Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html -- This would not be a presentation about the GPL by me if emphasis was not placed on what you see before you now. This license is Not a Contract. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive a copy of the Program. We have not argued now, nor will we, nor can anyone argue, who reads the text of the language, that the receipt of the code is some quid-pro-quo for the acceptance of some terms. If you are existing in a legal system in which that wasn't what made it a contract, then ...go with God, but arguments based on the contractual exchange of the code for promises of compliance have nothing to do with us. We give permissions here and the enforcement weight of our license lies in the fact that you have no permission to propagate, that is, you have no permission to do what copyright law requires permission to do, but through this license. That's our legal theory and we are sticking to it. -- On another forum, I've posted a link to emoglen.law.columbia.edu/research-agenda.html as an example of Moglen's talent in bullshit rap: Current research proceeds by facilitating high-energy collisions between widely-dispersed non-homogeneous randomly-motivated incremental acts of individual creativity and large masses of ill-gotten wealth. I've also asked if anyone ever saw a computer program written by Eben I am a historian and a computer programmer, (nodody replied thus far). Finally, I suggested that someone must tell Eben that he got a broken link to Manifesto of the Communist Party. See Moglen, The DotCommunist Manifesto[link] (2003). See and hear Moglen, The DotCommunist Manifesto: How Culture Became Property and What We're Going to Do About It[link] (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, November 8, 2001). See also Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution (New York, Prentice-Hall: 1952) (mult. repr.) (unfree); Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy; Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, Beacon Press: 1966) (mult. repr.) (unfree); Karl Marx Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party[BROKEN link], (English ed. London, 1888) (Engels ed.) (mult. repr.) (mult. trans.). daydone commented: Now Alex let's not rag on Eben's qualities. It is well known that Eben has impeccable credentials and legal judgement. His wisdom is spread far and wide. Ever free software advocate in the United States accepts what Eben says as gospel truth: Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html Even Groklaw's PJ knows this to be a fact: The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 Only a small, irrelevent segment of the U.S. population doesn't know this. . . the entire federal judiciary and the professional lawyers hired to defend the F.S.F. Perhaps with Eben's charm they'll come to see things his way. . . I guess one can always hope. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html Because the deterrent effect of denying the right to have and use and distribute free software is not enough in and of itself to break most patent aggression schemes. Where we have satisfied ourself that narrow targeted patent retaliation may have true deterrent affect, we have however incorporated it into the license as part of a general attempt to do everything we can about the patent problem. Here we believe that one narrow form of retaliation may actually have meaningful effect, so this license gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the program provided that you do not bring suit for patent infringement against anyone for making, using, or distributing, their works based on the program. And as Richard has already told you, we believe the operative effect of this clause would be to deny continued opportunity to maintain privately modified versions on the part of any party who seeks to use its patent claims to prevent similar or equivalent modifications from being made by others. In this very narrow field we think retaliation may actually deter aggression and we wish therefore to include it. Please note also the way in which the next paragraph makes use of our copyright-culture-free notation scheme. Propagation of covered works is permitted without limitation provided it does not enable parties other than you to make or receive copies. Propagation which does enable them to do so is permitted, as 'distribution', under the conditions of sections 4-6 below. So let us, just for a moment, attend to the question of non-US statutory copyright schemes under the new license. - Hey GNUtians (folk at gnu.misc.discuss), would you please buy your crazy Prof. a new glasses and let him take a brief look at Sections 109 and 117 in the US statutory copyright scheme. Thank you in advance. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh, you are being confused. Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the author. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/12/linux_gpl30_letters/ Regarding - Since when has he felt like that. Last time I remembered, the kernel people (including Linus) were real big on being the superior software Gods. Isn't that why we can't have binary modules loaded into the kernel to support hardware? One recent example would be the following: http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/ And that whole fiasco. - Forward Inline To: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Moglen's all good faith Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] One more nail in EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL coffin... On 1/30/06, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/29/06, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Development of proprietary kernel modules is tolerated, see EXPORT_SYMBOL vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. AFAICS, this special exception to the GPL has never been formalized, but at least overe here the mere While proprietary kernel modules are tolerated, there is no special exception to the GPL, EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is just a technological measure used to make GPL violations more evident and subject to the DMCA. What violations? And what does DMCA has to do with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and tainting idiocy which has the only purpose to impede interoperability with non-GPL'd code? Anyone can patch the kernel to get rid of that silliness completely or reexport what's required in a non-GPL-GPL support module. That's not to mention straight GPL\0sucks workaround. The GNUtians among kernel developers simply never heard of Sega v Accolade. Genesis III searches the game program for four bytes of data consisting of the letters S-E-G-A (the TMSS initialization code)... And more recent Lexmark v. Static Control. In view of our conclusion regarding the Printer Engine Program, we can dispose quickly of Lexmark's DMCA claim regarding the Toner Loading Program. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh, you are being confused. Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the author. So you disagree with him and still quite him? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh, you are being confused. Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the author. So you disagree with him and still quite him? I partly agree with him. I mean the part that highlights the anti- competive nature of the GPL when used by a cartel of competitors against some closed source (or even BSD based Apple OS X like business but without hardware bundle muscle) competitor attacking him by a pooled and cross-licensed predatory price-fixed viral competition-killing IP under the GPL. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh, you are being confused. Learn to follow the links, dak. I'm not the author. Kevin Hall is the author. So you disagree with him and still quote him? I partly agree with him. Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your sole contribution. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Then it does not make sense that you just throw in a quote as your sole contribution. Yet another malfunction of dak's sense barometer. NAD. WAD. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:27:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander appears to be a life mission. http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68 quote authors=Jeffrey Siegal, Isaac What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own copies, including binary copies, of the software, than those users can transfer those copies without complying with the GPL's requirements as to source code access. Interesting. I really hadn't thought about that and my attempts to digest the implications on the fly are making my head hurt. I can't resolve the problems introduced by first sale without either making the user of GPL'd code a non owner or deciding that users really can transfer their copies, no matter what the GPL says. Gotta think about this. Kinda makes my whole argument moot if GPL users are really licensees. g Isaac The implications you draw from first sale go way beyond this Alexander. In any event, we've discussed ways of resolving this particular conundrum in misc.int-property. Your pretense that the quoted statement is my last word on the topic is quite disingenuous. I have not found you that way in the past. Isaac /quote regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:00:56 -0600, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac writes: 17 USC 117 is a limitation on the copyright holders rights that allows an owner of a copy of software to make copies necessary to install and run software without having any permission from the copyright holder. Not copies. _Copy_. And one installation. Note the wording: ...Additional Copy ... another copy ... a new copy ... a machine... TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. My reading of 117 is that there is no limit to one installation per owned copy. Surely you do not believe that you can purchase one copy of a piece of software and legally install it on a thousand computers. I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't seem to recognize such a thing. If you are familiar with something in the legislative history that speaks to this issue, please point to it. Otherwise I'm going to assume that you are going with your gut feeling. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Isaac wrote: [...] I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't seem to recognize such a thing. Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:10:17 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isaac wrote: [...] I believe that I could were a court to recognize that I owned the copy of software rather than having license it. Courts in the US don't seem to recognize such a thing. Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. -- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy. While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts in CA contrary to this one. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Isaac wrote: [...] While it's true that some courts have decided that, the majority position seems to be otherwise. I'm not sure which court decision that line is from, but I suspect we can find decisions from other district courts in CA contrary to this one. Regarding 17 USC 117, take also this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf My reading of it is that even under contractual restrictions, 17 USC 117 bars cause of action for copyright infringement when the party exercises sufficient incidents of ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered the owner of the copy for purposes of § 117(a). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for installing on multiple computers, I think that it's totally OK. For example, I can install it on a computer at my home and on another computer at my dacha. The key is that I can't legaly run it simultaneously on multiple computers if I own only one copy. As long as I don't do that, it's all fine and dandy. Depends on whether the typical I agree license is of the same opinion. A contract may impose restrictions and obligations, true. [... GPL ...] so running copies in parallel is ok when you accept the license. Accept? So now it's a contract... right, dak? Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions. ^^^ Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your conditions and separate them into real conditions that define the scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or recoup damages for breach of) the later. Quite so. You can merely recoup damages for the breach of copyright, not for the breach of the conditions under which you granted additional rights. The breach merely implies that the licensee can't make use of the additional rights he had been conditionally granted. You can't sue in order to make him heed the conditions. But you can sue to make him heed copyright. He is not exempted from it, because he did not meet the conditions under which you granted a limited exemption. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Nope. It gives you additional rights depending on conditions. You can accept the conditions and make use of the rights, or you can leave it be. No contract. There is no obligation to accept the conditions. ^^^ Your ignorance works against you, dak. The court will look at your conditions and separate them into real conditions that define the scope of the license for copying (which distinguishes authorized copies from unauthorized copies) and covenants that define licensee performance obligations. You won't be able to enforce (or recoup damages for breach of) the later. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first sale. Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are talking about distribution of unauthorized copies. The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again, what breach? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first sale. Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are talking about distribution of unauthorized copies. The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again, what breach? Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional authorization. It's one of your favorite mistakes. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 23:03:02 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] What breach? Distribution of authorized copies fall under first sale. Sure, but there has been no unconditional authorization. So we are talking about distribution of unauthorized copies. The act of distribution doesn't turn authorized copies into unauthorized copies. The act of distribution is totally irrelevant RE determination whether a copy is authorized or not. So once again, what breach? Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional authorization. It's one of your favorite mistakes. It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander appears to be a life mission. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Isaac wrote: [...] It's not a mistake. Preaching the gospel of first sale according to Alexander appears to be a life mission. http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e123816845315e68 quote authors=Jeffrey Siegal, Isaac What about the first sale doctrine? Indeed, if users own their own copies, including binary copies, of the software, than those users can transfer those copies without complying with the GPL's requirements as to source code access. Interesting. I really hadn't thought about that and my attempts to digest the implications on the fly are making my head hurt. I can't resolve the problems introduced by first sale without either making the user of GPL'd code a non owner or deciding that users really can transfer their copies, no matter what the GPL says. Gotta think about this. Kinda makes my whole argument moot if GPL users are really licensees. g Isaac /quote regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Conditional authorization does not magically turn into unconditional authorization. A promise on my part to forbear from distribution right under first sale and instead do what you decree is a covenant, not a condition. But no such promise is demanded. You don't need to promise anything. You can choose to heed the conditions or not. If you choose to heed the conditions, you get the additional rights over copyright. If you choose not to heed the conditions, you get only the default rights from copyright. And it has really nothing to do with copyright. Breach of contract is the only nonfrivolous claim you can make (provided that I have fulfilled the real conditions and created authorized copies). Nonsense. No contract has been formed. The only claim you can make is for violation of copyright. And that's exactly what has been done in all cases of pursued GPL violations. - Adobe asserts that its license defines the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe. The Adobe license compels third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. - s/Adobe/FSF Too bad that the GPL license does not compel third-parties to relinquish rights that the third-parties enjoy under copyright law. So, like most of your quotations, it does not apply. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 19:18 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Wallace on predatory pricing: --- Predatory pricing The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum price of intellectual property at “no charge” removes all motive to compete. Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being discussed Error no.2: even Microsoft says licensing costs amount to about 4% or 6% of the total cost of a solution, so there's 94% to 95% of motive to compete. Ah the idiots... Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being discussed Copyright is a form of property which, like physical property, can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part. Accordingly, some or all of the rights may subsequently belong to someone other than the first owner and may be shared. Error no.2: even Microsoft says licensing costs amount to about 4% or 6% of the total cost of a solution, so there's 94% to 95% of motive to compete. What? Ah the idiots... Are you looking in the mirror, mini-RMS? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being discussed Copyright is a form of property No. It is an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over a work. This right can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred. But it is not property. If it was property it would not be temporary, and the government would have no right to define an expiry date, or else we would be talking of a totalitarian government. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Error no.1: it's not intellectual property but copyright that's being discussed Copyright is a form of property No. It is an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over a work. This right can be bought or sold, inherited, licensed or otherwise transferred. But it is not property. Oh dear. Your Oberfuhrer Moglen (darn that RMS lives in a cubbyhole on MIT campus) has an artificial government granted temporary monopoly over his house and land as well. Same (almost) as with copyright. It's all about balancing, you know. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11969361.htm (Governments can seize private land, high court rules) regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work All property rights imply some form of ownership (monopoly in GNU speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property. But distribution right is severely limited by first sale (which is nonexistent in the GNU Republic). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
I wrote: US copyright law does not allow installation on more than one computer at a time without permission of the copyright owner. Isaac writes: What provision of US copyright law says this? Title 17 Chapter 1 § 106 (1) I don't see such a limit in 17 USC 117. § 117 is a limitation on the exclusive rights. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] Copyright is a monopoly over the distribution of a work All property rights imply some form of ownership (monopoly in GNU speak) on enjoyment and exploitation of property. But copyright isn't a form of ownership (property), but a government granted temporary monopoly. But distribution right is severely limited by first sale We're talking about distributing copies of a copy, sorry for misdirecting you with my abuse of language. (which is nonexistent in the GNU Republic). Wrong, first sale, fair use and all are not covered by the GNU GPL but by copyright law. The GNU GPL doesn't affect this rights of the user. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... monopoly ...] William M. Landes and Richard Posner: - A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others from using a resource, without need to contract with them. So if A owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it Yes, we all know that. But contrary to grass cows, people can copy digital content ad aeternum without loss of the source. This fundamental difference establishes quite good boundaries. Like why copyright isn't property. In property, if I equally share a land with you, each of us has half a land. In idea expressions, if I share an idea with you, each of us has an idea. Its like the christian miracle of bread fish. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 16:52 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... monopoly ...] William M. Landes and Richard Posner: - A property right is a legally enforceable power to exclude others from using a resource, without need to contract with them. So if A owns a pasture, he can forbid others to graze their cattle on it Yes, we all know that. But contrary to grass cows, people can copy digital content ad aeternum without loss of the source. - The dynamic benefit of a property right is the incentive that the right imparts to invest in the creation or improvement of a resource . .. For example, a firm is less likely to expend resources on developing a new product if competing firms that have not borne the expense of development can duplicate the product and produce it at the same marginal cost as the innovator; competition will drive price down to marginal cost, and the sunk costs of invention will not be recouped. - regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace on predatory pricing: --- Predatory pricing The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum price of intellectual property at no charge removes all motive to compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman Act § 1 civil action: [T]his is a Sherman Act 1 case. For purposes of this case, it is enough to note that respondents have not suffered an antitrust injury unless petitioners conspired to drive respondents out of the relevant markets by (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products, or (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost. MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [fn8]. If we exam case (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products the obvious result of the GPL is the destruction of interbrand competition (see State Oil Co. v. Khan, supra) when the maximum price of intellectual property is set at zero (no charge). New developers and vendors of intellectual property cannot enter a market for which there is no reward or incentive. Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality disappears. When we analyze case (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost we see that a maximum price of zero for the intellectual property in computer programs leads to an absurd result. In addition to the intrinsic value ordained by Art. I, §8, cl. 8 of the Constitution, the cost of creation of intellectual property in computer programs entails the development costs of skilled programmers, new computer hardware, communications costs and administrative overhead. Commercial computer programs are not developed in a zero cost vacuum -- that is an absurd proposition. A maximum price of zero is below any reasonable definition of appropriate measure of cost concerning development and innovation of intellectual property assets. The only economic motive for using GPL licensed intellectual property in a competitive market for computer operating systems is to destroy a competitor who is striving to create positive value based in intellectual property. The Supreme Court has addressed the practical evidentiary burden for a predatory pricing claim: As a practical matter, it may be that only direct evidence of below-cost pricing is sufficient to overcome the strong inference that rational businesses would not enter into conspiracies such as this one; MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986)[fn9]. The GPLs term 2(b) is without question direct evidence of a below-cost pricing scheme. Commercial distributors of GPL licensed products conspire to give away their assets in intellectual property and then recoup losses by leveraging ancillary markets such as computer hardware sales (computer hardware obviously requires an operating system), software consulting fees, employee training programs and computer maintenance services. (One uncharged co-conspirator, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, is the Worlds largest computer hardware and computing services corporation.) The effect of the GPL license is to create a Marxist-Leninist model for computer programs, where a vast pool of intellectual property is collectively price fixed at no charge and thus removed from commercial exploitation. In time, due to its recursive nature, the GPLs pool of price fixed intellectual property can grow to utterly destroy a targeted market. It is not consumers that the GPL intends to benefit -- the goal is the destruction of competition in the free market. The GPL license renders U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8 meaningless in the context of computer programs containing copyrights and patents. The defendants assert: The GPL expressly allows Defendants, and any other licensee, to charge a fee to recover the variable or incremental costs associated with distributing software licensed under the GPL: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.. Defendants Brief at 5. Here, the defendants attempt to conflate the definition of intangible copyright assets with the physical media in which a work is embodied: Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. ..;17 USC sec. 202. The present claim is for price fixing in the relevant market of intangible intellectual property assets in computer programs (the Linux operating system) and not an action concerning tangible media or physical acts involving the distribution of tangible media in which a copyrighted work may be fixed. The plaintiffs complaint has certainly met the pleading requirements expressed in PEGRAM. ET AL., and Denny's Marina, supra, by directly or inferentially alleging the element of an resultant unreasonable restraint of trade in
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace concludes: --- Conclusion The plaintiff Daniel Wallace in his Complaint has directly or inferentially alleged that the defendants have: (1) used an express contractual agreement to conspire with named co-conspirators and; (2) engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade by pooling intellectual property that is price fixed and distributed at predatory levels and; (3) defendants threaten injury to competition as well as causally linked personal injury to the plaintiff. Wherefore plaintiff Daniel Wallace moves the Court deny the present REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS filed by defendants RED HAT INC. and NOVELL INC., and enter judgment for plaintiff Daniel Wallace. --- regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
German GNUtian dak didn't answer yes or no question regarding Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of conditions subsequent. David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf - The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software !netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company, and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that selling, reproducing and making available software are not undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV. Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it. There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary remedies. - regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Hey dak, have some fun. The gang at ifross in action. http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/ For English-only readers: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_entrurl=http://www.heise.de/ct/06/04/046/ - GPLv3 - Legislation in contract form [...] Penetration in danger? More serious the planned change of number 4 could affect itself. The present regulation in the GPL 2 plans that with an injury of the license obligations automatically all granted rights by the GPL are omitted, so that the GPL violator stands there as usual robbery copiers. This strict regulation, which worked already several times in Germany for the penetration of the GPL, is to be replaced by a right to give notice, which presupposes a previous notification of the violator. With the fact one would like to prevent that a user loses rights to use immediately with unintentional license injuries its. Background of this change is the view of the FSF that under US right of the changes to a GPL conformal use the GPL injury cannot heal, but the fact that each holder of a right must grant explicitly a new license to the violator - which with a multiplicity of authors is hardly feasible[6]. Under German right this opinion will not represent, so that a in this country attenuation of the license threatens. - Alarm! Alarm! Alarm! regards, alexander. Alexander Terekhov wrote: German GNUtian dak didn't answer yes or no question regarding Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies that the GPL is a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of conditions subsequent. David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL2_20040903.pdf - The defendant argued: The temporary injunction should be lifted because the defendant is not liable to be sued. The plaintiff has no right to sue him.. The defendant is not concerned with the distribution and/or duplication and/or making public the software !netfilter/iptables. He, the defendant, is a pure support company, and is not concerned with selling, reproducing, or making available the software. He has never undertaken these activities and will not do so. It has previously been pointed out to the plaintiff that selling, reproducing and making available software are not undertaken by the defendant but by the company S[itecom] Europe BV. Furthermore, there was a notification that the web site had already been amended. It is obvious that the company [Sitecom] Europe BV was to clarify the matter and the matter would be clarified by it. There is therefore no reason to grant preliminary remedies. - regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. /quote I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks (in all good faith) the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005061934277 The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL. ^^^ Here's more evidence that notwithstanding what the FSF says to the judge in Indiana, the FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact doesn't really understand the licensing terms relevant to the use of Linux. http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL, where's the uncertainty? Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL violations. Nonetheless, we all know that there are a large number of such modules and their existence is tolerated or even to some degree encouraged by the kernel maintainers, and I take that to mean that as an indication that there is some exception for those modules. The kernel also maintains a technical mechanism, namely the GPL-only symbols and tainting structure, which seems to suggest an API for the connection of non-GPL'ed code to the kernel, which also seems to me a strong indication of the presence of an exception. The difficulty as a lawyer, even a lawyer that is reasonably knowledgeable about these matters, is that I don't understand what the terms of that exception are. So, say I want to audit a system, say an embedded product, in which I find non-GPL loadable kernel modules present, how do I know whether that fits within an exception which is legitimately available to third parties and when it is not? [...] So then there are parties in the world who think they are in legal trouble on one side with the regulators if they do release source code for loadable kernel modules that drive their software- controlled radios, and they don't know if they're in legal trouble on the other side if they don't release source code. For those parties, in particular, it would be very helpful if the kernel developers had decided to formalize the nature of their exceptions, and the Free Software Foundation and I have made a few attempts to discuss that matter with kernel developers. I had conversations with Ted Ts'o, I talked to Linus about it and I understood there were some reluctances to clarify, in a full and complete way, what was going on. There may have even been disagreements among kernel developers about that, I wouldn't know. But I continue to think that it would be useful, for a whole variety of people who are trying in good faith to do the very best they can, and who may be navigating some dodgy legal territory, for them to be able to refer to something beyond the COPYING file which -- with all due respect -- I think probably doesn't contain all the terms that are relevant to the use of the kernel. - regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again: [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ] [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ] Do we see a pattern here? We have here a person who pokes around apparently all day, every day, on Google, finds stuff and repeatedly reposts it into misc.int-property and gnu.misc.discuss. At the risk of repeating myself: How about writing something useful yourself, instead of merely posting repeated citations of what others have written? Your mission, should choose to accept it, is to post 5 articles in which you provide 80% content that is original and useful enough that multiple people will consider it profound enough to quote you in multiple other fora. -- Rahul ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again: [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ] [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ] Hey Rahul, but the most charming piece regarding GNUtian legal system from you is this: http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/ca73c9fd532841b5 - Appended below is a copy of what I posted previously. (Sometimes discussions stray so far nobody remembers what the original question was :-) I am essentially making the claim that by placing software under the GNU license, you are not losing any rights over it. You are granting others certain rights. Corollaries: - You can violate the GNU license for your software without violating copyright law. Why? Because you cannot unilaterally give up your rights. So you are not bound by the GNU license even though you have placed your software under it. - You can later revoke the rights that you granted to others when you placed the software under the GNU license. Why? Because you did not grant any rights to any specific person. What would be the grounds of a lawsuit? That you violated a contract? There was none. Fraud? Maybe. Some sort of general tort for damages? Perhaps. Even if a court rules that you can't revoke your decision, that ruling will likely only be given to protect a specific defendant who suffered actual damages as a consequence of your revoking your decision. I doubt very much that a court will rule that you can't revoke your decision at all, only that you must compensate *this* specific defendant with *proven* damages, or let him keep using your software. I don't know of any enabling legislation that allows a person to place software under the GNU license and be unable to revoke this decision later. I am not claiming that my claim is provably correct, only that it's a claim! Sometimes such claims are proven wrong, not because they were wrong when they were made, but because judges make new law all the time. Free software lies near the periphery of tried and trusted legal precedents. Who knows what the next judge will decide? Most judges who use computers at home use Macintoshes. Need I say more? - regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: - When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract* and you have no legal right to use it. You are granted rights by the GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because you cannot enter into a binding contract without consideration. So although you are permitted to use the software, you have no enforceable legal right to do so. This is bullshit. Usage is not covered by copyright law[1], only distribution of copies of the work outside fair use. - When you order a tape from the FSF, the situation is unclear. If your payment is clearly only a handling free, then any contract that exists is solely for the purpose of the tape being shipped to you, and it does not govern the contents of the tape. If the payment is actually for the software itself, then there is a contract that affects how you use it. When you pay for a CD of Microsoft Windows, you only have warranties on the _CD_ itself, not on the data it contains. That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned. Then there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding private copying (install on no more than one computer at a time), and since it restricts beyond default copyright, you have to agree to its terms. Since not agreeing means you don't have even a single license, all you get is a worthless piece of plastic. With Free Software you get default copyright + extra rights. In the case of the GNU GPL, distributing new copies is allowed under certain unilateral restrictions. Nothing else gives you the right to do that. This is just plain copyright. Rui [1] except in what relates to DMCA and equivalent horror laws. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again: [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ] [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ] And he follows up with 48 more lines of quoted content! Does anybody remember the zumabot? We seem to have a reincarnation of it here. It was apparently an awk script, but today I assume it would more likely be in perl or python. Try a Google search -- it's interesting history. Over and out. Let the Terekhov quote-script have the last word. -- Rahul ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU) You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years? Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the judge in Indiana that the contract controls. So once again, what contract are they talking about? The judge in Indiana is gonna be real pissed when he finds out that Ice Miller and the FSF were just joking about the GPL being a contract so they could get Wallace's case dismissed. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Just to stress... Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL, where's the uncertainty? Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL violations. - LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see proprietary modules as an infringement? Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with some modules loaded is a a work and because any module that is dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the license if it's pure GPL. - And (from another Moglen's piece regarding GNU legal system) - After many years of securing compliance with copyright law as it applies to GPL'd work, and in view of recent court decisions in Germany, to say nothing of SCO, I think there should be no remaining doubt in any well-informed mind about the legal soundness of GPL. - Recent court decisions in Germany? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf Note that that Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute is no stranger. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hoeren http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/panel/profiles/hoeren.pdf MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL BODIES Member/Vice President, German Association for Law and Informatics (DGRI); Member, Society for Computers and Law, U.K.; Member, German-Japanese Law Association, Hamburg and Tokyo; Co-editor Computer und Recht, Computer and Law, Cologne; Member, Institute for European Media law, Saarbrücken; Member, Editorial Board, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, BNA's Electronic Information Policy and Law Report and EDI Law Review; Legal Advisor, European Commission/DG XIII, Legal Advisory Board on Information Technology; Co-editor, Multimedia und Recht, Munich; Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the European Commission; Legal expert in several research projects commissioned by the European Commission/DG III (COPEARMS), DG XIII (MULTISOLUTION, EDIBOL, EDIPAY) and the DG XV; Member, Legal Advisory Board, DENIC, Frankfurt. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Intellectual Property law; Internet Regulation; Information Law; Unfair Competition Law; International Business Law. EXPERIENCE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Judge at the Court of Appeal in Düsseldorf within the Trademark Copyright Senate; Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Muenster; Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Law, European Commission/DG XIII. Now the most charming part of that Moglen's piece regarding GNU legal system: - As to the definition of derivative work, the uncertainty is experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only arguably infringe the free developer's copyright. The correct answer, of course, is that those who want to take advantage of the enormous quantity of freely distributable best of breed software now available should do so in a fashion that respects the principle of freedom in which it was created. All doubt can be eliminated, for Mr. Michaelson and all other seekers after wisdom, if they remember what they learned in kindergarten: share and share alike. IBM, HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded businesses have no problem with this, nor should Mr. Michaelson's readers. - Well, HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded aside for a moment, http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/october2005_recommended.html#RETocos20051014 (OCO modules for the October 2005 stream) It doesn't seem to match with Moglen's alternative reality. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Recent court decisions in Germany? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual court decision. The courts decision was in favour of the GPL. In short, what Moglen says is perfectly correct, and what you say is bunk. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing. There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants. I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that the judge thinks he is serious, too. US courts go to considerable lengths to accomodate pro se litigants as access to the courts is an important right. It is possible (though unlikely, I think) that Wallace will have attorney's fees assessed against him. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Recent court decisions in Germany? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual court decision. That utterly defective judgement (keep in mind that the context is Einstweilige Verfuegung -- ex parte action) based solely on Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies regarding the GPL being a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of condition subsequent*** isn't worth the paper it was printed on. But anyway it doesn't seem to match Moglen's alternative reality where the GPL is a lisense-not-a-contract. regards, alexander. ***) Beispiele: Beim Eigentumsvorbehalt, bei dem der Käufer sich das Eigentum an der Verkaufssache bis zur vollständigen Kaufpreiszahlung vorbehält, handelt es sich um eine aufschiebende Bedingung (§§ 929 S. 1, 158 Abs. 1 BGB). Im Rahmen der Sicherungsübereignung, bei der eine Sache bis zur vollständige Tilgung der Raten an den Verkäufer übereignet wird (z.B. beim Raten-Kaufvertrag), handelt es sich um eine auflösende Bedingung. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? would seem like it would have to be printed on _very_ expensive paper in order to be worth less than that. Oh dear. I take it that you agree that the GPL is a contract coupled with AGB based on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedingung_(Recht). Yes or no, dak? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? If the case were as cutdried in the manner you claim, Sitecom would have gotten back the legal costs associated with the injunction, once the stuff would have gone through court properly. So Sitecom would have been a fool _not_ to bother _unless_ their chances in court would have been less than favorable. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
- As to the definition of derivative work, the uncertainty is experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only arguably infringe the free developer's copyright. Nah... the uncertainty is experienced by those who read the FSF FAQ. What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. - A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example of exchanging complex internal data structures, like a GPL'd daemon talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov wrote: FSF's brief #37 in Wallace v FSF: In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. [... walter_oak_night's FSF GPL FAQ ... FAQ as Fact ...] Here's more. FSF's director and legal counsel Moglen speaks. http://news.com.com/Defender+of+the+GPL+-+page+2/2008-1082_3-6028495-2.html quote One of the questions with the GPL is about how tightly you may link GPL code with non-GPL code, for example, when you compile a GPL program and it uses other code in a software library. Have you done anything to define how tightly GPL code may be linked with non-GPL code? Under what circumstances is that permitted and not permitted? Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released. /quote So much about the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights. To quote day5done, quote The GPLv3 states: 2. Basic Permissions. 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. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program. The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law. Anyone see the words This License explicitly affirms your *unlimited permission* to run the Program? When you link dynamically to GPL'd code you are running (executing) the GPL'd Program in every sense of the word. The linked code is object code that is executed in memory. Moglen states: We reasserted that code dynamically linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released. Since when does unlimited permission mean --is part of the source code of the work under the GPL and must be released.? I thought unlimited permission meant unlimited permission. Hm. Perhaps Eben Moglen is drooling down his Gerber bib again... Somehow your proprietary object code being executed in memory is magically transformed into GPL'd source code. -- Sounds somewhat like SCO claiming all your code is mine. Do you suppose the wife and kids also get GPL'd? /quote Now, back to quoting the Defender of the GPL: quote One specific area where the linking question arises is in the Linux kernel, where proprietary video drivers loaded are loaded as modules. Another one might be the use of a network driver that relies on proprietary firmware that is loaded from an operating system. (Such firmware, sometimes called blobs, are strings of hexadecimal digits loaded from the operating system kernel into the hardware device to enable it to run.) Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. /quote I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks (in all good faith) the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005061934277 The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL. ^^^ ? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] BTW, FSF's reply to Wallace's fourth amended complaint is due today, IIRC. I'd appreciate of someone with Pacer account can post it here, TIA. Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of Wallace v. GPL got pretty selective (the motto is we won't let Wallace troll the community, I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)... http://sco.tuxrocks.com/?Case=Wallace --- # [info] 34 - FSF's Motion [Wallace v. FSF 34] to Dismiss Wallace's Fourth Amended Complaint (2005-12-29) # [info] 35 - FSF's Memorandum [Wallace v. FSF 35] in Support of [34] Motion to Dismiss Wallace's Fourth Amended Complaint (2005-12-29) # [info] 36 - Wallace's Memorandum [Wallace v. FSF 36] in Opposition to [34] FSF's Motion to Dismiss Wallace's Fourth Amended Complaint (2006-01-03) --- I offer EURO 20 (through PayPal) for #35 plus #36 above (I need one copy of each brief). Anyone? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] I offer EURO 20 (through PayPal) for #35 plus #36 above (I need one copy of each brief). Anyone? Erledigt. http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=mboard=1600684464tid=caldsid=1600684464mid=333225 http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=mboard=1600684464tid=caldsid=1600684464mid=333224 http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=mboard=1600684464tid=caldsid=1600684464mid=333218 regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 17:01 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Since recently, tuxrocks.com's coverage of Wallace v. GPL got pretty selective (the motto is we won't let Wallace troll the community, I suppose; interestingly enough, the pro-GPL stance seems to impact publication of some FSF's briefs as well)... Or it might simply be because Wallace, like you, are actually trolling. And I also wonder how much rope the Judges plan to let Wallace hang himself into before dismissing him with contempt. I mean... price fixing? Let me see: Ubunto: zero EUR (+ network traffic costs) RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more. Rui ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] RHEL: over 1500 EUR for subscription They charge for per seat services (mostly bug fixes delivery), not GPL'd software as IP. That monetization model fails with stable high quality software (vendor lock-in through certification of other stuff for not-quite-so-free-as-in-speech-or-beer binaries under trademark and per seat service contract protection as a whole aside for a moment), and it isn't suitable for ethical software providers who offer bug fixing for free-as-in-beer until at least Withdrawal from Marketing to begin with. You should read and try to understand the complaint, really. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Just to count two immediate possibilities. There are hundreds more. Two possibilities on two ends of the spectrum, the usual cost is around 45 USD from my brief check (GNU Source CD's, and OpenBSD CD's). Thogh, if you have 5000 USD (~4000 EUR), getting the GNU Deuluxe Distribution package is a good idea. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: ... My, you're dense. http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute copies of GPLed software for no fee. This is obviously false. Wallace bases his claim on Sectin 2(b), which states: 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. What does this mean exactly? It means that you cannot impose any extra restrictions on the work that would make it impossible for third parties to redistribute the work (You are not allowed to redistribute this program to other people unless you pay me 100 USD in license fees or similar extra restrictions). It has nothing to do with charging for the act of distribution, which is stated in section 1: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. Which allows me, as the author of the Program, to charge a fee, and it allows people who bought the CD's containing the Program, to do the same thing; if they choose too. I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful sword called Reading, which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:49 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: http://www.ip-wars.net/public_docs/wallace_v_fsf_36.pdf Terekhov likes to quote material without having actually read it himself. Wallace more or less claims that the GNU GPL allows for price fixing, more exactly, that it requires all parties to distribute copies of GPLed software for no fee. This is obviously false. (...) I'm not a lawyer, but I am atleast capable of weilding a very powerful sword called Reading, which Wallace and Terekhov are unable to. One could almost argue that they're the same person, the similarities being so strong. Well, I guess they could be string-puppets under the same manipulative hands... Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
