GHM 2020, 19.-20. August in Hamburg
Hi, this is a little reminder to meet at GHM 2020 in Hamburg [1]. Please consider preparing a talk about your favorite or any interesting topic. You would like to but are unsure or have questions - contact me. CU, Tim [1] https://www.gnu.org/ghm/2020-august/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:19:04 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Providing access to copyrighted work with permission to make copies directly by recipients instead of 'trading' material objects with copyrighted work fixed on/in them doesn't change the status of copies lawfully made What it doesn't change is the fact that whether they are lawfully made is irrelevant. (no matter who made them) and owned by strangers with respect to copyright and further distribution under doctrine of exhaustion -- in both cases copies fall under exception to the exclusive distribution right. It follows that that's wrong too. I've given you the reasons for all this many times over. I'm not going to repeat them any further. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 12:38:39 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... And if you seriously believe that EU version of 'first sale' is somehow very very different from US version then go to doctor. It now appears that not only have you not understood the differences between the EU exhaustion of rights doctrine, and the US 'first sale' doctrine, but neither have you fully understood the US doctrine. (Hint: Differences include the fact that one uses the term lawfully made while the other doesn't. Similarities include the fact that both relate only to the sale or transfer or other disposal of that copy. Not to the creation of new copies from it.) But I've had enough of this. We've been over this many times. You're not listening. Goodbye. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:50:12 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Unrestricted permission to reproduce (make copies) was placed on the European market with the consent of the copyright holder which is the same as if copyright holder would made and placed on the European market all those copies himself with respect to first sale / exhaustion. Incorrect. Goodbye, Alexander. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:05:35 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Exclusive distribution right is severely limited by 'first sale' / exhaustion meaning that exclusivity allows to forbid distribution of copies made unlawfully (pirated copies). Distribution of lawfully made copies by owners of copies are not covered by the exclusive distribution right of the copyright owners. You consistently ignore the fundamental point that in European law what exhausts the distribution right is *not* whether the copy is lawful. It's whether the copyright holder consented to placing the specific copy concerned on the European market. In the case of pirate copies, he hasn't. And in the case of the replacement copy permitted by the CJEU decision, he hasn't. You even quoted Article 4(2), but then you ignore what it says about how the copy needs to have been first sold in the Community by or with the consent of the copyright holder. Then you consistently ignore the even more fundamental point that the reproduction right - the right of the copyright holder to control reproduction of copies - is *never* subject to the exhaustion doctrine. Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only permitted either: (a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence, or (b) the CJEU decision permits making a replacement copy to enable the new owner to use it (and so no doubt also permits it to be compiled to machine code for that purpose, if necessary). The previous copy must be made unusable, and there's no blanket permission to make and/or distribute multiple copies. Do you agree that in the context of copyleft and other public licenses it is simply impossible to make a copy in machine readable form unlawfully? What I don't agree is that that's a relevant question. Under the copyleft licence, certainly copies can be made. But they are subject to the copyleft conditions. The CJEU decision doesn't alter that. The copyleft licence gives additional permissions in parallel to the decision, but subject to the copyleft conditions. If not then give an example but forget about eventual subsequent distribution of that copy for a moment (that is another act shielded by the doctrine of exhaustion). Making copies is not shielded by the doctrine of exhaustion. See above, and re-read Article 4(2). The doctrine of exhaustion applies only to the copyright holder's right to control distribution of existing copies. His right to control reproduction is not affected. Before you can distribute a copy, you have to make it. I think you may be misunderstanding the meaning of distribution in European copyright law. To a software author, distribution might mean putting a copy on a website so people can make their own copies. But that's not the legal meaning. Legally, when people make copies, that's reproduction, not distribution. Distribution is the act of transferring an existing copy, which has already been made previously, to a new owner. The act of making a copy is distinct from the act of distributing it. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:02:55 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Tim Jackson wrote: [... sale ...] Do you seriously believe that gifted copies don't fall under 'first sale'? Do you seriously believe that copies made with permission e.g. 'you may make as many copies verbatim as you like and even create derivatives and make as many copies of those as you like as well... both in exchange for nothing' (gratis permission) don't fall under 'first sale'? Sure, I don't believe that 'first sale' is the only aspect of the exhaustion doctrine. There is more to it than just sales. I told you that Article 4(2) is just the tip of 50 years of case law on the topic of exhaustion. But so what? You are not addressing the real issues. E.g. that the copyright holder's right to control the making of copies - his reproduction right - is not subject to the exhaustion doctrine anyway. That's true whether or not you call it 'first sale', and whether or not it is triggered by a gift. It just doesn't apply to the *making* of copies. So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say you can make as many copies as you like. But he can also make that subject to conditions - as a copyleft licence does. Since he does that under his right to control reproduction, and since that reproduction right is not subject to the exhaustion doctrine, the copyleft licence conditions continue to be effective. And the CJEU decision only permits a replacement copy to permit the software to be used. It doesn't permit any further copies to be made. It doesn't exhaust anything. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:13:10 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Tim Jackson wrote: [...] Before you can distribute copies, you have to make them. That is only permitted either: (a) in accordance with the conditions of the copyleft licence... And what are the 'conditions' for MAKING copies under copyleft? Again: recall that subsequent act of eventual distribution under 'first sale' statutory exception is irrelevant as far as copyright is concerned. All copyleft requirements are for the act of distribution of copies made, not the act of making copies. You are again forgetting that the CJEU decision does not exhaust anything. It starts from the assumption that the right to distribute *one specific copy* is *already* exhausted, and provides a mechanism to do that by making a replacement copy, the previous copy being rendered unusable. But it doesn't permit any more widespread distribution of new copies. It doesn't produce any further exhaustion, except for that one specific copy which is already exhausted. Any such distribution of new copies is permitted only by the copyleft licence, under the copyleft conditions. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Tim Jackson wrote: [...] So yes, certainly the copyright holder can say you can make as many copies as you like. But he can also make that subject to conditions - as a copyleft licence does. Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it... what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act of making copies? The answer is 'no conditions for the act of making copies' and you simply don't want to admit it. But you can only distribute those copies in accordance with the GPL conditions. Likewise, if the CJEU decision was about GPL'd software you could download and make copies under the GPL. But you wouldn't be allowed to distribute them except under the GPL conditions. Your permission to do these things comes entirely from the GPL, not from the decision. The CJEU decision just gives one person a right to make and use a replacement copy of the software, but not to make or distribute further copies. This is much less than he already had from the GPL anyway. As an independent third party, the decision gives you nothing. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:07:56 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Tim Jackson wrote: On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Hey, I've downloaded GCC binary package and made several copies of it... what are the GPL 'conditions' that I should have fulfilled for the act of making copies? But you can only distribute those copies in accordance with the GPL conditions. Nope, distribution under 'first sale' exception is good enough for me. OK, those consider those copies that you've just made on your own computer, that you've not yet distributed. When were they first sold? They haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe that they benefit from a 'first sale' exception? More accurately, when were those copies you've just made first placed on the European market with the consent of the copyright holder? They haven't been, you've only just made them. Why then do you believe that they benefit from any exhaustion of the distribution right? -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:00:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Tim Jackson wrote: [...] Again, I've emphasised that copy. There's no exhaustion of the right to control the making and distribution of **further** copies. Don't blend separate statutory rights together - I mean reproduction (making) and distribution. I'm not. Exclusive distribution right gives copyright owners a right to sue in tort not only makers of pirated copies but also distributors who don't make pirated copies themselves. Right. In the context of copyleft and and other public licenses pirated copies simply don't exist and it is simply redundant/not needed to 'grant' the distribution right because all copies made by licensees/downloaders-without-contract-formation/etc. fall under doctrine of exhaustion and can be distributed under shield of statutory 'first sale' exception to the exclusive distribution right, not a right granted by license contract. That's where you are going wrong. The distribution right covers each individual copy. After *that copy* has been put on the market **by or with the consent of the copyright holder**, however, the distribution right is exhausted *for that copy*. Thus, *that copy* can be transferred on. [1] This doesn't permit the making of any *further* copies that might be made in the future from that copy. Making such a *further* copy is controlled by the reproduction right. Distributing it is controlled by the distribution right (unless and until the distribution right has been exhausted for that further copy.) Note particularly that what triggers the exhaustion is the fact that the particular copy concerned has been placed on the European market *by or with the consent of the copyright holder*. There is no exhaustion if the copyright owner hasn't consented to the particular copy concerned. [1] Note also that the reproduction right is never exhausted. Exhaustion only applies to the distribution right. To make and distibute a copy, you need permission under both. Therefore, if people are to be allowed to make further copies, they first need a licence or permission under the reproduction right. A copyleft licence gives them that permission, subject to the copyleft conditions. Once a legitimate further copy has been made under the copyleft conditions, that further copy can itself now be placed on the European market with the consent of the copyright holder. Now the distribution right is exhausted in respect of that further copy. But only because the copyleft conditions have been complied with - the copyright owner hasn't consented otherwise. But if the copyleft conditions are not accepted, the copy doesn't have any consent from the copyright holder. So the distribution right is not exhausted. Furthermore, the reproduction right was also infringed by making the copy. Now apply the recent CJEU decision. This says that in the case of the transfer of a software licence, the new owner can make a replacement copy, so that he can use it. But apart from that single exception, the reproduction right is still intact. It is never exhausted; exhaustion doesn't apply to the reproduction right. So the CJEU decision doesn't permit making any further copies. Nor does the CJEU decision legitimise the distribution of any such further copies. The copyright owner hasn't consented to any such further copies being placed on the Europen market. So the distribution right is not exhausted. If the software is copylefted, there is only one way that further copies can be made legitimately: by complying with the copyleft conditions. And there is only one way in which the copyright owner gives consent to placing such copies on the European market: in accordance with the copyleft conditions. Without the copyleft conditions, there is no consent, and the distribution right is not exhausted. A court decision doesn't mean that the copyright holder has consented. _ [1] See Article 4(2) which you quoted. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program **by the rightholder or with his consent** shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:19:33 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote... On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:00:53 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Tim Jackson wrote: [...] Again, I've emphasised that copy. There's no exhaustion of the right to control the making and distribution of **further** copies. Don't blend separate statutory rights together - I mean reproduction (making) and distribution. I'm not. To be clear: There's no exhaustion of the right to control making, because the exhaustion doctrine doesn't apply to the reproduction right. And there's no exhaustion of the right to control distribution, because without the copyleft conditions the copyright holder hasn't consented to the copy concerned being placed on the European market. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote...
Tim Jackson wrote:
[... the copy concerned being placed on the European market ...]
Exhaustion of the distribution right covers all lawfully made copies
owned by strangers regarding copyright in a work fixated in a copy.
No, exhaustion only applies to copies which have been placed on the
European market by or with the consent of the copyright holder. [1]
There is one additional lawfully made copy to which the copyright owner
has not consented. That's the copy permitted by the recent CJEU
decision. And that's the copy which you believe brings down the whole
edifice of copyleft.
You believe - wrongly - that this one copy can be duplicated ad
infinitum, because in your view the right to distribute it has been
exhausted.
There are several reasons why that belief is wrong.
One is that the reproduction right still exists. The reproduction right
is never exhausted. Exhaustion only ever applies to the distribution
right.
Another reason why your belief is wrong is that even when the
distribution right is exhausted, that happens on a copy-by-copy basis.
Once a copy is placed on the European market with the consent of the
copyright holder, that specific copy can be transferred on. But that
exhaustion doesn't permit any further copies to be made or distributed
(except, now, the single replacement copy permitted by the CJEU
decision, with previous copies made unusable).
The reproduction right is what prevents duplication of further copies -
unless permission is granted. The CJEU decision only grants permission
for reproduction of one single replacement copy, with the previous
owner's copy being made unusable. The copyleft licence grants
permission for reproduction of multiple copies, but only under the
copyleft conditions.
The CJEU decision does not permit reproduction of multiple copies to
which the copyleft conditions do not apply.
A
copy does not necessarily have to be transferred to the owner on a
physical medium or somehow specially placed on the European market.
It doesn't have to be on a physical medium, but it does have to be
placed on the European market by or with the consent of the copyright
holder. That's the whole basis for the exhaustion doctrine.
Article 4(2) which you quoted agrees with that. [1]
Having the copy made with the authorization of the copyright owner
(i.e.
with permission to reproduce / prepare derivative works conveyed by the
copyleft and other public licenses) is enough.
The only copy authorised by the recent CJEU decision is just a single
replacement copy. And it's not authorised by the copyright holder, only
by the decision.
Crucially, for this replacement copy, the decision gives no
authorisation to reproduce any more copies. And no authorisation to
prepare derivative works.
The permission you are talking about comes from the copyleft licence,
which is of course still available, in parallel to the decision. But it
comes with the copyleft conditions attached.
It is even possible that some unauthorized copies may fit the bill if
the circumstances suggest that they are lawfully made.
No. For exhaustion, being lawful is not enough. It has to be placed on
the European market by or with with the consent of the copyright owner.
See [1]
The distribution right comes by statute as addition to the granted
reproduction right / right to prepare derivative works.
And unless it is exhausted, it is a right which enables the copyright
holder to *prevent* distribution.
License contract may attempt to restrict that distribution freedom
('only private use, no distribution', copyleft 'conditions' imposed
for
distribution of 'further' copies made, etc.)
It's not a distribution freedom provided by a licence contract. Unless
exhausted, it is a right to *prevent* distribution, provided by statute.
A licence can specify conditions under which the copyright holder is
prepared to give permission.
but that has nothing to do
with statutory tort (copyright infringement) in the case of breach of
restrictions/requirements for distribution.
The reproduction right is never exhausted. But the copyleft licence
permits copies to be made subject to the copyleft conditions.
Exhaustion of the distribution right applies only to specific copies
placed on the market with the consent of the copyright holder. He only
consents to those specific copies which have been made subject to the
copyleft conditions.
The CJEU decision only allows a replacement copy, with the previous copy
being made unusable.
There are a few other narrow exceptions to copyright protection, which
are not relevant here.
Any other copy infringes the copyright.
[1] More specifically, Article 4(2) says that what exhausts the
distribution right is the first sale in the Community by the rightholder
or with his consent. Sale is one form of placing the copy
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... The distribution right comes by statute as addition to the granted reproduction right / right to prepare derivative works. I'm not sure if this is a source of confusion here, but please remember that the reproduction right and the distribution right are both exclusive statutory rights which belong to the copyright holder. They allow him to *prevent* reproduction and distribution respectively. Since the copyright holder has the exclusive rights to prevent reproduction and distribution, it then follows that he can choose not to exercise those rights. He can allow other people to reproduce and/or distribute the work, subject to such conditions as he may decide. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:19:12 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Alexander Terekhov wrote: [... 17 U.S.C. 109 and 17 U.S.C. 117 ...] How much bearing do you think 17 U.S.C. has on European law? 17 U.S.C. is currently known in European law as Article 5 ^ | 117 ---+ Exceptions to the restricted acts of DIRECTIVE 2009/24/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:111:0016:0022:EN:PDF Article 5 Exceptions to the restricted acts 1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) shall not require authorisation by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction. 2. The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract in so far as it is necessary for that use. ... So a lawful acquirer of a copy of copylefted software can do the same things as if the software was non-free - such as error correction and and making a back-up. But ony to facilitate the use of that specifc copy. Nothing more. This doesn't permit the making and distribution of further copies. Big deal. 17 U.S.C. 109 is currently known in European law as Article 4(2): 2. The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of **that copy,** with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof. Again, I've emphasised that copy. There's no exhaustion of the right to control the making and distribution of **further** copies. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 10:34:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... You seem to not grok a rather simple concept: lawful ownership of a copy incorporating work verbatim or even a copy incorporating derivative work gives the owner of that copy all the rights to distribute **that copy** without restrictions (conditions in GNUspeak) as far as copyright law is concerned no matter who (lawfully) made that copy. I've emphasised the words that copy in your post above. Lawful ownership gives no right whatsoever to make or distribute *further* copies. There's only one way that someone can get such a right to further copies: from the copyleft licence, with all its conditions. Thus the copyleft licence is not rendered impotent. If they haven't accepted the copyleft licence, all the lawful owner can do is to use **that one copy** that they've lawfully acquired. Or to transfer on **that one copy**. Whereupon the new transferee is likewise only able to use or transfer that one copy (unless they accept the copyleft licence). To do more would infringe the copyright. The recent CJEU decision merely provides a mechanism to implement that when the copy is licensed. The previous owner must make his copy unusable, and the transferee can make a new copy in its place. The new owner could later perform a similar transfer. But no further copies can be made or distributed -- except under the conditions of the copyleft licence. Contrary to your OP, copyleft has not died. I think your problem is that you are seeing a new owner who potentially hasn't accepted the conditions of the copyleft licence. But that means that neither does he get the freedoms that also come with the copyleft licence. If he makes or distributes new copies, or makes a modified copy, he would infringe the copyright. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:59:59 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote... Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort theory (copyright infringement claims) regarding control of terms and conditions for further distribution. Got it now? Unfortunately, I think you've not got the European exhaustion doctrine. For traditional copies of non-electronic works, and for music CDs, DVDs of films, etc, once a copy has been place on the EU market with the copyright owner's consent, the owner's rights in **that particular copy** have been exhausted. He can't prevent onward transfer of **that particular copy** throughout the EU. So if you've bought a copy, you can transfer it to someone else, e.g. give it away or sell it secondhand. But the copyright owner's right to control the making and distribution of **further** copies is not exhausted. If you make a further copy without permission, that still infringes the copyright. The latest CJEU decision extends that for licensed software. If you have a licensed copy of non-free software, you can transfer or sell your licence secondhand. Importantly, the subsequent purchaser can make a copy so he can use it - the copyright owner can't prevent that. But you have to make your copy unusable after you've transferred the licence. And the copyright owner **can** prevent both you and the subsequent purchaser making and distributing **further** copies. Those would still infringe the copyright. And that's it. The new purchaser has the same rights you did, no more. This is the same as if you sold your copy of a music CD. Neither you nor the subsequent purchaser can make and distribute further copies of the CD. Now apply that to copylefted software. If you transfer it to someone else, and make your copy unusable, the new user can make the necessary copy so he can use it. But the CJEU decision doesn't give the new user any new rights to distribute further copies. So for both you and the new user, your only right to distribute further copies comes from the terms and conditions of the copyleft licence. I think you may be looking at the part of the decision which says that the copyright owner can't require the subsequent purchaser to sign the licence. But a copyleft licence doesn't require signature anyway. If you make copies, it's implied that you accept the terms. Put another way, the CJEU decision doesn't give anyone a right to make further copies, beyond the one needed by the subsequent purchaser to use the software. In the case of copylefted software, if a person to whom a copy has been transferred does make and/or distribute further copies, it must be implied he did so under the terms of the copyleft licence. He can't get the necessary right to do so any other way. -- Tim Jackson news@timjackson.invalid (Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Framework Licensing Questions
Hello, I have a moderately complex licensing scenario that I was hoping someone could help me navigate. Here is what I *want* to do, though it may not work: A. Build a framework which is licensed under the LGPLv3 B. Write wrapper plugins for the framework which link various third-party libraries having multiple different open source licenses, including CPL, IBM Public, old BSD, and GPL v2/v3 C. Write proprietary, closed-source plugins for the framework which are sold to help support development of the framework The most likely distribution model for each component, is that the framework and wrapper plugins would be distributed by me in one package; the third-party libraries would be distributed by Linux distributions in a standard way; and the proprietary plugins would be distributed in a separate package by me. However, it may make sense to distribute all components together as a VM or something similar to make deployment easier. My questions are: 1. Which of the above scenarios could cause licensing problems? 1.A. Does the use of a GPLv2 or GPLv3 third-party library create a condition where the framework itself must be considered GPLed such that the proprietary modules or other third-party libraries are then incompatible? 1.B. Does the method of distribution of each components make a difference? If I strictly distribute each component separately (or rely on OS distributions to distribute the third-party libraries) does this help me avoid some issues? 2. The plugins I write for my framework would be adhering to a published API that is part of the framework. Does this help me satisfy any System Library clauses or something similar to avoid license conflicts? Any other issues I should consider? I just want to make sure I understand the implications of this approach and what restrictions I might be under if I try to push this as an open source development model. Thank you, tim ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again
In article ic6dnuikq91gkj3wnz2dnuvz_h1i4...@giganews.com, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Chris Ahlstrom wrote: Rjack pulled this Usenet boner: That's our rjack. Base troll. One man's troll is another man's expert . . . What say ye about PJ's lies? Chris probably treats Groklaw the same way he treats Boycottnovell: he doesn't read it, but jumps to its defense at nearly every opportunity. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: a list of software compiled by completely free toolchain
In article mailman.10619.1258071614.2239.gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org, Gabriel Striewe li...@gabriel-striewe.de wrote: But didn't that enable Apple to use most of the software the BSD project has written, without Apple being obliged to give something back? In fact, Apple gave a *huge* amount back: http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Why does it matter that they weren't *forced* to do that? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: a list of software compiled by completely free toolchain
In article hdhvp3$2nr...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Is that really true? Aren't there any free C compilers native to Windows? Hasn't GCC been targeted at Windows native? Watcom C/C++ was made open source quite a while back. Perhaps it would work for this. http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using the GPL for music
In article hbumsm$d0...@news.albasani.net, Marti van Lin ml2...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at The Free Software Song page: http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html You'll notice that I am not the only one publishing a version of The Free Software Song under GPLv3. Note, however, that version is an improvised piano version, so it is arguable that the preferred form of the work for modifying it is the recording itself. In other words, that is arguable being distributed in source form. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Trance/Club version of the Free Software Song released
In article hbsl4h$ec...@news.albasani.net, Marti van Lin ml2...@gmail.com wrote: I've released a instrumental version of the Free Software Song, Including a couple of Richard M. Stallman (RMS) samples from various interviews and the lyrics of the song quoted by Text To Speech technology. It is strictly distributed in the Free Ogg-Vorbis file format under the GNU General Public License, version 3 (GPLv3). Using GPL (any version) for music raises issues over source code. If I give a copy of the recording to someone else, I'm obligated to supply source, or give them an offer of source. But what is source for music? The score? Copies of the separate tracks from before mixing? The FSF says the GPL is for code. That's why they don't use GPL on, say, documentation. You should consider using a license such as one of the Creative Commons licenses, that works reasonably with music. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [Matt Asay Tells The Truth] Stallman: GPL doesn't guarantee software freedom
In article 87oco0rjli@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Dak, dak, dak. Stallman told the European Commission that the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf Read it again, silly dak: THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL. Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2 is being phased out in the marketplace, it is obviously a concern. Read it again. It says that the others can fork argument fails for multiple reasons. The first one discussed is that the revenue to fund MySQL development comes from commercial license sales, which a forked version would not have, since only Oracle will be able to sell commercial licenses. The one you mention, incompatibility with GPLv3, is the second reason discussed. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [Matt Asay Tells The Truth] Stallman: GPL doesn't guarantee software freedom
In article hbmvug$2ik...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Stallman told the European Commission that the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL THis is nothing new. The FSF's recommendation has always been GPL version N, or any later version. This is a prime example of what happens when such a recommendation is disregarded. From the letter to Commission: Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily fork the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow. MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product. As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform. They aren't talking about the lack of or any later version here. Indeed, if MySQL were licensed under GPLv2 or any later version, it would make no difference whatsoever in their above argument, since it would still be only Oracle that could sell commercial licenses. Slightly later in the letter, they talk about the GPLv3 issue as an additional problem that will make forking hard: Yet another way in which Oracle will have the ability to determine the forking of MySQL relates to the evolution of the GNU GPL license. GPL version 2.0 (GPLv2) and GPL version 3.0 (GPLv3) are different licenses and each requires that any modified program carry the same license as the original. There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. Today MySQL is only available to the public under GPLv2. Many other FLOSS software projects are expected to move to GPLv3, often automatically due to the common use of the any later version clause. Because the current MySQL license lacks that clause, it will remain GPLv2 only and it will not be possible to combine its code with the code of many GPLv3- covered projects in the future. Given that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?
In article 8763acztoq@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was something normally distributed with the components of the operating system on which KDE ran. But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the license. Huh? Qt was not merely licensed non-GPL but non-free. KDE relied on It was not non-free. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [LMAO] El Reg: GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?
In article 87ws2sybe7@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Hadron hadronqu...@gmail.com writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: That has nothing whatsoever to do with loopholes or complexity in the GPL. It has to do with non-free software. The FSF stuck to its principles, and the makers of Qt decided to release it under a free license after all. Where is your problem with that? he didn't say he had a problem. He said its not as clear cut as you make it out. He only says that to annoy, because he knows it teases. No, I say it because the license is not as clear cut as you think it is. For most users of KDE, Qt was shipped as a component of the OS. It should qualify for the system component exception of GPL. The FSF thought that it didn't. Can you point out where the GPLv2 clearly defines what exactly qualifies for the system component exception? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: US court says software is owned, not licensed
In article ib3bm.3197$ku5.2...@newsfe04.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: lawfully made tangible copy The copies made for personal use, under the GPL's ... *Run* to doctor, Hyman. As an illustrative example, imagine that you videotape an over-the-air broadcast television program. Do you believe that first-sale allows you to sell the videotape? Do you further believe that you may set up a battery of VCRs to record the show multiple times and sell those tapes? My copyright class in law school was taught using the Socratic method, and when it was my day to be grilled by the professor, that is the very question he chose to torture me with. Thanks for bringing up that horrible memory! :-) -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: How to develop a web database application using gnu tools
In article mailman.7810.1254363724.2239.gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org, Alexandre Leite alexandrecgle...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I am new in GNU development and I am looking for freedom. I'd like to know which tools I would use to develop database web applications to run on any web browser; including, compilers, libriries, frameworks, etc. Futhermore, I'd like to use GNU/Linux Debian to be my web server. Apache as web server. Part of Debian. MySQL or PostgreSQL as database server. Part of Debian. Compilers: gcc. Part of Debian. Frameworks: there's a free framework for pretty much every language nowadays. Rails for Ruby. Mason for Perl. Seaside for Smalltalk. Google Web Toolkit, Yahoo YUI, Cappuccino, and a million others for Javascript and variants on Javascript (like Objective-J). Plenty of these are under free licenses. Without more detail, I don't think anyone is going to be able to get specific. Some questions that come to mind: * Is the brains of the application going to run in the browser, via Javascript (either directly, or via something that compiles another language down to Javascript--and there are plenty of those), or are the smarts on the server side, and the browser is just a pretty interface? * What kind of persistence do you need on the server? Is a simple CGI-type server OK, where each request from a client invokes a new instance of the application? Or do you need something that hangs around and services multiple requests from the same client, in which case you might be looking for something like a J2EE application server. * What languages do you want to use? * What are the performance requirements? What resources will be available? The universe of ways to develop database web applications to run on any browser is incredibly large and diverse, so you need to find the particular corner of that universe that you are interested in before getting down to the nitty gritty of specific recommendations from people. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander -- Again
In article h9ge7o$1e...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Post a message that contradicts PJ and it almost instantly becomes visible *only* to the original poster. How do you know this, RJack? Have you posted there yourself and discovered this by personal experience? If so, when, and under what username? I've seen this. Someone in a comment made a claim that I knew was wrong, so I posted a short correction anonymously (I don't have a Groklaw account). The next day during lunch break at work, I went to see if anyone had responded to my comment, and it was gone. However, that evening at home, my comment was visible! Checked again at work the next day, and it was gone...and it was there again from home. Looks like it is going it by IP address, so I could see it from the original IP address, but people at other addresses could not see it. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Groklaw attacks Alexander -- Again
In article h9i1sc$2r2...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Still, questions have been asked about PJ's unequivocal support for Apple against Psystar, which seems a bit incongruous for somebody so supportive of free software. There was a theory on a kook site that Microsoft is where Psystar gets the money to fight, and it was provided as an attack on Apple. Quit a few on Groklaw think that's good enough to take Apple's side without question. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: choice of law clauses and GPL
In article h6j2no$2e2...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Don't confuse a choice of law clause with a choice of venue clause. The later specifies the jurisdiction in which lawsuits must be brought. I think it's you that's getting confused. If the choice of law is Californian, the case can't be decided in a German court. Or do you disagree with this? Again, produce an example of a real case, please. This may help you out: http://www.dr-hoek.de/EN/beitrag.asp?t=Conflict-of-law-real-estate-mortg age http://www.dr-hoek.de/EN/beitrag.asp?t=Conflict-of-law-real-estate-mortgage -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: choice of law clauses and GPL
In article mailman.4863.1250670198.2239.gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote: On the licenses list at fsf.org, there are several licenses in the free but not GPL compatible list that appear to be incompatible because they contain a choice of law clause. Why would a choice of law clause make a license incompatible with GPL? Because they add additional terms that are not in the GNU GPL. It's additional restrictions that make a license incompatible, not merely additional terms. If the additional terms weren't restrictions, they would be OK. I don't see why choice of law clauses would necessarily be additional restrictions. To me, it seems they are more like definitions. They are telling you that the meaning of the license is interpreted under a particular established law. If the license, when interpreted under that law, does not impose any additional restrictions, why couldn't it be GPL compatible? Note that a choice of law clause doesn't mean that any disputes must be litigated in the courts of the jurisdiction whose law is specified. The courts of one state or country are willing and able to apply the law of another state and country when handling a contract or license case. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: choice of law clauses and GPL
In article h6hu9h$133...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Note that a choice of law clause doesn't mean that any disputes must be litigated in the courts of the jurisdiction whose law is specified. Doesn't it? I think you're wrong here. How can a Saudi Arabian court adjudicate a case under Canadian law, for example? Who's going to be the judge? Who's going to be qualified to act as an advocate? Closer to home, Scottish courts don't adjudicate English law, and this places consumers living in Scotland at a massive disadvantage, since any legal action against large companies which typically mandate English law (e.g. rogue telecoms companies like Deutsche Telekom UK) must be litigated abroad. The courts of one state or country are willing and able to apply the law of another state and country when handling a contract or license case. You seem to be saying that this is a general, customary thing, applicable to just about any pair of countries and their legal systems. I believe you're wrong here, too. It just sounds absurd. Judges and lawyers are only trained to operate under their own respective legal systems. Please back up your assertion with something solid, say examples. You can start here if you want to know more about how choice of law works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_of_law It can get complicated. There was a case we studied in law school where a lawsuit was in state X, and the choice of law rules for X determined that the law of state Y applied. However, the choice of law rules in Y said that the law of Z applied. Furthermore, the particular issue was one that had not been decided by the high court of Z. Anyway, the judges in X had to figure out what they thought Y's high court would decide, if Y's high court had occasion to figure out what they thought Z's high court would decide if confronted with the issue! As to how it works. The court in jurisdiction X decides what law applies. For some kinds of cases, such as torts, there will be a choice of law statute in X that resolves this. For contracts, it might be specified in the contract. If X determines that Y's law applies, that doesn't mean ALL of Y's law applies. The court will use X's rules of civil procedure. It will use X's evidentiary rules. Basically, in a contract case, specifying the law of jurisdiction Y essentially just means that the parties are agreeing to Y's rules for interpreting the contract. I see nothing in that that conflicts with the GPL. Don't confuse a choice of law clause with a choice of venue clause. The later specifies the jurisdiction in which lawsuits must be brought. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article %be9m.42750$ta5.28...@newsfe15.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: Rjack wrote: You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new* license downstream. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. That license comes from the copyright owner, not the non-exclusive licensee who conveys the work. That's why only the copyright owner has standing to sue over a GPL violation. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article 87prbsafj6@thumper.dhh.gt.org, John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream distribution to be disallowed. Well, there is promissory estoppel, of course. I would also argue that the Promissory estoppel only works against those who make promises to you. downstream licenses are not new licenses granted at the time of acquisition of copies but prospective licenses granted by the author to everyone who ever might receive a copy. I argue that I can grant you a license now to my work which you may exercise any time in the future should you come into possession of a copy of a copy. Since I, the current copyright owner, am granting you a license now, the possibility that someone else might acquire the copyright between now and the time that you acquire a copy of the work is irrelevant. What about people who were not born at the time you made this license grant to everyone? Also, note that GPL talks about acceptance of the license. It could be quite reasonably argued that what you are doing is making an OFFER to everyone, which they accept by actually acquiring a copy of your software (or, more likely, by distributing it or modifying it). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article oo_8m.53306$9p.8...@newsfe08.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0205000-.html (e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License. refers to a case where the transfer and the license happen at roughly the same time, and priority must be given to one. That means it doesn't apply to licenses granted clearly before the copyright transfer, and so your worry was groundless. Where does it say it only is for cases where the license and the transfer happen at roughly the same time? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article reply_in_group-a4c678.16223718072...@news.supernews.com, Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com wrote: Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license such as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the copyright holder, but is in accord with GPLv2, so you are OK. Suppose now that I transfer the copyright to someone else. Do you now have something to worry about if the copyright assignee wishes to stop you from copying, modifying, and distributing the software? Turns out there is something relevant, at least for people in the US, in the copyright statute, in one of those boring parts most people overlook. 17 USC 205(e): Priority between conflicting transfer of ownership and nonexclusive license. A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized agent, and if-- (1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or (2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and without notice of it. I wonder how many open source projects provide a written instrument signed by the copyright owner? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article _sl8m.52996$9p.25...@newsfe08.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: Tim Smith wrote: I wonder how many open source projects provide a written instrument signed by the copyright owner? The GPL http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html says All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. A court would be presented with evidence that it is industry practice to distribute under such licenses without signatures, and given the statement of irrevocable grant, would find that the nonexclusive license prevails. Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article xdm8m.53010$9p.38...@newsfe08.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: Tim Smith wrote: Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature? I think so. In any case, there is also 17 USC 203: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203 (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. (4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing, signed by the number and proportion of owners of termination interests required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents, upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title. (A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect. (B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation. So even if copyright of a GPLed work is transferred to a second party, that second party is going to have a very long time to wait to rescind the GPL, even assuming I'm wrong about the signature requirement being waived. Section 203 really doesn't have anything to do with section 205. Section 203 describes a right that the author has to terminate a grant at the specified time. Basically, if you, an author, license your work to someone, or even sell the copyright outright to them, you eventually have a right under section 203 to terminate that--even if you agreed not to by contract. The purpose of this, and similar provisions in early versions of the copyright law, is to protect authors from bad deals when they are unknown, and have little negotiating power. The termination rights under 203 are only for the author, or if the author his dead, his heirs. If the author sells his copyright to party B, and party B sells the copyright to party C, party B would not be able to use 203 to get the copyrights back after 35 years. The author could. The use case for section 205 is something like this. Copyright owner A assigns his copyright on his play to party B. A few days later, A gives party C a non-exclusive license to stage a production of the play. Can C stage the play? (It depends on whether B recorded the assignment before A gave C the non-exclusive license. If B hadn't recorded, and C acted in good faith, C's non-exclusive license stands). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article 87zlb0cqeg@thumper.dhh.gt.org, John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote: Tim Smith writes: Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature? The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding commitment without putting pen to paper.) Well, what do you think a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed, which is how the statute phrases it, means? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article 87my70cekt@thumper.dhh.gt.org, John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote: I wrote: The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by signature you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding commitment without putting pen to paper.) Tim Smith writes: Well, what do you think a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed, which is how the statute phrases it, means? Here is 204 (a) in its entirety: Read 205(e). That's the statute we are talking about. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article slm8m.53004$9p.17...@newsfe08.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fedclaimvol=1999/9747 6c Thus, nonexclusive licenses are explicitly removed from the 204(a) writing requirement. ... Under federal law, nonexclusive copyright licenses can be granted orally or implied from conduct. ... The existence of either an exclusive or nonexclusive license creates an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement. 205(e) is the problematical section, not 204(a). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Google to launch PC operating system
In article 877hyfp9gz@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Rjack u...@example.net writes: GNUtians and RMS have blithely blathered and babbled since 1995 that the GPL and Copyleft would destroy Micro$oft. RMS' buddy Moglen's death threats to MS (Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture ... there's no room left for paying $12.95 to Mister Gates: we win. We win.) and his others numerous imminent MS' death predictions aside for a moment, How about actual references? You could put that quote he gave into Google, and it will find the article on Moglen's site. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Google to launch PC operating system
In article ym75m.14678$%02.3...@newsfe15.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: Tim Smith wrote: In article mi%4m.53088$oo7.43...@text.news.virginmedia.com, 7 website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com wrote: Rjack the stupid 1 wrote: Will it be GPL licensed It is GPL'd. By what psychic power did you ascertain this? All Google says is that it will be open source. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html The software architecture is simple Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. Which means the kernel will be GPL. They haven't said anything that I've seen about the rest of the system other than it will be open source. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Google to launch PC operating system
In article 4a561002$0$7972$a729d...@news.telepac.pt, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote: Tim Smith wrote: Which means the kernel will be GPL. The OS kernel is a major component of any operating system. Some people even defend that the kernel is the OS. So that must count for something. They haven't said anything that I've seen about the rest of the system other than it will be open source. Well, if they are putting together an operating system and they already stated that the kernel of their operating system will be GPLed, then what's missing? If they happen to put up a non-GPLed window manager does that mean that their OS ceasses to be based on GPLed code? Take a look at their other current OS: Android. GPL for the kernel. Apache license for most of the rest. That's open source, but one can make a proprietary fork of it. Google usually doesn't use GPL for code unless they have to. Hence, I want to know why the original poster thinks Chrome OS will be GPL. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Google to launch PC operating system
In article mi%4m.53088$oo7.43...@text.news.virginmedia.com, 7 website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com wrote: Rjack the stupid 1 wrote: Will it be GPL licensed It is GPL'd. By what psychic power did you ascertain this? All Google says is that it will be open source. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Linux kills terrorists
[gnu.misc.discuss added] In article 4e75ec0c3e4b86954f67a4297a8e9...@remailer.cyberiade.it, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it wrote: Linux is used in almost all UAV's. It's reliable, completely customizable and cheap. Windows was never even considered since the U.S. air force was afraid a virus would bring down its combat planes. This raises an interesting question. Suppose Linux were used in the on-board systems of a missile. Would shooting that missile at someone count as a distribution of the GPLed software used in those onboard systems? Is the missile required to be accompanied by a copy of the GPL? Assuming that it is a distribution, and is accompanied with a written offer to deliver source code in a manner customarily used for software distribution, if a terrorist were to write to the missile manufacturer and ask for the source, would it be acceptable to put that source code in another missile and fire that at the terrorist, since that is the manner the original software was distributed? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article gu0vnj$2pt...@colin2.muc.de, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Another example is XMLRPC (or SOAP or other similar technoloties) in which a function is called via network request on a distributed system. Some believe that this is covered by the GPL, others believe it isn't. I'll assume that by this you mean the invocation of a GPL licensed function over a network, or a GPL licensed program invoking something over a network. The GPL doesn't differentiate between calling technoloties. It's _what_ gets called that matters, not the technoloty by which it gets called; whether the thing getting called is a program independent of what's calling it, or is really part of it. The same applies to functionality Suppose someone has a SOAP server, with a publicly defined interface. I write code that calls a service on that SOAP server. What copyright right of the server code author have I potentially infringed? I'm not copying, distributing, or making a derivative work of any of his server code, so why do I care about whatever copyright license the server code is under? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article 85d4ajj046@lola.goethe.zz, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: What is covered is a matter of copyright law. Which is the case with any software license or contract. Getting copyright law right is hard and a moving overly complex target, different in different countries. But that's hardly a fault with the GPL, let alone the FSF. Exactly--and that's why the very first question to be asked when considering whether you can or cannot do something with a given blob of GPL code is *not* what does GPL say?, but rather does it matter what GPL says?. That's also the very first question to ask when dealing with non-GPL code, whether it is under a pure copyright license, or a contract (assuming GPL is not a contract). In fact, that's also the first question to ask when dealing with a contract that has nothing to do with code--one of the first lessons in my contracts class in law school was to make sure the contract applies before you spend a lot of time analyzing the details of the contract. Many a contract professor has put a problem on their final exam with a complex contract and a fact pattern that doesn't actually fall under the contract, and many a student has wasted a lot of valuable time writing up a long analysis of that contract, instead of writing the correct answer: the contract is not applicable. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article slrnh05ntl.6u0.j...@nomad.mishnet, JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote: On 2009-05-07, Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com wrote: In article slrnh04da1.43u.j...@nomad.mishnet, JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote: No, the question is whether or not code that is entirely dependent on some other person's work for it's existence is a derivative work. This question doesn't magically go away just because you take the GPL out of the picture. The question of whether or not a work is dependent on someone else's work doesn't even arise, because the relationship dependent on is not a relationship that has any meaning in copyright law. Stop pretending to be a lawyer. It's a felony in most places. That was hilarious. You make claims about copyright law, even though you are not a lawyer, and show now evidence of having done any serious study of copyright law, nor of having any training in copyright law. You apparently think that is OK, or you wouldn't be doing it. I make claims about copyright law, based on having taken (and done very well in) copyright law when I was in law school, and based on having discussed these issues with my copyright professor and with practicing copyright attorneys, and on having read the relevant cases, the relevant law review articles, the statutes, legislative history and committee reports behind the statutes, and so on. According to you, that's *not* OK!? For people who aren't lawyers, it's only OK to talk about law if they do so from a position of complete ignorance, like you do?? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article iq5ml.36996$i9.33...@bignews7.bellsouth.net, Chris Ahlstrom ahlstr...@launchmodem.com wrote: After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom: In article 58_ll.37296$9a.27...@bignews1.bellsouth.net, Chris Ahlstrom ahlstr...@launchmodem.com wrote: Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL. Is it OK under GPL to release a plug-in for a GPL program, if the plugin is under a license that is not compatible with GPL? Is it OK under GPL to release a GPL plug-in for a program that is under a license that is not compatible with GPL? E.g., could you release a GPL plug-in for Word? Jesus, you're as dense as Erik. What part of corner cases and main meaning did you not understand? ... Jesus, you're as dense as Erik. What part of corner cases and main meaning did you not understand? And, in fact, you're probably taking it beyond legal considerations, into the realm of a Free-software philosopher's feelings about ethics. The fact is that honest people have found the GPL very straightforward and useful, hence its popularity. IBM legal eagles don't seem to mind it, even if Microsoft found a way to break the spirit, if not the letter, of GPL 2. What you call corner cases are cases that have arisen frequently in the real world, and have been the source of much argument on such places as the Linux kernel mailing list. GNOME arose from the controversy over one of these corner cases. Free, secure email was delayed over one of these corner cases. The vast majority of Linux-based cell phones fall into one of these corner cases, and are violating GPL, according to the interpretation of GPL at fsf.org. A corner case is (from Wikipedia): A corner case (or pathological case) is a problem or situation that occurs only outside of normal operating parameters specifically one that manifests itself when multiple environmental variables or conditions are simultaneously at extreme levels, even though each parameter is within the specified range for that parameter. If the main meanings of the GPL are so clear, how come so many people keep hitting these corner cases? Corner cases are supposed to be rare and hard to hit--not commonly run into like they are with GPL. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article em5ml.36994$i9.25...@bignews7.bellsouth.net, Chris Ahlstrom ahlstr...@launchmodem.com wrote: In any case, it is obvious that GPL 2 was very understandable by many many people (e.g. Linus Torvalds), and they believed it served their interests best. I take it you've never read the threads on the kernel list over whether or not binary drivers in the kernel violate GPL? There are a fair number of kernel developers (not to mention RMS and others from the FSF) who think Linus does *not* understand GPL. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article slrnh01dri.bb5.j...@nomad.mishnet, JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote: Not really. The only real question is what constitutes a derivative work. There are certain people that have an interest in misunderstanding this. Such as the FSF? A pure copyright license, such as what they claim the GPL is, cannot protect against all of the things they want to protect against, and so they make claims that aren't backed by copyright law as to what makes a work subject to GPL. For instance, suppose you have a GPL library, X, with a publicly documented interface. No other library implements that interface. They say that if you write code that can use X, your code must be under GPL. However, suppose there is also a library, Y, that provides the same interface as X, and Y is under, say, a BSD license. Now, according to the FSF, you can write code that calls X without it being a derivative work. Copyright law simply doesn't work that way. The existence or non-existence of Y is completely irrelevant to the question is your code a derivative work of X?. Y is relevant when it comes to trying to prove the answer, but it does not change what the answer is (for example, if you are accused of making a derivative work of X, and Y exists, then you can simply claim you copied from Y, not X, and the authors of X will probably have a hard time proving it was really X you copied from). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL traitor !
In article titlv4t67t1qefhlqv2jj991s437964...@4ax.com, chrisv chr...@nospam.invalid wrote: Do you really think that ratios of slowness need to be calculated? Sheesh, man, you're running off a CD. You can hear it and see the results. You just throw-out the results of the speed test because you're running off a freaking CDROM. NO ONE is going to assume or expect that the speed is _at all_ representative of what it's like when it's running off HD. Jeezez. Most people aren't THAT stupid, much less 99% of them. I am not exactly unversed with computers (having written my own bootstrap loaders and BIOSes and target compilers and whatnot). And still I was quite unsure what difference to expect when installing Knoppix on hard disk as compared to running from CD. So? Is it not reasonable to assume that a PC operating system would be reasonably responsive when installed on a modern PC? And yes, the impression sluggish and basically not useful can come from a live CD. For the exceptionally dull-witted, maybe. Most would recognize that it's a limited trial, amazing in that it works at all! I can't hear the CD drive on my PC. My PC is under my desk, and I usually have a TV or radio on when I'm doing stuff on the PC. Furthermore, the average person only runs kind of thing on a PC directly from a CD--the installer program that comes with the Windows programs he has purchased. A decently constructed installation CD will mostly just be copying stuff off the CD, not seeking a lot, and should be laid out so that goes fast. Hence, installation programs won't give the average person a good opportunity to notice the CDs are slow at seeking. Finally, a decent fraction of consumers will have experience with running console games of CDs. They get decent performance there. There's simply nothing in their experience to indicate that a live CD should be slow, and there are things in their experience to indicate that it could be fast. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL means what you want it to mean
Alan Mackenzie wrote: In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack u...@example.net wrote: Since you obviously don't understand kill-files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file please read up on the merits of kill-files and then implement one. That's like saying an air raid shelter will save the anguish of bombs. Exactly. RJack keeps advising killfiles, fully aware that anyone who replies to his messages will happily quote his nonsense to those of us who do bother to killfile him. (Now including me, grrr!) -- Timothy Musson FSF Associate Member http://russianclub.wikidot.com/http://www.fsf.org/ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
In article e4hcl.1222$g%5.1...@newsfe23.iad, Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: Again, the settlement terms here wouldn't be evidence in a lawsuit not between tomcat and microsoft, which is what I was replying to -- a comment about the jury. Yes, they could be evidence in another lawsuit, not between Microsoft and TomTom. If Microsoft sues someone else over the same, or even similar, patents, that someone else would have a reasonable chance of getting at the Microsoft/TomTom settlement terms (at least partially--the settlement amount, for example) via a discovery request, and would be able to introduce that information into trial as part of their rebuttal to the damages part of Microsoft's case. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
In article e2dbl.724$9t6@newsfe10.iad, Thufir Hawat hawat.thu...@gmail.com wrote: Err, why would a jury have anything to say about a settlement? How could this settlement ever be introduced as evidence in some other case? The point of settling is, partially, to avoid a jury. Suppose Microsoft is suing you over FAT, and you won't settle, so it is going to trial. One of the things both sides do at trial is argue what they think the damages should be. What Microsoft has licensed the patent for to others is very relevant to your argument, and you'll have asked for the details on all licensing of the patent as part of your discovery requests. (Well, *you* won't ask. Your lawyers will ask, and the lawyers and your damages expert will get to see the answers, but *you* might not get to see them--all you might see is an average that the damages expert computes and testifies about). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
In article gqv0p4$tj...@blue.rahul.net, c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: Where you get your statistics about typical settlements? How do you define a typical settlement? Observation of settlement reports in the press. Reading the settlement reports filed with the court in interesting cases. If you don't like typical, I'll change my claim: it's not unusual for neither party to publicly talk about the settlement amount. Even if you could define what typical settlement means, how do you conclude that this was a typical settlement without knowing the details? I drew no such conclusion. The only conclusion drawing has been from you--you've concluded that because you don't know the details, it must have been a tiny settlement. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: loading proprietary code from GPL
In article 87bprgfu5o@thumper.dhh.gt.org, John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote: noamtm writes: Does the GPL (v2) allow a GPL'd program to dynamically load and execute proprietary code? What does the program do if the proprietary code is not available? What does the proprietary code do if the program is not available? Is the program able to load and execute more than just the one piece of proprietary code? Is there any other program that can load and execute the proprietary code? Was the proprietary code written for this specific purpose? What do any of those questions have to do with copyright law? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
In article gr0isq$dp...@blue.rahul.net, c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: If Ballmer and Microsoft won a major amount, they would brag about it. If Tom-Tom was able to persuade Ballmer and Microsoft to keep that amount secret, then Tom-Tom must have had significant bargaining power. If Tom-Tom had significant bargaining power, then it's unlikely that Ballmer and Microsoft won a major amount. By your argument, the lack of TomTom bragging shows it wasn't a small amount. Of course TomTom had significant bargaining power. They could have said they would not settle without an NDA. Assuming valid, infringed patents, there is still a good chance that if Microsoft had won at trial, the damages would not be significantly more than their litigation costs. And it would take years of appeals to actually collect. The most likely settlement amount is something in the ballpark of what Microsoft normally licenses these patents for. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Microsoft and TomTom settle
In article gqukq6$gb...@blue.rahul.net, c.c.ei...@xrexxmicro.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: There are those that will argue that Tom-Tom paid a lot more than that. But if that were so, then Microsoft as the alleged winner would be proud to disclose the high amount and Tom-Tom, as the alleged loser, would be unable to prevent that. So it's a safe bet that Tom-Tom paid some very small amount, too small for Microsoft to not be embarrassed if the amount were publicly known. You could just as validly argue that it must have been a large amount, because if it was small, TomTom would be announcing the amount. In reality, typically in a settlement over this kind of business litigation, if one side wants the terms kept secret, the other side will agree. Often, both sides want it secret. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: MS partner sues Red Hat for patent violation ..
In article 873adra261@blp.benpfaff.org, Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote: Tim Smith reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com writes: A lawsuit is very disruptive for both parties. Pretty much anyone, not matter what side they are on, would rather have a suit that takes 2 years in a far away district like EDT than a suit that takes 4 years in a nearby district. Why would I want a suit to be far away? Won't it be far more expensive and inconvenient to litigate in a far-away district than a nearby one? You don't want it to be far away. But you also don't want it to take a long time to reach trial. If you have to give on one of these, you will want to give on the first. Between the time you file and the time it goes to trial, both sides are busy with discovery, and with preparing their cases. From the point of view of an engineer at a software company who is a witness in the case, there are four main things that happen during this phase: 1. Depositions. Depositions are taken were convenient for the witness. You can be deposed near your home, no matter where the suit is filed. That's what I chose for both of my depositions. 2. Discovery. You will have to go through all your documents, both paper and online, finding relevant documents to answer the other side's discovery requests. This, of course, takes place at your office, and your home if you ever take work home, so, like depositions, is not affected by where the suit is filed. 3. Phone calls with and/or meetings with lawyers. This can get kind of annoying--they will be writing some document that has to be filed at midnight, and call you three hours before it is due, needing to know the answer to some highly technical question involving 10 year old code, for a product that's been off the market 8 years, and need you to answer, quickly. (And it may not even be code you worked on--you may simply be the person still around who worked closest to it). 4. You ordinary day to day activities are disrupted. You can't throw anything out that might remotely have something to do with the case. You aren't supposed to read any outside commentary on the case. You need to study your old code to be ready for questions (see #3). Our conference room because a document storage area, making meetings annoying. Depositions and discovery end at some fixed point. The phone calls from the lawyers and the disruptions continue all the way up until the trial. The lawyers are going to continue fiddling with the case, right up until the time of trial, so if you file in a district where it takes 3 years to reach trial, instead of a district where it takes one year, you have to put up with this stuff for 3 years instead of one. When it is time for trial, you will have to go to where the trial is, and stay in a hotel until the trial is done. You will probably have to do this even if the trial is local. In the case I was involved with, they told me that even if we filed in Seattle (a short drive and a ferry ride away from where I live), I would have to go to a hotel--they would not want me going home every night, and maybe trying to sneak in some work from the office. They don't want that--they want people at the trial to be fully thinking about the trial. Also, the lawyers are constantly tweaking their case, all through the trial (e.g., at ours, the other side managed to bring up something unanticipated, so our side had to spend an hour the next day dealing with that--and since we only have 14 hours total, they had to rework a fair bit of their remaining arguments to stay in the tie limit). They need everyone nearby in case they need their help. So as far as expenses due to trial location goes, really the only difference between local and far away are the travel costs, and that's almost insignificant compared to the other costs. No way are travel costs going to be enough to counterbalance the costs of having the suit take a year or two longer to reach trial. So, in almost all cases, you are better off filing where you can get the speediest trial, rather than filing locally. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: MS partner sues Red Hat for patent violation ..
In article 1nr90uip7frcg$.10o3bb8tjpbjo@40tude.net, Doctor Smith iaintgotnostinkinem...@ols.net wrote: On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:50 +0100, Hadron wrote: Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion curious. ... Also, what on earth is I ANAL ??? And why is Roy discussing it in public ad why does he find it curious?. It's as bad as Marti telling us about his now dead lover. It's some oddball term Schestowitz uses on his ICQ channel. Give me a break--I don't believe for an instance that either of you do not know what IANAL means. As Wikipedia notes, this is one of the most popular internet acronyms, and it is almost impossible for anyone to have the groups both of you read without having come across it numerous times. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: MS partner sues Red Hat for patent violation ..
In article 11452185.99fscqf...@schestowitz.com, Roy Schestowitz newsgro...@schestowitz.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 / Alan Mackenzie on Thursday 05 March 2009 16:35 : \ In gnu.misc.discuss Doug Mentohl doug_ment...@linuxmail.org wrote: 'Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its database patent for exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system. Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, and that the suit was filed in Eastern Texas, which is known as a plaintiff's paradise for patent actions.' Just as an aside, wouldn't it be a smart move for high tech companies to avoid doing business in Eastern Texas, so that they'd couldn't be patent trolled there? If enough companies boycotted that place, they might fix their legal setup. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/04/1615250 Would that exempt them from litigation? IANAL, so I find this suggestion curious. The posters you quote are overlooking a couple of things. 1. EDT is not a plaintiff's paradise in terms of results. Defendants have been doing quite well there the last couple of years. 2. It *is* a plaintiff's paradise in terms of speed. The courts there are familiar with patent litigation (which is one of the more complicated forms of litigation), and aren't busy with a lot of other stuff, and so patent suits move fast. Plaintiffs generally like that--but so do defendants, so it is also a defendant's paradise. A lawsuit is very disruptive for both parties. Pretty much anyone, not matter what side they are on, would rather have a suit that takes 2 years in a far away district like EDT than a suit that takes 4 years in a nearby district. Before EDT was the big patent case district, it was some district in the vicinity of Virginia--I forget which one. That one became a big patent district because the head judge, who is responsible for assigning and scheduling cases, started giving favorable scheduling to patent cases, and so people started picking that district. He did that because, as I mentioned earlier, patent cases are complex. That's good for the people of the district. A patent case means a lot of lawyers compared to an average case, and more expert witnesses, and longer trials--which means a lot more out of area visitors booking expensive local hotel rooms. And not just rooms--they will book giant meeting rooms, and set up a couple dozen work areas, complete with computers, a dedicated, expensive internet link. The people handling witness prep will be deciding at the last minute that they don't like the clothes a witness brought, and so will go out to the local clothing stores, and buy the witness a couple new, custom fitted suits. (I came out of the trial where I was a witness with four new suits and a dozen ties). I could go on, but suffice it to say that a patent trial can bring quite a nice boost to the local economy. EDT became a big patent case district because of judge Ward. I believe one of the last cases he was involved with before becoming a judge was a patent case, although he was not a patent attorney. He enjoyed the complexity of the case, and so when he became a judge, he sought out patent cases. That attracted more patent cases, and so the other judges in the district got experience with them. There isn't much federal crime in EDT compared to many other districts, which also helps. (Federal criminal cases take scheduling priority, because of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial for accused criminals. In some districts, such as ones where a lot of drug cases arise, it is very hard to get any civil case on the calendar). Lately, though, some companies that have filed in EDT before (Acacia, for one) have been filing elsewhere, so there are signs another district might be becoming the next patent hot spot. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 Updated License Exception
In article 49822021.cf051...@web.de, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de quoted the FSF: to the latest version of the license. It also paves the way for GCC to add a plugin architecture, by adding new protections against extending GCC with proprietary software. It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins. That issue arose a long time ago, with producers of commercial software trying to use copyright to prevent unauthorized third-party plugins. The plugin writers won. If you write a program that has a plugin interface, and you want to stop third-parties from writing unauthorized plugins, the only legal tool that has a chance of working is the patent. You have to make it so that plugins have to practice something you have a patent on. Even if the plugin has to use structure definitions, function calling sequences, constants, and such that are defined in your copyrighted code, those elements aren't covered by your copyright because they are considered to be processes or methods of operation. The courts have also noted that there is a strong public interest in not allowing copyright owners to use their copyrights in a way that would give them the kind of monopoly that patents grant--if you want a patent-type monopoly, you have to get a patent. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: 'Nuther voluntary dismissal contemplated
In article y8idnq1hut3eo9zunz2dnuvz_uudn...@giganews.com, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf Why would you expect a dismissal? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... In short: I read and understand your words and explanations, but they don't seem to apply at all. Your fundamental error was assuming that anything in this discussion thread made any sense. Rjack sent you all off on the wrong course by quoting a bunch of irrelevant fragments about derivative works. Let me yell at you just a little: ***NEITHER GPL V2 NOR GPL V3 MENTIONS DERIVATIVE WORKS.*** Sure, but nevertheless, derivative works are relevant, because the FSF rather vehemently insists that the GPL does not restrict any activities that do not require permission under copyright law. Hence, when considering doing something with GPL code, you have to ask yourself Am I doing anything that actually requires permission from the copyright owner?. If the answer is no, then GPL is irrelevant to what you are doing. For example, if I want to modify some GPL code and run it on my computer, I don't have to concern myself with anything in GPL, because 17 USC 117 tells me I don't need permission. (The GPL happens to say what I want to do is OK, which is nice, so I'm doubly covered). Another example: if I want to sell my Kindle, which contains GPL code (it's built on Linux), I don't have to worry about whether or not the GPL makes me responsible for providing source code to the buyer. 17 USC 109 tells me I don't need permission of the copyright owner, so again, I don't have to care what GPL says. Answering the do I need permission? question often requires figuring out if you are making a derivative work or not. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Battle for Wesnoth relicensing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pete Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - ESR is suggesting using the NoDerivs option from Creative Commons. Since Wesnoth as a whole is a derived work of its media files, I could imagine this making it illegal to distribute the game at all. The same It may be a derived work (whatever that is), but as long as it is not a derivative work, it is probably OK. I haven't looked at the source to this game, but generally artwork and sounds for a game are distributed as separate files. The game as a whole would be a collective work that contains many separate works: the game code, the individual works of art, and the individual works of sound. Distributing them all together would fall under the mere aggregation part of GPL. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Is public domain possible?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On this page ... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html Under: Public domain software ... Is this statement: --- [ begin quote ] --- Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, anything written down is automatically copyrighted. This includes programs. That statement is not quite correct. For example, I wrote down a grocery list the other day, and it did not automatically become copyrighted, as it is not sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright protection. A better statement would be that a work that is eligible for copyright protection becomes copyrighted as soon as it is written down. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup wrote: You got a bad case of slandries. From http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275, quoting from the decision: By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not recast the material in another medium to retell the story of Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the Lexicon no longer represents [the] original work[s] of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Under these circumstances, and because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Lexicon is a derivative work. Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that library. Or look at the unauthorized game cartridge cases. Those are directly on point for the linking makes a derivative work argument, and the courts have pretty uniformly decided that they are not derivative works. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Why GnuZilla?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [gNewSense] only includes free documentation. No GFDL documents with front cover texts, back cover texts or invariant sections? Such documents are also free documents, so are verbatim only documents. Documents with those restrictions are not free by any principled definition of free commonly used in the tech world. They may be free by the FSF's definition of free, though, which seems to be whatever RMS happens to think in this particular case. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL dream continues
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it should turn out that the courts do not uphold the validity of these licenses (which, given the JMRI case, appears unlikely), then I believe you could shortly thereafter expect congress to change copyright law to make them valid. After all, agencies of the U.S. government itself distribute software under the GPL: http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/license.cfm The parts of that software that were written by the NSA are public domain. The software as a whole is distributed under GPL because that's the license the non-NSA parts are under, but if you wanted to pick out the NSA parts and do something with them that is against the GPL, that would be fine. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: The GPL dream is finally over!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That the government's promise to issue the loan guarantee was contingent upon High Plains and Wells Fargo's performance of numerous conditions does not make the promise any less binding. Indeed, the essence of a unilateral contract is that one party's promise is conditional upon the other party's performance of certain acts and when the other party performs, the first party is bound. See M.K. Metals, Inc. v. Container Recovery Corp., 645 F.2d 583, 588 (8th Cir.1981) ( '(a) contract condition which qualifies a duty of performance by a party does not make the existence or validity of the contract hinge on the condition' ) (citation omitted); Moratzka v. United States (In re Matthieson), 63 B.R. 56, 60 (D.Minn.1986) ([A] condition precedent is a condition precedent to performance under the contract, not formation of the contract. When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it relieves a party to the contract of the obligation to perform. It does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding contractual relationship of the parties.). Although these cases did not involve unilateral contracts, they set out a general principle of contract law concerning conditional performance that is applicable to all types of contracts. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., v. The UNITED STATES; 88 F.3d 1012 (CAFC 1996) However, first you have to have a contract. With an offer looking to form a unilateral contract, it is offeree's performance that acts as acceptance of the contract. If offeree does not perform, as specified in the offer, there is no acceptance, and hence no contract. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Code written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative work of that code by the definition given in the law. The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same setting/worldview and characters). Works of fiction are not utilitarian objects, and setting, worldview, and characters are creative elements, not functional elements. Incorporating them into your work thus makes your work a derivative work. A program is a utilitarian object, and whatever is necessary to interface to it is not subject to copyright. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by linking or otherwise Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything prohibited by copyright. Even if you include header files and such, that comes under there's just one way to do it, which makes it OK. So you don't need permission and you don't need to distribute it under any particular license. If the program depends on the other program in some manner, then yes you do. Depends on is does not automatically require copyright permission. If work X depends on Y, in the sense that X is useless without Y, and X interfaces at run time to Y and Y's data, that *can* be OK. See, for example, the various video game cases, where third parties made cheat add-ons for video games, without permission of the game makers. The relevant question is whether or not X is a derivative work of Y, not whether or not it depends on...in some manner. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it deserved.] Can you give any specific criticism? The meritlessness of that paper, at least insofar as it could create problems for GPL enforcers, has been proven by the zero reaction of the rich companies with big legal teams who stand to gain from creating such problems. So since there's no useful application for an analyses of why it is wrong, I won't spend time doing that. Your skimming skills evidently suck, since you have completely failed to grasp the situations the paper is analyzing. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the derivative work preparation right? There's not much precedent for this question for software, as far as I know, so if someone demonstrates to a court that the straightforward meaning of the license has generally been accepted by industry, the court might just go along and allow it. Note that even organizations who might be considered as being opposed to the principles of the GPL, such as Microsoft, act as if its provisions are valid. They are careful to make sure that the software they license does not fall under the GPL, rather than arguing that the GPL does not work. Plaintiff sues Defendant. P alleges copyright violation, not GPL violation. If D's defense was yes, we did something that requires permission of the copyright holder, but P gave us permission via the GPL and we obeyed the GPL then yes, maybe the success of Linux and other GPL projects might influence the court in deciding what the GPL means, so as to decide if D did indeed obey the GPL. However, I believe the case we are talking about here is when D answers the copyright violation allegation with we aren't doing anything that requires permission of the copyright holder. For example, if I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do* *not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners, and I do not believe users of my plugin have to do anything when using the plugin with GIMP that they require permission for (so I don't have to worry about contributory infringement, since there cannot be contributory infringement without direct infringement). I've not heard any good argument from the FSF as to why the video game cases would not apply. BTW, I would take exactly the same approach if making an unauthorized plug-in or extension for a commercial proprietary program. I would attempt as far as possible to write my code so as to not be a derivative work of anything copyrightable I don't own or have *clear* permission to use. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Read the paper, [...] I did. It's drivel. Next. [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it deserved.] Can you give any specific criticism? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: I did. It's drivel. Next. [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it deserved.] ... I don't see why it would be considered drivel. I expect that O'Riordan says he skimmed it. The only way anyone can skim a paper of this nature and get any meaningful understanding of it is if they are an expert in copyright law. O'Riordan is not an expert in copyright law. As is typical in legal writing, nearly everything important in the paper is backed with cites. To determine that a paper is drivel, you have to chase down the cites. the GPL would fare pretty well in court these days, because on its side it has the enormous success of Linux and the various vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money, but you never know. What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the derivative work preparation right? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers. I want to install some GPL software on them Monday. Over the weekend, I download the software at home, and make 20 copies, on 20 CDs. I happen to be out of CD-RW discs, so I burn to CD-R. Monday, I take the 20 CDs to the office, and install on all 20 machines, feeling pretty impressed about how I saved a lot of time by having 20 CDs so I could install on all 20 machines in parallel. I have no more use for the 20 CDs, and since they are CD-R, not CD-RW, I can't erase them. So I put them up for sale on eBay, like I do with all surplus equipment. The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp http://opensource.actiontec.com/ Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant. After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL. After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources available. The GPL requirement is: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [Third option deleted as it is only relevant to noncommercial distribution] I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it has to be from a verizon.com web site. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were lawfully made. It was only later, when they were now just physical junk to me, that I decide to dispose of them the same way I do with other excess physical junk. Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies from lawful to unlawful? If so, how retroactive can it be? What if I make a copy for my own use. Ten years pass, and I'm cleaning out my old junk, and find the CD. I had the source once, but have lost it. Can I distribute that physical CD? I think that if I were making the copies with intent to distribute, then a good argument could be made that the copies are unlawful. The court would see this as trying to cheat on the license, and find some way in equity to bitch slap me. But that's not my hypothetical--in my hypothetical there was never any intent to cheat. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: How could one possibly make an online distribution server being responsible for files delivery fall outside the scope of exclusive rights Downloading from anywhere can cause pieces of a file to get copied from one computer to another before they reach you. Why doesn't that fall outside the scope of exclusive rights? I imagine it's just inherent in the properties of digital objects and network transmissions. Hypothetical: Party X puts a file up on a publicly accessible server and makes its location known. (For example, X puts it on their HTTP server, with a link from the front page to the download). Party Y downloads the file. The result is a copy of the file on Y's hard disk. Question: Who made that copy and/or distributed that copy? X or Y? Either answer has some problematic implications. Suppose it is Y that counts as having made that copy. First of all, this is certainly going to annoy the big media companies. It would mean that people who happen to store their music and movie files on their server, where others happen to download them, are not making copies. While some might like this answer, just because it annoys the big media companies, it would have the same problem for GPL software. Someone could put a binary up on a server, and say that since they aren't the one copying and distributing it--that's the downloaders--they have no GPL obligation to provide source. So, saying Y is the one doing the copying and distributing is not going to make copyright holders happy, whether they are big media companies, or free software developers. How about the other possibility. X is the one making and distributing the copy. That works out better for the media companies. File sharers, at least, whose shared files are actually downloaded, will be liable. But it only partly resolves the problem for free software. If I take some GPL software that I do not own the copyright for, and put it on my server, then all is well. I'm the one copying and distributing when people grab it from my server, so I have to follow GPL. We are all happy now, right? Right...except notice that this is only where I am not the copyright holder. Suppose the copyright holder puts their own free software up on their server? In other words, X is the copyright holder. Y downloads it. Y has not made a copy. Y has not distributed the software. Y has not done *anything* that requires copyright permission. But many free software licenses (including GPL) are based upon the recipient needing copyright permission to obtain the copy. If the answer to my question is that X is doing the copying and distributing, that is not going to make free software makers happy. I think the answer we'd need to make everyone happy is for X to be doing the distributing and Y to be doing the copying. That would make big media happy, because then both the sharer and the downloader are infringing copyright. It would make free software software makers happy, because the downloaders will need copyright permission, and so have to accept the free software license. I haven't thought deeply about this, but my first impression is that this should be addressed legislatively. The copyright laws should be amended to say that: 1. Making a file available on a download server (including P2P servers) counts as a distribution of the file to those who normally have access to the server for receiving files, and 2. Downloading a file from a server counts as the downloader making a copy. Alternatively, perhaps the right to make a file available via download, and the right to download the file from a given server, should be new exclusive rights, in addition to the current copyright exclusive rights (copying, making derivative works, distribution, displaying, and performing). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: I've obtained a copy of 4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt from http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp and can confirm that this transaction yielded no written offer to provide the source whatsoever. Go try it yourself. Have you installed the firmware on your router? Perhaps in the unpacked file system that results, you can find the offer. At the risk of being overly picky, would that count? That requirement is that the written offer accompany the distribution. The file format does not appear to be any of the common archive formats, so there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way for most people to unpack it. Apparently, some Linksys routers also use .rmt files for firmware, and I did find one page where someone described a bit of the format, based on reverse engineering. Assuming that both routers are using the same .rmt format, it appears that there is a gzip'ed image of an ext2 filesystem inside. However, if I take Actiontec's .rmt file, and find every place inside it that has the right signature to be gzip'ed data, and start trying to gunzip from there, it fails. The data at all those locations reports various errors that indicate invalid gzip data. This, I would say that IF there is a written notice in there, it does not accompany the distribution of the GPL software--it is *part* of the distribution. To accompany, I'd say it has to either be a separate file that comes with the GPL file(s), or it has to be bundle with the GPL file(s) in an archive format that is reasonably common (zip, tarball, etc). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were lawfully made. If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine? Because there is no duty for people to catch bricks? Poor analogy. Letting go of a brick above my head, with the intention to catch it (and even if you in fact did catch it, so I come to no harm), would still be assault. ... Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies from lawful to unlawful? You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights. Simple as that. But if the copy was lawful, I don't *need* any GPL rights in order to distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it depend on later events? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. 3. Sell or give away those copies. They are lawfully made copies, and the person owns those particular copies, so this seems to fall under first sale. Nope. GPL3p2 says You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. Ah, but what about GPLv3 section 0, which includes this: To ³propagate² a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. If you are distributing your copies under the protection of first sale, then that is not propagation, as defined in the first sentence of that paragraph. The second paragraph says propagation includes distribution, but the question then arises is that meant to be independent of the first sentence, or is it illustrative? That is, does it only include distribution that would make you liable under copyright law? I believe the FSF's position is that GPL (all versions) does not take away any rights--it only gives you additional rights above what copyright law allows. Based on that, I'd assume that GPL does not try to punish you for exercising first sale rights. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: About first sale doctrine
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't follow all the mails on this list, but just to distill the discussion down: Is someone on this list claiming after Company X sells a source+binary copy of some GPL'd software to Buyer Y, that, in the USA, Buyer Y can then pass on or resell the binary (without the source) without being bound by the requirements of the GPL? Is that the essence of the argument? Close--you were a little imprecise in the statement of the hypothetical. If we make it a little more specific: 1. We are talking about specific copies of the source and binary, such as a hard disk containing an installed binary, and a CD-ROM containing the corresponding machine readable source. That's what company X sells to company Y. 2. Company Y does not copy or modify these specific copies. Company Y just treats them as two physical objects they received from X--one hard disk and one CD-ROM. 3. Company Y sells the hard disk to a customer, and does not include the CD-ROM. then yes, that's the essence of the argument. Company Y is not obligated to provide source to the customer, as company Y has not done anything that requires permission from the copyright holder. Also, we are not specifically talking about the US. The only thing USA about it is the name we are using, First Sale Doctrine. In the EU it is called Exhaustion of rights. In the US, this is codified as 17 USC 109, and here is the gist of it: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. (106(3) is the section of US copyright law where it says the copyright owner has the exclusive right to distribute or authorized the distribution of copies). Most people in this group have probably seen first sale in action. If you've ever loaned a book to a friend, you've participated in an exercise of first sale rights. Without the first sale doctrine, you'd be violating the copyright owner's distribution rights! -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: The SFLC says it differently. Their GPL enforcement always seeks some sort of penalty for the offender that goes far beyond simply making GPL sources available. Otherwise future defendants would have no incentive to not violate the GPL in the first place. Note that if the settlement is secret, it doesn't provide very much incentive. So, it seems unlikely that the SFLC would want to keep settlements secret. How about the defendants? Haven't many of them been public companies? A large settlement would show up in their public financial records, so isn't going to stay secret for long. Thus, I doubt they are going to worry too much about keeping it secret from the start. Thus, I suspect that the settlements are for little or no cash. Plaintiff may talk about large potential damages (statutory damages for bad faith infringement could get rather staggering rather fast...) to make the defendant come to their senses, but I don't think anyone would agree to that in settlement. (I'm assuming statutory damages would be available, because I'm assuming the copyrights have been registered. I can't find that registration, but I don't claim to be a good copyright registration searcher. I assume they have been registered, because if not, every defendant so far would have filed an answer to the complaint pointing that out, and the court would have immediately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The first time, the court would have been amused at the plaintiff overlooking such a basic thing. But aren't they filling subsequent suits in the same court? The court is not going to be amused the second time the same plaintiff brings forth essentially the same case with the same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer that the copyrights must be registered). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh no. Third parties are not involved. Only recipients. In GPLv2, there was a clause that you could replace source code with a written offer to source code, and this offer had to be valid for any third party (namely, any downstream recipients) and had to be passed on to any such third party. That was a very specific circumstance and only made third parties involved when you _used_ that option. GPLv3 contains no such option AFAICS. Take a look at section 6b of GPLv3. It's similar to 3b of GPLv2, with the notable difference that it is only for the case where you distribute the object code on a physical medium. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. Not just the US. Pretty much every place with copyright law has an equivalent of the first sale doctrine. It often goes by the name of copyright exhaustion. Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A. For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks, one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a license to resell the software. The customers of Company B have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the GPL is circumvented. Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? I mean, it's like circumventing robbery laws by withdrawing money from your own bank account pointing your gun on an ATM all the while. I think when this happens, it is not going to be intentional (in the sense of trying to get around GPL). Instead of two discs, it will be one disc of source, and one device with embedded GPL code. Company A includes the disc in order to satisfy their GPL obligation. Company B discards the source disc because they don't need it themselves, and the device works fine for their customers without it, so discarding it means one less item they have to put in the box. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to. It leverages available GPLed software so that the software it needs can be developed faster, and it prevents the source of the modified software from becoming visible to anyone else other than itself and the developers, so that it can gain competitive advantage and withhold secrets. I don't think that will work. After all, company B doesn't have to throw away the source. B could ship it. So, A can't rationally count on it not getting out. A could try to make a contractual arrangement requiring B to throw out the source, but then I think A would be violating GPL, so that won't fly. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a A sale is not required, though. All that's required is that the person distributing own the copy they are distributing, and that it was legally acquired. In particular, it applies to copies that were given away for free. There was an important case about that recently, where a record company gave away promo CDs to radio stations and others, clearly marked as for promotional use only and not for resale. Some of the stations disposed of the CDs, where they ended up in second hand stores, and defendant bought them and sold them on eBay. The record company said this was a no-no. They court said that once the record company gave them away, first sale applied. It doesn't matter that they were gifts. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A. For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks, one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a license to resell the software. The customers of Company B have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the GPL is circumvented. I'm glad to see people are finally taking some interest in this area. I've been expecting it to show up since at least as far back as 2005: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1569a83d255fb3be?hl=endmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1569a83d255fb3 be?hl=endmode=source -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/ - Exhaustion and the GPL That reminds me of a question my professor asked us in copyright law class when I was in law school, when we were discussing the Betamax case. I use my VCR to record a movie off of TV so I can watch it later. Fair use, according the the Supreme Court. When I'm done watching, can I sell the recording? The copy was lawfully made. I own the copy. Seems like first sale says I can. What if I set up a bank of 1000 VCRs, to record 1000 copies? Can I sell those? That case is tricker, I think. I'm not making the copies for my personal time shifting now, so maybe that will change the balance in the fair use analysis. If that makes my copies unlawful, then first sale does not apply. In the GPL hypothetical I've discussed before, and that Hyman is now discussing, there isn't necessarily any intention to circumvent the GPL. The most likely way it would arise, in my opinion, is simply that company A ships with source because they want to satisfy GPL, and find that a more convenient way than making the source available for three years via a written offer. Company B discards the source simply because they don't find it useful, and it is cheaper and more efficient to not have to bother dropping the CD in the box. (Even if it takes no effort at all to include the CD, it is still going to generate support costs--its presence *will* confuse some customers). Note: this hypothetical applies to pretty much all licenses, not just GPL. But suppose someone actively wanted to circumvent GPL, using first sale? What if they simply took this approach: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. 3. Sell or give away those copies. They are lawfully made copies, and the person owns those particular copies, so this seems to fall under first sale. Note that this differs from my 1000 VCR hypothetical, because there the copying was not authorized. But GPL authorizes the copying. Oops. Also note: this is not a problem for a free software license that is enforced as a contract. With such a license, they have agreed to distribute source with copies they make, so there will be an action for breach of contract. And if the contract is written right, that will terminate their permission to make copies, and stop them dead in their tracks. It's *only* the GPL that is susceptible to this blatant circumvention, due to its perverse insistence on not being a contract, but merely a bare copyright license only adding to what copyright already allows you to do. (I believe I read somewhere...Larry Rosen's book, perhaps...that many jurisdictions do not recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as a contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving throw--if someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies and distributing under first sale, you sue them in a jurisdiction that would treat GPL as a contract). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], thufir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to protect copyright owners. If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL pointless, which, I suppose is your argument? The manufacturer is distributing binaries, so must make the source available to its customers. Yes, but it is not the customer who can enforce this. The manufacturer has an obligation to the copyright owner to make the source available to his customers. That seems backwards in that, for example, the copyright holder might be dead, and lets say has no heirs and no will. The issue is one of standing. Only the copyright owner in these situations is going to have standing to sue for copyright infringement. If someone gives you some GPL software, and doesn't play nice and give you the source when you ask, your only recourse is to notify the copyright holder. As far as dead copyright holders go, if there are no heirs and no will, ownership of the copyright would be determined the same way it would be for any other property of the deceased. It would probably end up owned by some government. (Note that even though some governments have laws that make their works public domain, those do not apply to works of others that are given to the government. E.g., if the government were to assign an employee the task of writing a griping novel about forest ranger, in order to raise awareness of land management issues, that novel would be public domain. But if you or I were to write such a novel, and then give the rights to the government, it would NOT become public domain). I suppose one could imagine a situation where the copyright ends up owned by the government of a small country, and some natural disaster completely wipes that country off the face of the earth. Presumably, the code would then be public domain. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
been of this. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SFLC continues to file cases on behalf of their clients, who can therefore be assumed to be satisfied with the service they are receiving. What's puzzling is that rjack appears to be right about one very important thing, though. Doing a search of copyright registrations, I can't find one for Busybox (or for anything else by the people listed in the lawsuits as the copyright owners). It also doesn't appear the Busybox counts as a non-US Berne work, and so registration is a prerequisite to suit. Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is Busybox actually a non-US Berne work? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: C++ equivalent to spaghetti code
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wolfgang Draxinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want to control every bit of the program (yes I know, that this sentence can be interpreted in many ways, and each way totaly matches what I mean). A languages like C++, that hides (some) vital aspects of the underlying mechanisms can break things at such a low level application. I'm thinking mainly about the way, polymorphism is implemented (there's no standard about that in current C++), how name mangling is performed (dito), calling conventions if objects are passed by reference (dito). Another problem is, that the use of some C++ features (I'm looking at templates here) will start a chain reaction in which code is created generically w/o having any influence on the exact outcome. This is not the same like using macros to create a similair effect; doing it with a macro one must exactly know what's going on. I have yet to encounter a C++ compiler that will refuse to compile a program if it does not use polymorphism, passing objects by reference, and templates. There is nothing forcing someone who writes a kernel in C++ to do those (possibly) questionable things. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Attorney fees
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would actual damages be? Typically, this is the profits you didn't make, because people bought from the infringer instead of from you. But when you make your product available for free, you don't really have lost profits. But we are not talking about making a product available for free, but making it available under the conditions of the GPL, whether for free or not. If the perpetrator could have made use of the software under those conditions, he would not have to violate the license. So we are talking about a _different_ use then the one that is being licensed under the GPL. A product that has _not_ been made available for $0. If the author has not yet made this product available (namely a licensing under conditions the perpetrator would have used), then he is, of course, free to name the price he would take for said product. Or That's not going to fly. It's too remote. To determine damages under that model, the court has to figure out what P and D would have agreed to if P had been willing to sell, and D to buy, a special license to the work. That's just too speculative, unless P has already sold such licenses to others, so there is some basis for settling on a likely price. What the court wants to do is put P in the position P would have been in if the infringement had not occurred. There are two ways to do that. The one you are suggesting is for the court to speculate what would have happened if the D had hypothetically purchased a license to do what D actually did. The other way, which is the one I believe courts usually go with, is for the court to ask what would have happened if D had obeyed the actual license that D had. That requires much less speculation. Under that analysis, P expected to make $0 off of D's use of the software, so I don't think it is likely the court would award much more than that. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Attorney fees
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Under that analysis, P expected to make $0 off of D's use of the software, so I don't think it is likely the court would award much more than that. Uh, under that analysis, D is still expected to comply with the license conditions. So the court would tell D to comply. But it would be a strange court that told P he should expect to hold up his part of the deal (the $0 part) while D can be excused from compliance with his part. I mean, get real. Who said D would be excused from compliance? I sure didn't. If P prevails, D will be ordered to stop infringing. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
