downloadable version of her software so that you could circumvent the stated purpose of the license. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Shun those who say we have eyes in order to see, and instead say we see because we happen to have eyes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
On Sun, 21 May 2006 17:55:07 +0100 Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0. You mean that it uses/derives from classes in those libraries (like e.g. Lucene?) Can I still distribute the software under the GPL or should I choose another licence? Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a derivative work of these libraries. You use jars, meaning that you didn't copy source code into your program, and thus the license of the jars doesn't matter. Recipients of your GPLed code can without problems redistribute it. They can prepare derivative works and redistribute those under the GPL. The fact that in order to run your program they would have to ensure that their computer is configured correctly (i.e. the jars are available and in the classpath) doesn't influence your right to license your own work as you see fit. If so what would you recommend? If it's wholly your work, license it under the license you want. If you feel that what you wrote is not original enough, heed the wishes of the authors of the stuff you used. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself. -- Winston Churchill ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:59:17 +0200 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a derivative work of these libraries. Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in the system running the program. As it is extremely difficult to distribute a running program, this clause would pertain to linked programs that contain both a transformation of the source code (the object) and all or part of the libraries (where we could argue ad nauseam whether the instructions needed to do dynamic linking are enough to make a dynamically linked program a derivative work of the library or not). But it doesn't matter because we're talking about source code, which most certainly is not a derivative work of the libraries unless it happens to contain source code copied from said libraries. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- What is stated clearly conceives easily. -- Inspired sales droid ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:06:59 +0100 Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The third party jars are used via method calls, not by inheritance. Even so the GPL is too vague. I suspect as a small development if it went to court I could argue that there was no intent to deliberately violate the licence, I intended to benefit society, and due to the vagueness of the licence the general consensus/common sense would hold true. However I won't be releasing the software under GPL (yet) because of the potential risk. There is no risk. You, as the copyright holder, are the only person who could sue for a violation of the license. Putting software under the GPL can only be a problem if it contains non-original elements that have a license that prohibits this. You do not have to honour the GPL, it's those who receive it who have to abide by it. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- There's nothing wrong with Java - well actually there is, but we won't intrude on private grief here - except that it is pretty presumptuous and demanding, and shows clear signs of fixation at the anal stage: it doesn't just throw exceptions, it throws tantrums. --Steve Blinkhorn ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: DLL Copyright
On 16 May 2006 19:43:56 -0700 Jacob JKW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: Authors retain the copyright to the code they wrote. How the code is packaged has no bearing on that. Showing copyright information when the program starts or is running is not a prerequisite of the current copyright statutes. If on program start-up you give credit to author #2, it stands to reason you should give credit to author #1. Similarly, in an About topic it behooves to credit all authors. Sounds reasonable. Could you perhaps provide an example of appropriate phrasing of such copyright information? Gui-engine is a program to demonstrate copyrights GUI copyright 2006, Jacob Engine copyright 2005, Joseph and whatever other flowery prose that might come to mind :-) -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- The one thing IT really needs to outsource is the freakin' clueless managers that don't understand that there are more possibilities than chaos on the one hand and the reduction of alternatives to zero on the other.-- Richard Hamilton in comp.sys.sun.hardware ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: DLL Copyright
On 15 May 2006 05:28:45 -0700 Jacob JKW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following happens: 1) Source code to an executable is released under the GPL by author #1. 2) Source code is lightly modified by author #2 and then included as a DLL bundled with a new GPL app by a author #2. How should the copyright info be handled? Authors retain the copyright to the code they wrote. How the code is packaged has no bearing on that. Showing copyright information when the program starts or is running is not a prerequisite of the current copyright statutes. If on program start-up you give credit to author #2, it stands to reason you should give credit to author #1. Similarly, in an About topic it behooves to credit all authors. Take care, -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- A ship in the harbor is safe. But that's not what ships are built for. -- Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Murray Hopper. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Preferred form for making modifications
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:47:58 + (UTC) Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in using the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could find himself in infringement since he could not comply with the source related parts. That's very interesting. What exactly does source or preferred form for making modifications mean in this context? Is it whatever the copyright holder decrees it to be (the binary itself in this case), or is there some absolute standard for what source is, related to the form in which the program was *originally* written? There can only be what the copyright holder decides the source code to be. If there's nothing left but the binary, then obviously the GPL makes little sense; any license that permits distribution of the program would be equally effective. GPLv2 Section 3 states: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. So... is preferred form referred to the *original* author, or to the immediately upstream provider? Thinking of binary-only redistribution as similar to reimplementation in INTERCAL seems to work for me: you'd be redistributing a *derived* work, and you only need to provide the source code for the *derived* work, not the original. Yes? No? You only need to provide what you received, or prepared under the GPL. Thus, if you re-implement a GPLed work in Perl you only have to distribute the source code of the derivative work (though providing the original in Intercal would be a nice gesture :-) to comply with the GPL. Three bags full? of goggas, man :-) -- 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: Preferred form for making modifications
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:39:10 + (UTC) Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not aware of any other licences that prohibit further restrictions on downstream recipients. As a more or less kind-hearted head of an otherwise evil empire, you might be willing to give away your abandonware, but unwilling to allow others to turn your product back into a proprietary mini-monopoly. I suppose the risk is pretty low or it wouldn't be abandonware. But the fact that the GPL makes this impossible might sway kind-hearted evil overlords. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:09:08 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation it is saying that by licensing the work under the GPL (which is required when an original work is modified) the licensee (for the moment take that to be the owner of the physical copy) must permit users of the work to obtain copies (and thus become licensees themselves) which they are then free to distribute and/or modify under the terms of the GPL. This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by the FSF itself. From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html : |--- | * If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand | he give me a copy? | |No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of | the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to | redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses. | | * What does this written offer valid for any third party mean? Does | that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed | program no matter what? | | Valid for any third party means that anyone who has the offer is | entitled to take you up on it. | |If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source | code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the | source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the | binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this | written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries | directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along | with the written offer. | | The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is | so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can | order the source code from you. The GPL says that modified versions, | if released, must be licensed ... to all third parties. Who are | these third parties? Section 2 says that modified versions you | distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. All | third parties means absolutely everyone--but this does not require | you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a | license from you, under the GPL, for your version. |--- | * A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web | site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources? | | The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without | ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a | special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release | the modified sources. | | It is essential for people to have the freedom to make | modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those | modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for | the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be | legitimate to require release of the source code in that special | case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version | 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet. | | In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for | programs designed for network server use. | | * Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or | company distribution? | | No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for | itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop | a modified version and install that version through its own | facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that | modified version to outsiders. | | However, when the organization transfers copies to other | organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, | providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. | | * If someone steals a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered | program, does the GPL give him the right to redistribute that | version? | | If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably | does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the | GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait | until his release before doing so. | | If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a | company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation | of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does | not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still | treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the | company hasn't released this version, no such violation has
Re: GPL and other licences
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:56 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case' describes a situation where the licensee has to provide a copy of the work. But the selfsame entry says that the current GPL does not require it, and that version 3 might do something about that. Plus, it suggests another license in the meantime. Thus, your interpretation is not supported by the FSF. They clearly distinguish between what they'd like the situation to be, and what it is: | It is essential for people to have the freedom to make | modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those | modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for | the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be | legitimate to require release of the source code in that special | case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version | 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet. | | In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for | programs designed for network server use. Notice it _would be_ legitimate, not _it is_. Thus, it clearly _is not_ at this time. Notice that It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately. In fact, the entries I quoted refute all the assertions made by Alfred and yourself: 1. Users of a web-based program are not covered by the GPL (and you who like to extrapolate should have no problem in applying that to people in front of a glass teletype). 2. An organisation making copies for internal use does not distribute the software and can forbid its employees from distributing it outside the company 3. You cannot demand a copy of a GPLed program from the owner of a copy. It is the owner of a copy who decides to distribute it or not 4. If you get an unlawful copy of a GPLed work (steal one), you can distribute it under the GPL (ie become a licensee) only (and then only probably) if it is available elsewhere. It is legal for companies to treat modified GPLed programs as trade secrets. Read the FAQs again. Try and find _one_ that supports your interpretation. Think about what the great Confucius said: Mind like parachute, only works when open. :-) You are describing how you'd like things to be, not how they are. 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
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL software to be a licensee You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright holder without owning a copy. A license is an agreement between two parties, and I believe that quite often Microsoft Volume licensing deals do not include copies of the software. I did not say that such a thing was generally impossible. The question is whether the GPL itself provides for becoming a licensee without making a copy. There are two activities that are normally forbidden by Copyright that are allowed when one accepts the GPL: 1. Making and distributing copies 2. Preparing derivative works. I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy. For example, if you steal a CD with GPLed software from me, you are not in a position to claim that you are entitled to redistribute this software under the GPL, as I might not have wanted to give you a copy in the first place. This could be software that I did not intend to distribute, but had prepared for my own purposes. The fact that the CD contains the COPYING file with the GPL doesn't mean that I have to distribute it, or that when it is stolen, I cannot recover my property. Obviously, when the CD contains an old unmodified version of GCC neither I nor the copyright holders will care much about the thief copying and distributing it. If, however, it is a CD that contains software that looks like a GPLed work (which it would if it was a derivative work prepared in accordance with the requirements of the GPL), only a lawful copy (i.e. given to a third party by the owner of the derivative work) would enable the rightful owner (and not just anyone having physical access to a copy) to obtain a license under the GPL. 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
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:24:25 -0600 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan writes: I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy. I believe that he must _own_ a copy. A bailee or agent can be in lawful possession of a lawful copy. OK, thanks for the correction. I've reformulated the same stuff so often in this discussion with Alfred that slip-ups were bound to happen. For the record, I agree that owning a lawful copy is a prerequisite for accepting the GPL. 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
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:27:23 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is netiquette. Group reply is common. It is not, and additionally it is customary to mention that you mailed and posted in your reply if you do so. If you have such a hard time figuring out who wrote what, look at the CC and reference fields. I happen to like this quotaion style, do not try and enforce what you consider sane on me, I'm not doing that to you. You should follow the quoting and attribution style in use in this group, not what you happen to like. That is, if you're interested in getting answers. Of course, you could just be a rude person. _IF_ I give you access to my computer, _AND_ to the actual content, _YES_. How hard can it be to understand this? I have now several times said this. Please _READ_ what is written. That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You give the disk to a repair person, and grant this person access to your disk, ostensibly for the purposes of recovering it. During the recovery, the repair person notices that some directories contain the file COPYING (usually associated with GPLed software), and decides --without asking your permission-- that because the GPL allows copies to be made, that these directories are fair game and copies them for her use. Or maybe keeps a copy of the whole 80GB because it contains a file called COPYING. Think about this situation, and then answer the following questions. Please note that I will consider an incomplete or evasive answer as proof that you are clueless. * Does a third party with obviously lawful access to your disk, but not for the purposes of making personal copies of well-defined files, have the right to decide, for themselves, that certain files on your disk are GPLed and thus can be freely acquired? * Is the presence of the file COPYING a reliable indicator of the license status of the files on a computer storage device? * How does a third party, without your approval or instructions, determine which files -if any- are covered by the GPL? * How could you prove which files are not covered by the GPL if the text of the GPL appears in a directory (are all the files in that directory covered? All files in all sub-directories? The whole disk?) * Does all GPLed software include a comprehensive and exhaustive list of all the files it contains, with suitable hashes so that prospective copiers can make sure they only copy genuine GPLed files and not a straggler with the same name? * Are files that do not contain a copyright notice affected by the presence of a file containing the text of the GPL on the same medium? * Are files that contain a different copyright notice still covered by the GPL if the text of the GPL is somewhere on the medium? * What happens if the texts of the GPL, BSDL, MPL, Artistic License and the Microsoft and Adobe EULA all appear on the medium. * Is it a condition of the GPL that all material released under the GPL should contain a notice stating that it is covered by the GPL? * Do the copyright statutes mandate a copyright notice? (Hint: No). * Can files not under the GPL be copied if they are in a directory that contains a file with the text of the GPL? * What recourse would you have if certain files were not under the GPL, did not contain a copyright notice, and you would like to stop the computer repair person from distributing your unpublished love letters to Carly Fiorina, written in C++ without exceptions, under the GPL? BTW, stating that your computer only contains GPLed software and that you never wrote love letters to Carly is disingenuous. Do you think its OK for a computer repair person to copy software from your machine because she notices that a directory contains the file COPYING? _IF_ I have him access to the content, _YES_. Even if only to try and recover a crashed disk? OK, then please answer *all* the questions above. Cheers, -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:22 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You give the disk to a repair person, and grant this person access to your disk, ostensibly for the purposes of recovering it. During the recovery, the repair person notices that some directories contain the file COPYING (usually associated with GPLed software), and decides --without asking your permission-- that because the GPL allows copies to be made, that these directories are fair game and copies them for her use. Or maybe keeps a copy of the whole 80GB because it contains a file called COPYING. The existance of a COPYING file does not change the copyright status of a file. If you think that it does, then it shows that you have not studied copyright law, even basic copyright law. Indeed. But this is what _you_ say when you maintain that you can copy software that you believe is under the GPL. I give you, as my employee, a CD to install on my machines. You look at at, and say Hey! this is GPLed software - let me make a copy of it. You do not, and cannot know that this is GPLed software. Think about this situation, and then answer the following questions. Please note that I will consider an incomplete or evasive answer as proof that you are clueless. Once again you resort to name calling. The only person who is clueless is the person who cannot dicuss something without name calling. I'm not calling you clueless. I said I will consider you clueless if you skip pertinent questions as you are wont to do. Learn to discern the basic meaning of words. * Does a third party with obviously lawful access to your disk, but not for the purposes of making personal copies of well-defined files, have the right to decide, for themselves, that certain files on your disk are GPLed and thus can be freely acquired? This assumes that the person can slap a license over files that do not have such a license, which is illegal unless you are the copyright holder. Thanks again for making my point. Obviously, files are not covered by a license simply because of proximity. Thus, even _if_ the GPL would allow copies to be made of files you do not own but merely have access to, you have no way of knowing which files are indeed covered by the GPL. * Is the presence of the file COPYING a reliable indicator of the license status of the files on a computer storage device? COPYING is a verbatim copy of the license, it has no legal significance over what a file is licensed under. Thanks for making my point. * How does a third party, without your approval or instructions, determine which files -if any- are covered by the GPL? A copyright notice in the file. I suggest you read the `How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' from the GNU GPL is a good place to start. This is how you can inform people about your intentions. It doesn't mean however that it is mandatory (it is not, because copyright under the Berne convention is automatic - no need to register or put a mark on each page). * How could you prove which files are not covered by the GPL if the text of the GPL appears in a directory (are all the files in that directory covered? All files in all sub-directories? The whole disk?) Only files with proper copyright notices can be protected by copyright, if there is no copyright notices: no rights. No, every work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright under the Berne Convention. * Does all GPLed software include a comprehensive and exhaustive list of all the files it contains, with suitable hashes so that prospective copiers can make sure they only copy genuine GPLed files and not a straggler with the same name? I have no idea what you mean here. Because works are copyrighted even when not identified as such (Berne Convention), there is no way in which someone with mere access to a medium can determine which files are covered by the GPL. How can they decide what they may copy? * Are files that do not contain a copyright notice affected by the presence of a file containing the text of the GPL on the same medium? If the file does not contain a copyright notice, then `no rights' is applied. This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had understood copyright law to participate in this discussion. OK, you are clueless. Works do not need to be registered, nor do they need to carry a copyright notice to be protected by copyright. You put drivel on paper or in electrons, and presto, they're covered. * Are files that contain a different copyright notice still covered by the GPL if the text of the GPL is somewhere on the medium? If they contain copyright notices, then the
Re: GPL and other licences
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100 Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead. Darn spellcheckers. It's angels of course :-) -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:52 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do with it. The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you. Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of the copy, you don't get the rights associated with its ownership. No. The owner of the physical copy does not have the authority to permit creation of additional copies or modifications. Only the copyright owner has that authority. The copyright owner has, by licensing under the GPL, given permission for copies and modifications to be made and for the these (possibly modified) copies to be distributed subject to certain conditions specified in the GPL. Indeed. But please notice that the GPL doesn't oblige you to distribute copies, it gives you the right to do so if you want to. And instructing an agent to perform an installation on one of your machines is not distribution, which is the act of giving ownership of copies to third parties. If you cede ownership of a copy to your employee, then yes, you have to do so under the GPL. But there is no transfer of ownership here, just a sequence of actions to be performed by the employee/agent. You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it might be-- doesn't enter into it at all. For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the physical copy you copied) permission to do so. You cannot make a copy of that CD because the Copyright statutes explicitly forbid making copies, and neither can the library grant you the (legal) right to make a copy. The library can make lawful copies of the CD as long as the CD contains the source code because the library is the lawful owner of the copy. You, on the other hand, are not the lawful owner, and hence you most definitely cannot make any copy, whatever the license may be. Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot. But from the legal perspective, there is a chasm between your making an unlawful copy, and the lawful copy made by the library. 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
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:30 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please refrain from removing attributions. If you quote, have the decency to include the name of the author. I said: No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action. ... Unless the license gives me such rights. But in this case there is no license between you and the licensor, so it cannot give you any rights. Whatever rights you have would have to come from the Copyright statutes, but they only apply when you are the lawful owner of a copy (which, to belabour the point, you are *not*). `My' principal cannot redictate the terms of the license of the copyright holder without getting the copyright holder to redictate them. If the license allows for sharing, then I am allowed to do so if I recived the copy in an lawful manner. But you did not receive a copy. You received the instruction to do something with your principal's property. Whether you use to receive or to give, what matters is whether you became the lawful owner of a copy. And when you're handling your principal's property on his behalf and at his behest, you do *not* become the owner of that property, whether it be a CD with software, or a car, or a power drill, or the text of a novel. The contents or type of property doesn't enter into the equation at all. This is wrong. The word has must mean is the owner of the copy for any rights to accrue. Simply having it in your grubby little paws gives you the same rights as the mailman - exactly none. Please, do I really have to be this detailed after having exlpained the specific situation several times? It is the person who is in the lawfull posession of the GPLed software who can accept the license, not just the person who owns the CD. But you are not the lawful owner (or have lawful possession) of the CD. You're merely using it to execute your job. If you _lend_ me a CD, then I'm not the owner of the copy, and according to you, I wouldn't be able to access the content. This is clearly false, and absurd. Well, you have the physical ability to access its contents. But if this CD contains software, then I am not allowed to lend it to you for the purposes of installing the software on *your* computer, as I only have the right to install said software on *my* computer. I am allowed to sell it to you (first sale) as long as I remove every trace of the program from my computer. The FSF gives you the right to make a lawful copy of the content of their servers on your computer. If you, as AMS and not as agent of your employer, make a copy of software on those servers, you own a lawful copy, and that copy resides on your disk. And since the employeer gave me access, leagl such, to the content of the CD, then I can lawfully make a copy of that content. If he transferred ownership of the copy to you, yes. If he merely instructed you to install the software on one of his computers, no. AMS uttered: According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content of the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software. If you do so as yourself. When you are acting as an agent for your employer, you are not acting for yourself, and all rights remain with your principal. That is what the law says. Using Word on your employer's computer doesn't give _you_ a license (that is, you do not enter into a business relationship with Microsoft which is what a license to use Word is). I don't know what the license is of this program. I can only assume that it is non-free, so it will have specific clauses that prohibit sharing. Since the license prohibits sharing, I can't share it legally with someone else. It doesn't matter what the license is, because the license is between the owner of the copy, and the owner of the software. It would matter if a license were a property of the software, but (for the umpteenth time) *it is not*. Can we stick to the GPL? Since that is the only thing that matters here, if the license doesn't give you the four freedoms, then the discussion is moot. Again, Alfred, the license is an agreement between you and the owner of the software. Without a license, the Copyright statues forbid copying. When you are handling a CD (as an agent or the mail carrier or a helping hand during a move) you do not become the *owner* of a copy, and thus you cannot do *anything*. The fact that the owner of the software is prepared to license it to you under the GPL doesn't mean he *has* licensed it to you. The only way you can invoke the GPL is when you first have acquired a legal copy. In the case that interests you - namely that you can make copies of your employer's software as long as you presume the software has been licensed under the GPL, to forget that the employer might have
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:36:44 + Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright holder can grant. GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who *can* give permission to make copies? Indeed, but he cannot grant you the right to make copies of something that doesn't belong to him. Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the license? Don't forget that you own the copy, but not the work. The right to make copies is with owner of the work. Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but your right to refuse anyone to make copies of your copy is inalienable(*). Imagine that you have purchased a license from me. The software is my property, and I can license it as I please to whom I please, but I simply cannot give someone the right to make a copy of your property (i.e. the licensed copy you bought from me) even if that someone has legitimate access to your computer, and the license allows *you* to make copies. You own that copy, and whatever the license(*), you can refuse that someone makes copies of it. What the OP claimed was that the GPL allowed him to ignore the rights of the legitimate owner of the copy. This of course is patent nonsense, if only because the GPL is not an intrinsic attribute of the software, but an agreement between two parties, and thus external to the software, even if the text of a proposed license accompanies it. Take care, (*) I know one could write a license that stipulates that copies, and a male goat, must be provided to anyone who asks. However, only a fool would sign such a thing, so could those who like to dot the t's and cross the i's please refrain from bringing it up? Thanks. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:35:38 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical copies of software. Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the CD, but the content. The content does not exist without the physical copy. It is the possession of a copy that gives rights under the copyright statutes (like the first sale right) or a license. Thus, without the possession of a copy, there are _no_ rights. This is what I have been trying to explain by saying that the license is not attached to software, but to the copy. In other words, the software is, and remains, the property of the author. The copy, and only the copy that you lawfully acquire gives you the possibility to accept the GPL, and thus make copies of your copy and distribute those. You really don't get internal use. And you don't get what the heck is being discussed. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are the one who really doesn't get it. When you act as an agent for someone else, you do not become the owner of your principal's possessions, you merely act on their behalf. This is why they have to authorise the copying and distribution of their copy of the GPLed software. You, not being the owner of that specific copy, do not have the right to do so unless duly authorised by the owner of the copy, and the license under which the owner acquired the software is irrelevant to you. For example, you do not know if the author licensed that particular copy under another license than the GPL (which is her right). This is further proof that the license is not attached to the software, but is an agreement between the copyright owner and the recipient of a particular copy. This is, I assure you, the way copyright/author's right laws under the Berne Convention work. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:11:23 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a hard time following your message, you speak of property and ownership of software, neither of which are applicable to software. You cannot own software; since you cannot own software, it cannot be property. Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that work. The license is infact attached to the software (i.e. work), and not the actual physical entity that it resides on. It is attached to the copy of the work that resides on the physical medium. This is why the author can license the same work under two different licenses, for example the GPL and a license that doesn't require derivative works to be licensed under the GPL. Anything else would be absurd, since if you sell me your harddisk, and you for some odd reason forget to remove all data on it, then by your argument, I am now the lawful licensee (and even the copyright holder(?)) of all your files; no matter what the license is of each particular file is (it could for example be `ams is not allowed to look at this file') No, you would be the owner of my disk, unless I had specifically ceded the ownership of my copies of the software. The medium can exist without the copy of the software, but the software cannot exist without a medium. When you acquire a copy of a program, you are allowed to run it, which implies copying it to the hard disk, and subsequently copying it to the RAM, caches, processors etc as required by your computer. All these operations are considered to be copies of the software, but they are expressly allowed under the statutes. If I sell the hard disk to you, the copies of the software I licensed are no longer lawful, and hence you do not derive any rights from them. They were only lawful as long as they served the purpose of running the program by the owner of the copy. Now if I cede you the original copy, then you become the lawful owner and can continue to use the copies on the hard disk. I know that at first this can look weird, but that's how it works. It seems that you are mixing up two cases (once again), the CD (i.e. physical entity that the software resides on), in which you are eniterly correct, and I never disagreed there (and I'm getting a bit tired saying that). And the cases of where you actually aquired (legally) a program (on what is not relevant!) which is licensed under the GPL from your employeer. Obviously, unless the employer allows me to scratch the physical media which the software resides on, I'm not allowed to scratch it. But the employeer is simply incapable to dictate what I can do with the program, other than by just refusing to give me the software (once again, the physical media is irrelevant); You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium) that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. Do you believe that you enter into a license with Microsoft if you use your employer's computer that has Windows installed on it? Of course not, as you did not sign anything. Tomorrow you can be fired, and someone else will take the place behind that computer, and continue to use the equipment and software you used. There only is a license between the employer and Microsoft. at which point I'm not in possession of the software (physical media is irrelevant), and I have no rights to the software, since I don't have the software. It's late, and sentences become garbled. When I first tried to understand copyright, I considered it totally unintuitive. What you have to learn is that the law does not have to be intuitive, or even make sense to you. What matters is what it says, and how it is applied. And I again assure you that it is not applied like you interpret it. 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
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:35:00 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of our friend Backslash, I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling me obscure names. As you've noticed, it the backslash in your name. It stands out like a sore thumb. My apologies, I was frustrated with you and David. where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his company gave him the CD (to file), it would not be your unfinished software, now would it? If the company recived the CD legally, and gives it to me, then the company cannot dictate what I can do with it, only the copyright holder can. As I tried to explain, for certain values of give. If the company you work for instructs you to file all CDs in a cupboard, they do not transfer ownership to you, and thus you're merely acting in your capacity of agent of the company. You might describe your job as they *gave* me a lot of CDs (to file), but that value of give is not the same as when they give the CD to you to keep (Hey Alfred, here's an old copy of Linux, would you like to have it or do I throw it in the bin?). If the company got a hot CD with David's software, and I would then distribute it, then both the company and I could be sued by David for copyright infrigment, and other fancy stuff. Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed software, but this does not give you, their employee, the right to copy and distribute it. The fact that the software is licensed to the company under the GPL does not mean that it is licensed to you under the GPL, and hence you would be in the dock for theft (of the CD, and the software). 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
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:12:30 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The workers are also the licensees. They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of the law, a company is a separate entity (a legal person as opposed to a natural person). Since copyright does not apply to _me_ I can go and install anything I want on the companies machines. You can only install that what the company allows you to install. Most companies do not allow employees to install anything on company computers, or to connect anything to the company network, etc. After all, it is the company's property, and it can decide what can, and cannot, be done with its property. And by the way, when I say that a company decides, it is a shorthand for the CEO/Board of Directors or whatever entity or person nominated in the company statutes decides. Now you are contradicting your self, either a company worker is partially responsible for something, or he/she isn't. You have claimed several times now that the company worker is not bound by anything. He has said no such thing. He has said that workers, as agents of a company, are bound to act as instructed by the company, and do not act in their personal capacity. In other words, Joe Bloggs who uses software as an agent of the company has not received it (acquired ownership) as Joe Bloggs, and can only do with this software what his company allows him to do. Property != Software! Why are you confusing the two? I'm not talking about property, we agree on that. If the company lends me a car, then it isn't my car. Simple as that. Why are you insisting on this? And if the company gives you its software to perform your duties, it isn't your software, simple as that. You have only the right to use the software as instructed by the company, like you have only the right to use the company car as instructed by the company. You also seem to not grasp anything that we are discussing, it is the _software_ located _ON_ the CD, not the CD itself. Stop insisting that it is otherwise. But you have no rights to that software. The rights are with the company, and the fact that is software has nothing to do with it. If the company gives you a design of one of its products on CD, does that give you the right (because the design is intangible) to copy that design? The essence of Intellectual Property is that intangibles like designs, novels, images and software are deemed to be the property of the creator, and hence your having access to this IP on a tangible medium such as a book, CD, videotape etc. doesn't mean that you can copy it, unless _you_ have received authority to do so from the copyright holder. And you, as an employee of the company, have never received such authority. Clearer now? If I have the software in my hand it is _I_ who am the licensee. Not the company. You cannot buy a license for a company, you can buy a license for N number of people. You are mistaken. A company is a legal person that can and does enter into contracts. If this weren't the case, creditors could sue the individual employees when a company doesn't pay. This would not be popular. I cannot do anything with the physical copy yes, if I make a copy of the software located on the physical copy, no, then I'm bound by the license of the software. You cannot do anything with a physical copy that is not your property, including making copies of its content. You cannot redictate the terms that a copyright holder put on something. It doesn't matter if it is `internal use' or not. If you give me as a company employee a CD with software on it, and that software allows me to use, modify, distribute, and study it, then I can do those things. You misunderstand the meaning of give. The company has not ceded ownership to you, it has handed you a CD with, for example, the instruction to install the software on a company PC. Even though the word give is used, it doesn't mean the same as when I give (i.e. transfer ownership of) a CD to you. The fact that you hold the CD in your hands doesn't matter. I cannot go and give away the _CD_ unless I have permission from the company, but I can redistribute the software that is stored on that CD if the copyright holder gave me such permission. The company cannot ever redictate the terms of the copyright holder, period. You are confused. Would you claim that the postman has the right to make copies of CDs he's delivering because the content is GPLed? Of course not. The postman doesn't own the copy, and hence it doesn't matter what the license of the contents of the CD is. Similarly, if you steal a copy of a CD with GPLed software, you cannot invoke the terms of license of the contents, as you are not the legal owner of the copy. For the license to apply you _must_ be the legal owner of the physical copy, which you are _not_ when you are handed the CD as
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:08:41 -0600 John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The owner of the copyright might be able to as his copyright may have been infringed. I'm assuming that he and the employer are different. I don't think that the employer has any claim, though. He still has his property and has recourse under employment law for his employee's action. Obviously, if the code has been modified by the employer to suit their business methods, the employer could sue the employee for the return of those modifications, and probably obtain an injunction to stop the employee from communicating these modifications to competitors. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:10:25 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The workers are also the licensees. They are not. The company has signed the license. The employees did not sign anything, and hence aren't licensees. For the purposes of the law, a company is a separate entity (a legal person as opposed to a natural person). You are confusing contract vs. copyright license. I am not. A company is a legal entity that enters into agreements as itself. Agents of the company are not party to these agreements. It is not because a work is released under the GPL that you can grab from whenever you please. Property != Software! Why are you confusing the two? I'm not talking about property, we agree on that. If the company lends me a car, then it isn't my car. Simple as that. Why are you insisting on this? And if the company gives you its software to perform your duties, it isn't your software, simple as that. You have only the right to use the software as instructed by the company, like you have only the right to use the company car as instructed by the company. No, not true. The company cannot dictate the terms of how the software can be used, only the copyright holder can. If the license of the software disallow something, the company cannot go and say that it is allowed. Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right to make and distribute copies that is granted to the copyright holder, not how these copies are used. In the specific case of GPLed software, the license specifically disclaims control over the use. In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no intrinsic value. In case of modified software, copyright rests with both the original author, and the company. In this case, the company can forbid its employees from distributing the new work, and use it solely for internal purposes. If they were to release it to third parties (which specifically excludes agents of the company, whatever the contractual relationship), then they would have to release it under the GPL. If you were to copy the new work, you would be infringing on the rights of one of the copyright holders (who are not obliged to distribute the work). You also seem to not grasp anything that we are discussing, it is the _software_ located _ON_ the CD, not the CD itself. Stop insisting that it is otherwise. But you have no rights to that software. The rights are with the company, and the fact that is software has nothing to do with it. If the company gives you a design of one of its products on CD, does that give you the right (because the design is intangible) to copy that design? If the license of the design allows me to do this, yes. Only if the design is licensed to _you_. The license is not an intrinsic property of the design or software, but a grant of rights from the copyright holder to _you_. This is were you are confused. The fact that a design or software is intangible has got nothing to do with the right to copy, it's whether _you_ have a license to do so. And in the case of your employer entrusting you with a CD, you do not acquire a copy, or a license, and hence the provisions of the GPL (or copyright law in general) do not apply to you. If I have the software in my hand it is _I_ who am the licensee. Not the company. You cannot buy a license for a company, you can buy a license for N number of people. You are mistaken. A company is a legal person that can and does enter into contracts. If this weren't the case, creditors could sue the individual employees when a company doesn't pay. This would not be popular. You are confusing contract law vs. copyright law. Simply repeating a mantra doesn't make it true, you know. To have something in ones hand is not the same as being the owner of a legal copy. I cannot do anything with the physical copy yes, if I make a copy of the software located on the physical copy, no, then I'm bound by the license of the software. You cannot do anything with a physical copy that is not your property, including making copies of its content. Not true if the content has a license that allows me to do so. Once again people confuse intangible things with tangible ones. OK, this again shows where you go wrong. The license is not part of the content, but an agreement between two parties. This is why the copyright holder can license the same work under different licenses to different people. I cannot go and give away the _CD_ unless I have permission from the company, but I can redistribute the software that is stored on that CD if the copyright
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:09:08 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the case of unmodified GPLed software the case is moot, because it can be obtained from a large number of sources and has no intrinsic value. You can't obtain GPLed software commissioned from me before I have finished it. Licensing the software under the GPL (or intending to do so) does not magically make it ubiquitous. Even when I finish it, it does not mean that it ends up on archive servers magically. Sometimes I despair. In the case of our friend Backslash, where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his company gave him the CD (to file), it would not be your unfinished software, now would it? If the company gave Backslash a CD with GCC, no-one would care much if he made a copy of it. If, on the other hand, it would be a copy of software they commissioned from you, they might care very much if he did, especially if they didn't intend to distribute it to the competition. The same, of course, would apply to customised versions of ubiquitous software (not that I should have to mention this, but since you seem to be in an obtuse phase :-). 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
Re: Licensing question about the GPL
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:51:06 -0400 Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've heard this used as a counterargument against the claim that GPL is a viral license (I don't use that term in a derogatory way, I thought that was the whole point to the GPL!). However, the argument that I've heard states a copyright owner of GPL'ed software is able to dual-license that software, period. Is that really the case, universally? The author/copyright owner can license the work as they please. What about if your software is GPL'ed because it includes other GPL'ed software? It seems to me that in such a situation, you would be required to obtain alternate-licensing from that other software's copyright owner... who in turn would have to first obtain an alternate license for any GPL code that THEY had used, an so forth. That is correct. Once there are multiple copyrights involved, the permission of all the copyright holders is required. It doesn't seem logical to me that I could take the GCC codebase, make some changes, call it NCC (New Compiler Collection), and then dual-license it for proprietary use without first getting permission from Stallman or the FSF or whoever. You are not the copyright owner of GCC, so the only way you can prepare a derivative NCC from GCC is by accepting the GPL, meaning you have to license NCC under the GPL. Is my understanding incorrect, and one CAN dual-license any GPL'ed work (even a derived work)... or is it rather the case that you can only dual-license a GPL'ed work if you are the ORIGINAL copyright owner of all GPL'ed components (or have their permission)? The latter is the case. -- 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
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
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
Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
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). A book that refers the user to a dictionary for the definition of a number of words is not a derivative work of that dictionary. Both source code and dynamically linked executables refer to the libraries (and other resources such as the OS). 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. You have equally few arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the Operating System they run on. Do _you_ see a significant difference between a function or method call in source code, and its simple transformation into a machine-usable format in the dynamically linked executable? Isn't the latter simply a mechanical transformation of the former? -- 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
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A book that refers the user to a dictionary for the definition of a number of words is not a derivative work of that dictionary. So why are there numerous court decisions that deep linking of web site material constitutes copyright infringement? Are you implying that refering to dictionary does indeed create a derivative work? You have equally few arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the Operating System they run on. Why do you think is there a special exception/clarification regarding execution of executables in the Linux kernel licence? So are you of the opinion that every program, whatever the format (source or otherwise) is a derivative work of the Operating System (and as such could not be written without the prior consent of the owner of the OS copyrights)? If so, you're casting your nets so wide that any new work becomes a derivative work of everthing previously written. -- 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
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. What's the difference between a function call in source code, and its compiled counterpart? 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. 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?). People that are clamoring against the consequences of the GPL are clamoring against the consequences of copyright laws. Lobby for weakening the copyright laws, and the GPL will lose its teeth along with the other licences. I'd certainly welcome a world where derivative work lawsuits were not, in court, repeatedly and decidedly enforced even for trivial cases akin to linking. If you refer to deep HTML linking, then certainly clamouring that you believe it to be equally true for dynamic linking [because that would allow you to thwart those nasty developers of non-Free software who freeload off GPLed libraries (not that there are many, given that most library developers would like their code to be used)] isn't going to contribute to putting an end to that situation. But the ongoing practice does not support Alexander's fantasies. And as long as it doesn't, nothing is gained by pretenting that the GPL should in some manner have less validity than other licences. 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. -- 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
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:14:22 + Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 16:49 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:04 +0100 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is perfectly false in case of static linking as well. The distiction between derivative works and compilations is not that hard to grasp. Statically linked executable is a mere aggregation of a bunch of preexisting works. It is the same as an archive containing same bunch of dynamically linked components. FSF: the truth: Terekov: --- /|\ --- In this case, I'd place Stefaan right just before Terekov. Terekov seems determined to undermine the idea of all users being Free. The FSF tries to empower all users with Freedom. If empowering with Freedom is as far from the truth as Terekov in such a scale, then you're just plain presumptuous. Mind you, I'm _not_ talking about the moral issue here, but about the probable (IANAL, and AFAIK, there hasn't been a test case) legal status of binaries as derivative works. I believe a case can be made that a statically linked binary, through the fact that it contains, in a single unit not designed as an archive, code from the program and the library(ies), is a derivative work of them all. I also believe that a dynamically linked executable, which contains no code from the libraries it references, would not be held to be a derivative work. It is also quite clear to anyone reading the American (USA) copyright statutes that requiring a library, or anything, to run is _not_ a criterion for a derivative work. I further believe that pretending this is the case opens a can of worms better left shut. I'd like your opinion on that, BTW. But as I have stated quite clearly and unambiguously, I do not feel it's OK to ignore the wishes of the author or copyright holder, even if these do not seem to be conform to the definitions in the law. There's honour, and there's the law, and they don't meet all that often. There's not a requirement for a middle ground at everything. There are very few _requirements_ for a middle ground, don't you agree? Most often though, when there are two extreme viewpoints, the truth is somewhere in the middle. And as I said, the status of a binary as a derivative work is a legal issue, not a moral one (which you seem intent on ignoring). Consider that, for once. -- 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
