Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know. Not really. It's just immortal, Oh how charming and pluralistic. Mere mortal GNUtian dak is in mild disagreemnt with GPL-ober-nazi Herr Dr. Prof. Moglen The Idiologist, GNU Law Maker, and Admiral in Command of unfree (GPL-incompatible) ethnic cleansing operations. 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. 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 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: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 01:36 -0500, D.C. Parris wrote: I am curious to know what people think about Linus Torvalds' comments on the anti-DRM clause in the GPLv3 draft. According to Linus, the GPLv3 (as is) could cause problems, i.e., when needing to run signed code in the kernel. Giving up your private key would make signing the code a moot point. Linus did not, at the time of those statements, understand that clause. http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3301105877.html The clause says that IF a CERTAIN private KEY is REQUIRED, then you have to PROVIDE that KEY. This is for the case of Digital Restrictions Management enabled hardware that will only load software signed with that KEY. What good is the software if you can modify it to satisfy your needs but are unable to satisfy your needs because you can't run it without signing it again? Run that modified software on some other competing DRM-less hardware? The problem is that in DRM the owner of the machine doesn't control the KEY. Someone else does. For good reasons. Hack-resistant safety critical stuff and etc. And for TiVos (and alike) both hardware and controlling software is a loss leader. They want the boxes to be used as intended to generate profits. My, what a felony it is in the GNU land. regards, alexander. P.S. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/occ/dmca2000/DiMA.html - The technology to secure the first sale privilege exists today. As will be explained further below, copyrighted content can be delivered to the consumer with digital rights management (DRM) systems that enable secure electronic transfers of possession or ownership, and that protect against unauthorized retention of the transferred copy. Extending the first sale doctrine to the electronic environment will provide the incentive for development of newer, more flexible, and more efficient DRM tools. - ___ 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: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:34 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The clause says that IF a CERTAIN private KEY is REQUIRED, then you have to PROVIDE that KEY. This is for the case of Digital Restrictions Management enabled hardware that will only load software signed with that KEY. What good is the software if you can modify it to satisfy your needs but are unable to satisfy your needs because you can't run it without signing it again? Run that modified software on some other competing DRM-less hardware? That's the seller's problem, not the user's problem. The user should never be owned by the seller. The problem is that in DRM the owner of the machine doesn't control the KEY. Someone else does. For good reasons. Hack-resistant safety critical stuff and etc. And for TiVos (and alike) both hardware and controlling software is a loss leader. They want the boxes to be used as intended to generate profits. My, what a felony it is in the GNU land. This are not good reasons. Hack resistance, safety critical stuff and etc do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features since by design someone else controls the key. In the case of computers there's a master DRM certificate root. The user is never in full control of _his_ computer. DRM is theft. 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: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copying at any level of abstraction as black box without any modifications or transformations of protected expression in original literary work (or part thereof) modulo the AFC test, and assembling multiple works in a whole is compilation, not derivation. So can you describe a situation where one program is a derivative of another? /L -- Lasse R. Nielsen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine' ___ 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: GPL and other licences
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Copying at any level of abstraction as black box without any
modifications or transformations of protected expression in original
literary work (or part thereof) modulo the AFC test, and assembling
multiple works in a whole is compilation, not derivation.
So can you describe a situation where one program is a derivative
of another?
Original:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF))
send_a_bomb(FSF, explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/);
Derivative:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF)) {
fork();
send_a_bomb(FSF, max((explosive_power += 10) + random(), 666)/*kiloton*/);
}
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This are not good reasons. Hack resistance, safety critical stuff and etc do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features since by design someone else controls the key. In the case of computers there's a master DRM certificate root. The user is never in full control of _his_ computer. DRM is theft. Uh, only when afflicted without your agreement. Other than that, it is merely crippling the quality of available choices. It's not like this is unprecedented: try buying any appliance built to last 40 years. The choice is gone. You'll only get stuff that is _designed_ to be junk after few years, at the cost of sustainable resources. DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule for hardware: built-in self-destruction. -- 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
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: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Original:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF))
send_a_bomb(FSF, explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/);
Derivative:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF)) {
fork();
send_a_bomb(FSF, max((explosive_power += 10) + random(),
666)/*kiloton*/);
}
regards,
alexander.
Interesting. Are you now publicly writing violent aggression threats?
Rui
void register_computer_game_player(const std::string email_address ...
if (email_address == [EMAIL PROTECTED])
throw A_Real_Idiot(Rui);
.
.
.
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: GPL and other licences
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander Terekhov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Original:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF))
send_a_bomb(FSF, explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/);
Derivative:
unsigned explosive_power = 0;
while (still_not_eliminated(FSF)) {
fork();
send_a_bomb(FSF, max((explosive_power += 10) + random(),
666)/*kiloton*/);
}
terekhov
No, that's still just a compilation. All that's changed is that you've
aggregated the original with the independent works fork();\n, max((,
and ) + random(), 666).
/terekhov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/
iD8DBQFD7LShwyMv24BBd/gRAtx4AKCO691Uj3Y7ggRxvj3oyva6Odk16QCfXsZg
hvefJiW30PMNsfhItp7yUsI=
=7qUG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
Rui writes: Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft. DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter. -- 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 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: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote: Rui writes: Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft. DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter. The law only protect circunvention. But suppose circunvention wasn't technically feasible... Regardless of law, DRM is theft. If there sould be a law, it should forbid DRM. 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: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
Rui writes: Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft. I wrote: DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter. Rui writes: The law only protect circunvention. You mean the law _forbids_ circumvention. The law is wrong. But suppose circunvention wasn't technically feasible... Don't buy it if you don't like it. Regardless of law, DRM is theft. Is not publishing at all theft? If there sould be a law, it should forbid DRM. There should be fewer laws of all sorts. -- 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: GPL and other licences
Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical property attached to the software, and not an agreement between licensor and licensee. It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for this, some other licenses may not. If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it. The employeer cannot state that I cannot do this, since the GPL gives me this right. I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's property, whatever the conditions were under which it was acquired. Even if the employer sold that property to the employee? The same would apply to the files on my computer if you were to borrow it. None of the software on that machine is a copy that you rightfully acquired, and hence you have no right to copy it, whatever its license. I borrowed the computer, not the files. So yes, in this particular circumstance, this is correct. One could compare it to borrowing a car, and then making a claim to the content in the car, like the fluffy teddy bear. You were allowed to borrow the car, but not the teddy bear. (Note that my example was different, and more akin to person A giving a gratis copy of a CD to person B; David AFAIK claims that person A can still dictate what person B is allowed to do with the content. I claim that David is wrong) ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical property attached to the software, and not an agreement between licensor and licensee. It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for this, some other licenses may not. If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it. ^^ The _content_on_it_! not the acutual CD. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical property attached to the software, and not an agreement between licensor and licensee. It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for this, Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical copies of software. some other licenses may not. If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it. Not if you are not owning it. The employeer cannot state that I cannot do this, since the GPL gives me this right. The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights. I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's property, whatever the conditions were under which it was acquired. Even if the employer sold that property to the employee? Of course not (in that case, owership of the employer ceases). And the employer might also _grant_ the employee copying GPLed software from the company's media. The GPL gives the _employer_ the right to do so. But the employee can't take this right for granted. (Note that my example was different, and more akin to person A giving a gratis copy of a CD to person B; David AFAIK claims that person A can still dictate what person B is allowed to do with the content. I claim that David is wrong) As long as the copy remains the property of person A and person B acts only as agent of person A, yes, person A dictates all the terms under which person B might make use of person A's physical property. You really don't get internal use. -- 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: GPL and other licences
Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical copies of software. Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the CD, but the content. You really don't get internal use. And you don't get what the heck is being discussed. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:35:38 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical copies of software. Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the CD, but the content. The content does not exist without the physical copy. It is the possession of a copy that gives rights under the copyright statutes (like the first sale right) or a license. Thus, without the possession of a copy, there are _no_ rights. This is what I have been trying to explain by saying that the license is not attached to software, but to the copy. In other words, the software is, and remains, the property of the author. The copy, and only the copy that you lawfully acquire gives you the possibility to accept the GPL, and thus make copies of your copy and distribute those. You really don't get internal use. And you don't get what the heck is being discussed. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are the one who really doesn't get it. When you act as an agent for someone else, you do not become the owner of your principal's possessions, you merely act on their behalf. This is why they have to authorise the copying and distribution of their copy of the GPLed software. You, not being the owner of that specific copy, do not have the right to do so unless duly authorised by the owner of the copy, and the license under which the owner acquired the software is irrelevant to you. For example, you do not know if the author licensed that particular copy under another license than the GPL (which is her right). This is further proof that the license is not attached to the software, but is an agreement between the copyright owner and the recipient of a particular copy. This is, I assure you, the way copyright/author's right laws under the Berne Convention work. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and follow quoting conventions? I'm already doing that. It depends on the license. The GPL gives an explicity right for this, some other licenses may not. If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it. ^^ The _content_on_it_! not the acutual CD. You do not have the right to copy the CD, so how could gain access to the contents? Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD. See the above sentence. It is only the owner of the CD who can accept the GPL and acquire the right to make copies and distribute those. It is the person who has the GPLed software who can accept the license, not the person who owns the CD. For example, I do not own the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org. According to you, since I am not the owner of those disk drivers, I'm not allowed to accept the license. The FSF surely won't sell their drivers so that I can get a version of Emacs; and I'm a bit tight on cash to actually be bothered buying a CD from the FSF. According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content of the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software. Cheers. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nonsense. The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical copies of software. Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies. Got that? Not the CD, but the content. The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner. -- 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: GPL and other licences
The content does not magically jump off the copy. Accessing the content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner. And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play. And I'm allowed to redistribute it, if I so choose; and the employeer cannot stop me (other than by not giving me a copy, just like I can only stop you from redistributing my hacks from Emacs by simply not sharing them with you). ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL Anti-DRM Clause
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote: Rui writes: Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft. DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter. The law only protect circunvention. But suppose circunvention wasn't technically feasible... Regardless of law, DRM is theft. If there sould be a law, it should forbid DRM. DRM without laws against circumvention is just ordinary free market commerce. Just because the law allows you to make copies doesn't mean that the publisher has to make it *easy* for you to do so. Without the law behind it, it's like physical publishing on copier-resistant paper. Some publishers may find it more advantageous to implement copy prevention, others may charge a bit more but allow copying. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:11:23 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a hard time following your message, you speak of property and ownership of software, neither of which are applicable to software. You cannot own software; since you cannot own software, it cannot be property. Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that work. The license is infact attached to the software (i.e. work), and not the actual physical entity that it resides on. It is attached to the copy of the work that resides on the physical medium. This is why the author can license the same work under two different licenses, for example the GPL and a license that doesn't require derivative works to be licensed under the GPL. Anything else would be absurd, since if you sell me your harddisk, and you for some odd reason forget to remove all data on it, then by your argument, I am now the lawful licensee (and even the copyright holder(?)) of all your files; no matter what the license is of each particular file is (it could for example be `ams is not allowed to look at this file') No, you would be the owner of my disk, unless I had specifically ceded the ownership of my copies of the software. The medium can exist without the copy of the software, but the software cannot exist without a medium. When you acquire a copy of a program, you are allowed to run it, which implies copying it to the hard disk, and subsequently copying it to the RAM, caches, processors etc as required by your computer. All these operations are considered to be copies of the software, but they are expressly allowed under the statutes. If I sell the hard disk to you, the copies of the software I licensed are no longer lawful, and hence you do not derive any rights from them. They were only lawful as long as they served the purpose of running the program by the owner of the copy. Now if I cede you the original copy, then you become the lawful owner and can continue to use the copies on the hard disk. I know that at first this can look weird, but that's how it works. It seems that you are mixing up two cases (once again), the CD (i.e. physical entity that the software resides on), in which you are eniterly correct, and I never disagreed there (and I'm getting a bit tired saying that). And the cases of where you actually aquired (legally) a program (on what is not relevant!) which is licensed under the GPL from your employeer. Obviously, unless the employer allows me to scratch the physical media which the software resides on, I'm not allowed to scratch it. But the employeer is simply incapable to dictate what I can do with the program, other than by just refusing to give me the software (once again, the physical media is irrelevant); You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium) that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. Do you believe that you enter into a license with Microsoft if you use your employer's computer that has Windows installed on it? Of course not, as you did not sign anything. Tomorrow you can be fired, and someone else will take the place behind that computer, and continue to use the equipment and software you used. There only is a license between the employer and Microsoft. at which point I'm not in possession of the software (physical media is irrelevant), and I have no rights to the software, since I don't have the software. It's late, and sentences become garbled. When I first tried to understand copyright, I considered it totally unintuitive. What you have to learn is that the law does not have to be intuitive, or even make sense to you. What matters is what it says, and how it is applied. And I again assure you that it is not applied like you interpret it. Take care, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Stefaan A Eeckels writes: [The license] is attached to the copy of the work that resides on the physical medium. According to US copyright law the physical medium _is_ the copy: TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 101. Definitions Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term copies includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. -- 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
