from:"Alexander Terekhov"


Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
 Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software
 could be described by any of the three verbs in or any other form in
 which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like builds on
are irrelevant because they don't constitute creation of derivative 
literary works under copyright law. It's not that hard to grasp, stupid.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Bruce Lewis wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives
  like human translations from one programming language to the other
  with the same set of protected elements in both original work and
  derivative work (which falls under modifications in the BSD case)
 
 Even in this case the derivative work can have its own copyright
 statement 

Not its own. A non-derivative compilation (i.e. not based in the 
derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have 
its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. Derivative 
works are under copyright of both its (lawful) creator(s) and the 
owner(s) of the original work.

   and license.  It must retain the BSD copyright statement and
 license, but that still only applies to the original work.

It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing
derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each
constituent work can be under its own license.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
 Now you are citing someone who says Such innovations rarely will
 constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act.

Someone == United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

 
 Rarely implies it is possible.  

That mild and polite wording doesn't subvert the clear message. 
(Hint: See generally Nadan, supra, at 1667-72.)

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Bruce Lewis wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  You must be reading something that isn't there. The independent
  status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s)
  in the sense that it does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
  ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the
  preexisting material is the same in both cases.
 
 All I'm reading is that in both cases a new copyright exists,

Sure it exists. 

 contrary to your statement:
 
  A non-derivative compilation (i.e. not based in the
  derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have
  its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works.

In the case of a non-derivative compilation, the new copyright 
that covers that work (as a work formed by the collection and 
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, 
coordinated, or arranged) is indeed its own and just can't be 
preempted by the copyrights in the constituent works (there's no 
exclusive right to prepare [non-derivative] compilations). OTOH, 
derivative works can't be prepared without permission (that's 
apart from 17 USC 117 adaptations) and are under multiple 
copyrights: new copyright plus copyright(s) covering all those
protected elements from the preexisting work. So it's not its 
own copyright. Got it now?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

2005-08-06 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Isaac wrote:
[...]
 URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html
 URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html
 
 
 These cases really do not appear to be on point 

These cases are not really cases to begin with (that's apart from fact 
that orders were limited to netfilter/iptables code only, and said 
absolutely nothing about larger combined work as a whole). Einstweilige 
Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (law suit). 

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html

quote

It's a Small Welte After All 

Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a 
different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL 
who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court 
of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author 
of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court 
granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, 
prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router 
until it complied with the GPL.

/quote

Well, the injunction was about netfilter/iptables code and nothing
else. No word about the router.

http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a
http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117

quote

Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, 

/quote

Sitecom's objection (not really appeal) to the injunction had really 
nothing to do with the GPL. And the subsequent ruling by the same
district court discussing the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney)
was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it 
could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside 
for a moment.

quote

and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for 
the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. 
based on its firewall products, with similar results.

Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why 
Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has 
not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so 
simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling 
legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary 
injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving 
the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the 
appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) 

/quote

See also:

http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/1e07a593e5e09d59
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/3bdfe293b33c6b6e

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
 Isaac wrote:
 [...]
  URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html
  URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html
 
 I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court
 of Munich I judged that the GPL is a contract governed by the Sect. 158
 of the German Civil Act (BGB) http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/158.html.

I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be confusing the GPL with 
einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft.

http://weblawg.saschakremer.de/index.php?p=24

---
Wenn eine Software unter der GPL veröffentlicht wird mag sich dies 
zunächst tatsächlich als einseitige Willenserklärung an eine 
unbestimmte Vielzahl von potentiellen Nutzern (oder Lizenznehmern) 
darstellen.

Spätestens in dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Software von einem Nutzer 
aber konkret in Betrieb genommen wird, erklärt sich der Nutzer 
zumindest konkludent mit den aus der GPL resultierenden Lizenz-
Bestimmungen einverstanden und unterwirft sich deren Bindungen 
(etwa was die weitere Verwendung des unter der GPL veröffentlichten 
Codes angeht). Eine solche Bindungswirkung kann aber nicht durch 
eine einseitige Willenserklärung, sondern nur durch einen - wenn 
auch durch Inbetriebnahme der Software möglicherweise nur 
konkludent geschlossenen - Vertrag begründet werden.

Damit finden dann aber auch die §§ 305 ff. BGB Anwendung. 

[...]

Das in Nr.5 der GPL festgeschriebene Selbstverständnis des Autors 
ist für die rechtliche Bewertung der GPL in Deutschland allenfalls 
ein Hilfsmittel, aber keinesfalls bindend. Vielmehr muss sich eine 
Erklärung nach ihrem materiellen Gehalt und nicht nach der 
Bezeichnung oder Zuordnung ihres Verfassers beurteilen lassen.

Die Einräumung einer Lizenz (nichts anderes als eine 
Nutzungsvereinbarung) bedarf nicht nur eines Verpflichtungsgeschäfts 
(also der Abrede über die Einräumung des Nutzungsrechts), sondern 
auch eines Erfüllungsgeschäfts (die tatsächliche Übertragung des 
Nutzungsrechts). Diese Trennung ist aus dem allgemeinen Zivilrecht 
bestens bekannt, bei beiden handelt es sich um Rechtsgeschäfte.

Das von ihnen genannte Beispiel des Preisausschreibens (als 
Sonderfall der Auslobung) als einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft passt für 
einen Vergleich mit der GPL gar nicht. Bei der Auslobung (oder dem 
Preisausschreiben) geht allein der Erklärende eine (schuldrechtliche) 
Verpflichtung ein, während der Rechtskreis des \Teilnehmenden\ nur 
erweitert wird, ohne auf Seiten des Angesprochenen zugleich 
Verpflichtungen zu begründen.

Bei der GPL ist dem aber gerade nicht so: Hier sollen auch auf 
Seiten des Angesprochenen Verpflichtungen (etwa Software, die unter 
Verwendung des unter GPL stehenden Codes entstanden ist, ebenfalls 
unter der GPL zu veröffentlichen) begründet werden. Rechtliche 
Nachteile auf Seiten eines Dritten können aber (außer durch 
hoheitliches Handeln auf Basis einer entsprechenden Rechtsgrundlage) 
regelmäßig nur durch zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft begründet werden.

Ihr Beispiel vermag mich daher nicht zu überzeugen. Auch im 
übrigen - ungeachtet der GPL - entstehen bei der Übertragung eines 
einfachen Nutzungsrechts auf Seiten des Nutzungsberechtigten 
rechtliche Beschränkungen: So kann der \einfach\ 
Nutzungsberechtigte Dritten nicht ein weiteres \einfaches\ 
Nutzungsrecht einräumen, sondern bedarf hierzu der Zustimmung des 
Rechteinhabers. Mag dieses auch \vorab\ durch den Rechteinhaber 
erklärt worden sein ändert dies nichts an der Tatsache, dass mit 
der Einräumung eines Nutzungsrechts eine Sonderrechtsbeziehung 
zwischen dem Rechteinhaber und dem Nutzungsberechtigten entsteht, 
die vertragliche Rechte und Pflichten auf beiden Seiten begründet. 
Dies alles kann nur durch zweiseitiges Rechtsgeschäft, also durch 
Vertrag geregelt werden, um etwa im Fall von Leistungsstörungen 
bei Fehlen entsprechender Vereinbarungen eine Lösung mittels des 
allgemeinen Leistungsstörungsrechts des BGB herbeiführen zu können.

Im Übrigen muss der Verzicht auf den Zugang der Annahmeerklärung 
muss nach § 151 BGB nicht ausdrücklich erklärt werden, ausreichend 
ist, wenn dies nach der Verkehrssitte unterstellt werden kann - dies 
dürfte bei der GPL der Fall sein.

Es spricht damit einiges für die Annahme eines (zumindest 
konkludenten) Vertragsschlusses bei der Einräumung eines 
Nutzungsrechts - auch unter der GPL.

Letztlich könnte man auch ohne AGB zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass 
jedweder Haftungsausschluss in der GPL als Verstoß gegen den durch 
§ 242 BGB normierten Grundsatz von Treu und Glauben nicht ohnehin 
unwirksam ist. 
---

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
  Isaac wrote:
  [...]
   URL:http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html
   URL:http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html
 
  I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be unaware the District Court
  of Munich I judged that the GPL is a contract governed by the Sect. 158
  of the German Civil Act (BGB) http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/158.html.
 
 I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak seems to be confusing the GPL with
 einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft.
 
 http://weblawg.saschakremer.de/index.php?p=24

I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak still seems to be confusing the GPL 
with einseitiges Rechtsgeschäft.

Here's the Jaeger/Metzger theory that was used by the District Court
of Munich:

http://www.beck-shop.de/iis/produktview.html/op/4/tocID/360/prodID/252/catID/1/SessionKey/3B50E68C93D1767060AFC29E5A0DE00E/
(Jaeger / Metzger, Open Source Software, Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der 
Freien Software) 

http://www.beck-shop.de/downloads/3406484026.pdf

---
A. Vertragskonstellation 1: Download von Freier Software direkt vom
Urheber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . 137
I. Der Vertragstyp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . 137
1. Software als Vertragsgegenstand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
2. Nutzungsrechte als Vertragsgegenstand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3. Erwerb von Freier Software als Schenkung . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
a) Zuwendung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. 140
b) Entreicherung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 141
c) Bereicherung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 142
d) Unentgeltlichkeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 142
4. Erstellung von Freier Software als Gesellschaftsbeitrag? . . . 144
II. Vertragsverhältnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . 145
III. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 145
1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . 145
a) Anwendbarkeit der AGB-Vorschriften . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
b) Open Source Lizenzen als AGB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
c) Einbeziehung in den Vertrag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
d) Verstoß gegen die AGB-Vorschriften . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
e) Rechtsfolge des unwirksamen Gewährleistungsausschlusses
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . 152
a) Produkthaftung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. 152
b) Vertragliche Haftung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
154
B. Vertragskonstellation 2: Erwerb der Software auf einem Datenträger
direkt vom Urheber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. 155
I. Vertragstyp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . 156
II. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 158
1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . 158
2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . 159
C. Vertragskonstellation 3: Download der Software vom Server eines
Dritten. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . 160
I. Die Vertragsverhältnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . 161
1. Urheber  Dritter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . 161
2. Dritter  Nutzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . 161
3. Urheber  Nutzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . 161
II. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 162
1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . 162
2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . 163
D. Vertragskonstellation 4: Erwerb der Software auf einem Datenträger
von einem Dritten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 164
I. Die Vertragsverhältnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . 164
II. Gewährleistung und Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . 166
1. Gewährleistung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . 166
2. Haftung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . 168
Inhaltsverzeichnis XI
E. Vertragskonstellation 5: Individuelle Herstellung von Open
Source Software

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
 (http://www.ifross.de) which advocates that contractual condition

Oh my, this is fun (the GPL 2b is not for kids, so to speak):

http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art7.html
(Frei ab 18 Jahre)

Well, I agree. :-)

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
 
 On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 21:25 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  [...]
   consequence, the GPL'd stuff should be exempt from first sale...
   other bizarre legal constructions of his own (together with his
   friend Metzger) creation aside for a moment.
 
  Well, looks like that in the meantime, the fellows have realized
  that exemption from first sale won't fly.
 
 HELLO? It's only you who speaks of first sale.

Really? Final judgment regarding injunction against Sitecom by the 
District Court of Munich I and appellate Judge Hoeren's feedback 
aside for a moment, go ask your comrade dak translate pages 48, 49, 
50, 51, and 52 of
 
http://www.vsi.de/inhalte/aktuell/studie_final_safe.pdf. 

Please try to NOT miss the stuff behind footnote 284 (attributed
to Welte's attorney Jaeger together with his colleague Metzger).

 
 The FSF is not talking about giving (or selling or whatever) your copy
 (read first sale), but copy distribution.

Under FSF's GPL-is-not-a-contract theory, all copies of publicly 
available GPL'd works fall under copy distribution pursuant to the 
first sale because they are lawfully made and there's no contract 
that would restrict (impose enforceable conditions) on their 
distribution.

The GFSL (German Free Software License created by Axel Metzger and 
Till Jaeger) concedes that the first sale preempts it (GFSL being 
a non-negotiable licensing contract accepted by a licensee when 
exercising the copyright license granted in the GFSL... just like 
the properly construed GPL): no reciprocal (contractual) obligations 
on part of redisrtibutors under first sale (without some other 
explicit manifestation of assent to the contrary, that is).

And copies (in both source and object code form... accompanied by 
additional copies under 17 USC 117) of computer program works made 
in the course of downloading from the authorized distributors do 
fall under the first sale. Go ask the Libraries Association (and 
also Time Warner, Inc.):

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg07922.html 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: 
[...]
 There's no contract from the beginning. 

Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will 
the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up? 

quote 

This document represents the author's best effort to identify the 
principles of common law, Federal statutes, areas of state law (with 
reference to the California Civil Code), and appellate precedents 
that would apply to the construction of the GNU GPL in a GPL 
violation court proceeding. 

/quote

Uhmm. Oh wait, I suspect you're in Europe. Go ask Welte's lawyer(s) 
http://www.ifross.de and/or http://www.jbb.de) why the GPL is a 
contract in the EU civil law countries too.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
 http://www.ifross.de and/or http://www.jbb.de) why the GPL is a

http://oss.fh-coburg.de/events/OSSIE04/schulz_contractional_relationships.pdf
(Contractual Relationships in Open Source Structures, Carsten Schulz, JBB 
Rechtsanwälte, [EMAIL PROTECTED])

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
  Drop a note to Edwards of debian-legal and ask for a copy of his Will
  the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?
 
 Stop distorting intentionally everything people write.

Well, did you already read that Edwards article? What exactly did I 
distort? Start on quoting original.

[... the GPL is not a contract ...]

http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 
 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
 [...]
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under
  this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without
  the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of
  the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
^
 
  So you can do whatever with _YOUR_COPY_ but you still can't redistribute
  copies of it.
 
 Downloads aside for a moment, the GPL permits reproduction, and, under
 the idiotic not-a-contract theory, it just can't compel me to
 relinquish the distribution right that I enjoy under the copyright
 law (17 USC 109) being the owner of all those NEW particular copies
 that I've lawfully made: I can distribute them as I see fit (apart
 from rental) without the authority of the copyright owner. There's no
 copyright infringement and there's no contract violation (no contract
 says FSF). That's it.

I hear that GNUtian dak seems to confuse the copyright law (which 
establishes property rights subject to limitations under 17 USC 109,
117, etc.) with the contract law that is used to enforce licensee's 
promises by licensors of copyright IP. 

Well, regarding the GPL, GNUtian Moglen says that there aren't any 
promises at all to be enforced.

http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

And I *really like* it.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. quote source=http://www.nswscl.org.au/journal/49/Giles.html

3 The licensee's promises

A licensee has the following possible obligations under the GPL: 

3.1 Limits on distribution

  to put appropriate notices and terms on distributed copies of the 
  program (GPL clause 1); 

  to place prominent notices on modified files stating the existence 
  and date of any modifications (GPL clause 2(a)); 

  to license derivative works as a whole with no charge to any 
  licensees (GPL clause 2(b)); 

  to display a notice of terms on derivative interactive programs 
  when distributed (GPL clause 2c); 

  to include the source code in any distributed copies (GPL clause 3); 
 
  not to distribute except as provided (GPL clause 4);

3.2 Legal rights abandoned

  to give up rights to sue for implied warranties (GPL clause 11); 
  and 

  to give up rights to sue for tortious claims (GPL clause 12). 

/quote
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
 Promises regarding distribution are totally baside the point. We
 are talking about *unilateral* grant, not a contract:
 
 http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20031214210634851.html
 
 quote author=Moglen
 
 The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral
 permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by
 the licensor.
 
 /quote
 
 Distribution is done under 17 USC 109, not GPL.

I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak still can't grasp the difference 
between *unilateral* stuff and contractual agreements in exchange 
of promises. The promise to relinquish the distribution right that 
I enjoy under the copyright law (17 USC 109), and distribute only 
as mandated by the licensor, is a (imaginary or not) consideration 
(AFAICS missed by Ben Giles), but it's totally beside the point 
under Moglens theory in which no obligations are reciprocally 
required by the licensor. Note also that idiotic Section 5 (which 
blatantly misstates the copyright law) is somewhat at odds with 
dak's ad-hoc attempt to fix moronic Moglens theory.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
 I've stated it well before you: the GNU GPL is an unilateral grant of
 certain rights.
 
 One of them is, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, to DISTRIBUTE COPIES, 
   ^
17 USC 109, stupid.

 MODIFIED OR NOT.

Same thing (given that according to Moglen, the grant regarding 
derivative works is also unilateral and doesn't conclude a 
contract).

 
 ANOTHER is RUNNING FOR ANY PURPOSE. And this one HAS NO CONDITIONS.

17 USC 117 (see also Council Directive of 14 May 1991 on the 
legal protection of computer programs, 91/250/EEC, Art. 5), my 
friend.

 
 But you're nothing but a broken robot.

Your are incurably clueless, I'm afraid.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
 I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak 

I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak doesn't believe that I've plonked 
him (he joined GNUtian ams). Hint: I working in team. And, BTW, all
my plonks expire on annual basis. So don't be surprised to be re-
plonked at some time in the future, GNUtians dak and ams.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD


John Hasler wrote: ...

You're (almost totally) wrong, and (plonked) GNUtian dak is (mostly) 
right. The right to access the copyrighted content must not be 
confused with the incidental possession of the object that facilitates 
practical exercise of the right. It is access to the copyrighted 
material which has been parted with by the copyright owner in first 
sale, and it is that right of access which is alienable under the 
first sale doctrine, regardless of whether it is facilitated by 
tangible or intangible means.  -- These Reply Comments are submitted 
on behalf of the American Library Association, Association of Research 
Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, Medical Library 
Association and Special Libraries Association (the Libraries), in
response to comments submitted pursuant to the Copyright Office's 
Request for Public Comment dated June 5, 2000.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: inhouse forking?

2005-08-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov


fogelsharp wrote:
[...]
  Google for GPL FAQ, I think this is covered.
 
 Thank you very much! I'll read the FAQ!

Read also Michael K. Edwards' 50+ pages of utter devastation (legal) to 
the GPL FAQ. Drop a note to M.K.Edwards at gmail.com at ask for a copy
of Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

2005-08-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
 SmartDownload could be analogized to a free neighborhood newspaper,
 readily obtained from a sidewalk box or supermarket counter without
 any exchange with a seller or vender. It is there for the taking.

I hear that (plonked) GNUtian dak continues to exhibit strong symptoms
of incurable cluelessness (typical among GNUtians). Well, for the sake 
of any possible benefit to anyone else, here's some clue: 

http://google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: inhouse forking?

2005-08-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov


John Hasler wrote:
[...]
 No.  In fact, you don't have to make your changes public even if you do
 sell it: you just have to provide the to your customers.

Are you GNUtian or not, Hasler? If yes, you should urgently take the 
FSF's license-quiz http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi (Q6).

Well, I'm just curious what's your total license-quiz score... care 
to share? 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Google not supporting open-standard ?

2005-09-28 Thread Alexander Terekhov


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
 The LZW patent has expired.

See IBM's counterclaims against SCO for unexpired one.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gnu license

2005-11-02 Thread Alexander Terekhov


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I've some questions about gnu license:

Try

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

2005-12-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
[...]
 Make up your mind.

The GNU project is certainly not about public domain/all rights 
abandoned. The FSF's idiotic propaganda aside for a moment, it 
makes it proprietary.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution

2005-12-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
 I guess I should really be having this discusion with the MySQL AB (?),

They will tell you all sorts of myths to scare you into buying their
commercial license which will free you (and your clients) from GNU 
liability. That's the business model.

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


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


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: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?

2006-01-18 Thread Alexander Terekhov


D.C. Parris wrote:
 
 Is this the appropriate list for general GPL discussions? 

You are quite welcome. What's the grief?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?


D.C. Parris wrote:
[...]
 what is the effect of the auto-termination clause?  

Here's what a IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer) said.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00350.html

Basically, just like the rest of the GPL drivel authored by a 
programmer-not-a-lawyer RMS, it has no legal effect whatsoever.

Hope this helps.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?


David Kastrup wrote: ...

Hi dak, nice to see you again. Wanna be replonked for free (until next 
Christmas?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?


D.C. Parris wrote:
[...]
 While I strongly disagree with your opinion of the GPL, I do appreciate the
 link.  It is helpful to understand the role of the auto-termination clause
 (assuming the view expressed is accurate).  I don't care to get into a
 flame war over the legitimacy of the GPL.  It must have at least some
 legitimacy, since its terms have been upheld in more than one case.

Such as... ? Be warned, I'm a profi. misc.int-property added.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Appropriate List for GPL Discussions?


Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
 On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 14:21 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  David Kastrup wrote: ...
 
  Hi dak, nice to see you again. Wanna be replonked for free (until next
  Christmas?
 
 Are you making a threat? I'm a willing witness ;)

Hi mini-RMS, but only as witness (if dak takes my offer). Won't plonk 
you. GPL and copyright proclamations from you are so funny.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Question about GNU Free Document License

2006-01-20 Thread Alexander Terekhov


John Hasler wrote:
[...]
 The license states the conditions under which he, as copyright owner, has
 granted recipients of copies the right to distribute copies.

Recepients of copies have the statutory right to distribute those 
copies. The copyright owner just can't grant it because it's the 
statutory limitation on his exclusive distribution right.

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

2006-01-30 Thread Alexander Terekhov


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: GNU General Public License?


Fung wrote:
 
 You can make profit of the GPL licence, see for example redhat. But you
 should be aware of one thing: using the commoncpp library will probably
 mean you need to license your software under GPL, so the source code
 must be provided.

Sez who?

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU General Public License?


Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html

The funny thing is that the guy pretends to be a sort of anarchist.

In in interview with Spiegel Online Stallman said I tend toward the
left-wing anarchist idea, and to LinuxWorld Today he said I am a sort
of combination between a liberal and a leftist anarchist.

Now,

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/12/283113.html
(The Free Software Movement - Anarchism in Action)


- Crossover

There are currently some points of contact between the free software
movement and the anarchist movement, as well as the wider
anti-capitalist movement. One example is the ActiviX group, who arrange
training days to help activists learn how to use GNU/Linux. There are
also an emerging culture of 'HackLabs' in several European countries,
open computer access in political spaces. One is currently being set up
in Freedom Press book shop in London. Such work should continue and
increase and the connections need to be drawn more. Anarchist theorists
would do well to seriously consider the implications of the movement for
anarchism as a social and industrial theory. For too long anarchist
theorists have had to point to past examples of more libertarian ways of
creating and maintaining complex systems. With the advent of GNU/Linux,
we no longer need to rely on the past alone. Caution should be used in
such analysis. As noted above, the free software movement is not totally
anarchist, nor even fully libertarian. The facts and their implications
should be studied with humility, seeking for learn more than we seek to
teach. Also, we should not be overly concerned with interest shown in
the open source movement by Troyskyist and other left groups. Small
groups of free software programming groups jealously guard their
independence by instinct.

- Our favorite web sites use free software

It is also worth remembering that anarchists and activists in general
use plenty of free software already (though we could stand to use it on
the desktop more). If you are reading this article on enrager.net you
are using free software as you browse, even if you used a Windows or
Apple machine to access the site. You are using GNU/Linux and other free
software every time you use the following web sites (only a few among
thousands): Indymedia UK and international, Infoshop,
flag.blackened.net, AK Press UK. Many of the community based online
software systems, forums and open content packages for web sites are
free software, including the Indymedia code bases.

- Engels' steering a ship argument

In his campaign against anti-authoritarian ideas within the First
International, Engels asked in a letter written in January 1872 how do
these people [the anarchists] propose to run a factory, operate a
railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding
will, without a single management? (15) Anarchists know full well that
the way in which co-ordinated work takes place -authoritarian hierarchy
or by freely co-operating groups electing recallable delegates where
needed- makes all the difference. Now we have in GNU/Linux and the rest
of free software movement many compelling examples of complex systems
that have no leader, no central government or management (Linus may be
the 'dictator' of the Linux kernel, but attempts no domination of other
projects, even if that were feasible, which it is not).

- The contradictory role of big business

Big businesses with a vested interest in GNU/Linux like Sun, HP and IBM
often employ their programmers to adapt it to add a new feature which
will make it more usable with one of their hardware products. The nature
of the GPL, however, means that these modifications and additions must
be shared with the community. Why would large corporations give stuff
away for free? It should be remembered that these are generally
companies who make their money from hardware, not software. Software is
regarded as an expense. Being able to draw on the resources of the
community is a big plus for them, and this is something that the Open
Source movement has often argued to get them on board. This accounts for
the corporate embrace of GNU/Linux and open source in recent years.
Apple's OS X uses as its core the BSD UNIX operating system. However,
because BSD uses a more permissive non-copyleft free software license,
the freeness of BSD did not 'infect' OS X and it remains non-free. The
core of the OS (without the nice graphical Mac interface) is maintained
separately as the free 'Darwin'. This is a good example of why copyleft
should be used to protect common property.

* The Future

So anarchists should realise that although free software pushes the
boundaries of freedom, ultimately, it works within capitalism and could
never 'infect' the whole system. It does nothing about more general
wealth-sharing, decision making in other industries (or even many in its
own), or wider social relations. Although the concept of copyleft

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server


David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
  [...]
  lawfully made, dispose of, possession.  It is clear that this
  applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
  the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself.  For
  those copies, your rights are restricted by the license.  The GPL
  allows you distributing such copies _under_ _the_ _GPL_, _including_
  the source code (or rights to it).  Copyright law does not permit you
  to do any distribution of them without license.
 
  Hey dak, Lee Hollaar the author of
  http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html (I mean his
  treatise, not the Foreword written by the Chief Judge and the Chief
  Intellectual Property Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee)
  told you several times in the past that your understanding of
  first sale is totally wrong. Here's what Lee Hollar who worked
  with the Chief Judge and the Chief Intellectual Property Counsel to
  the Senate Judiciary Committee on Internet, copyright, and patent
  issues as a Committee Fellow had to say about the GNU legal nonsense
  version 3 (note that most of it applies to GNU legal nonsense
  version 2 as well).
 
 You are a practical joker.  Do you even _read_ what you cite?  Hollaar
 is here talking about the right to modify, not the right to copy.  And
 certainly not about first sale.

You're a real idiot.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.int-property/msg/4d2438aa5d80f803

quote author=Hollaar

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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. [quoting Eben Moglen]

That might be true IF she doesn't have any right to act at all except
as the license permits.  But as I have pointed out here and in my
comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case.
United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the
exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including first sale as
covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner
of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use
it.

The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a
quote from Abraham Lincoln:
 How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
 Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

/quote

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...

David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  John Hasler wrote:
  [...]
  No.  You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
  copies of the binaries to.
 
  17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
  WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
  dispose of the possession of that copy.
 
 lawfully made, dispose of, possession.  It is clear that this
 applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
 the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated yourself.  [the 
 license]

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 (about 109): any resale of an illegally 
''pirated'' phonorecord would be an infringement, but the 
disposition of a phonorecord legally made under the compulsory 
licensing provisions of section 115 would not.

DMCA Section 104 Report: (ignoring Red Hat's concerns orticulated 
by Red Hat attorneys during testimony***)

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf

There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
 form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
 DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
 copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
 of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
 floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
 109.

***)  quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-2|3.pdf 

Red Hat, Inc.:

  Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
  impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
  comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
  someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
  are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
  The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
  with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
  licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
  from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
  the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
  and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
  ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
  jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
  licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

  We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
  authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
  lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

Library Associations:

  First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
  result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
  engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
  tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
  owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
  to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
  Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
  on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
  first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
  literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
  provision must be construed in light of its basic purpose
  and should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
  because of changing habits due to new inventions and
  discoveries. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
  151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
  doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
  throughout society.

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

David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Fung wrote:
 
  I am currently doing some research on open source licences and
  while reading the GPL licence the following question arose:
  Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed
  under [whatever]
 
  Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright
  law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work.
 
 Nonsense.  compilation in copyright law and compilation in
 computing are completely different things.

Hey retard, I meant compilation as in copyright law. Once you've 
got a lawfully made copy of a computer program (a set of 
instructions... see the definition) in source code form, you can 
reproduce it in object code form (as an additional copy per 17 USC 
117) using compilation process (as in computing), link it together 
with other stuff and run. It has nothing to do with fair use. 

Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy 
(source code see above) to distribute additional copies (in object
code form see above) along with the copy from which such copies 
were prepared.

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


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
 on.

We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
and achieving pretty good results already. For example,

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

Breaking news. FSF says that the contract controls. 

quote

Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because 
the Court can examine the GPL itself. [T]o the extent that the 
terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the 
complaint, the contract controls.

/quote

Reactions:

-
Re: FSF says that the contract controls
by: day5done01/27/06 04:38 pm
 
The lawyers for the FSF must'a been smokin' the good stuff from 
Merkey's stash.

Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for certain that 
the GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard Stallman has 
clarified that fact at least a hundred times.

Dollar to a dime Eben Moglen fires the lame asses over at the ICE 
MILLER law firm real soon. 
-

-
Re: FSF says that the contract controls
by: day5done

 I'm sure there would be people willing to take you up on that bet
if they thought you'd actually pay. 

If Moglen doesn't fire them he has some serious explaining to do to
thousands of people on why he misled programmers and companies on the
legal nature of the GPL -- he is, after all, a Professor of Law and
lead counsel for the FSF.

This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that
is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden.
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://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html

Since the GPL is now proclaimed a contract, its terms are subject to
interpretation under the common law of *fifty* different state
jurisdictions -- there is no federal common law.

That fact is a real can of worms in its own right. Most states have
their own restraint of trade laws. Linux may face fifty different
Wallace's in fifty different states.

If Wallace lost in Federal Court he could still sue under Indiana law:

IC 24-1-2-1 Illegal combinations; exceptions; offense; defense Sec. 1.
Every scheme, 
contract, or combination in restraint of trade or commerce, ...
-

Furthermore,

-
GPL Hollaaring
by: walter_oak_night01/27/06 03:04 pm
 
ICE on automatic aggregation of software copyrights
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.

Linux kernel v. application
And as the copyright notice in the kernel sources says, user
applications are not subject to the GPL.

Supported by Hollaar:
With dynamically-linked libraries, the application program being
distributed is no longer a compilation that includes the library.
Because the library is not being distributed with the application
program, no permission is needed from the copyright owner of the library
for the distribution to users. Users must, of course, be authorized to
use the library, but if they are owners of a copy of the library, under
Section 117 they can make any adaptations of the library necessary to
use it with the application program.

FSF GPL FAQ
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the
portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the
source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these
versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't
the GPL permit this? .
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc

FAQ as Fact
In 2002, a company named Global Technologies Ltd (now defunct) had
ported some 4.5M lines of GPL/BSD and other open source code to Windows
using ATT Uwin. They claimed less than 500 lines had to be changed and
all changes went back to original authors. The binaries were distributed
from their web site, but one day disappeared. My $50.00 check for a CD
distribution of the binaries and source, which indicated $25 gift to
FSF, was returned with a letter explaining Moglan threatened legal
action for violating the GPL because the code was linked with ATT
uwins proprietary posix.dll that provided the POSIX interface on
windows.

Hollaar disagress
Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library for
its operation is a derivative work of that library. They take

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server


John Hasler wrote:
[...]
 No.  You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
 copies of the binaries to.  

17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED, 
WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise 
dispose of the possession of that copy. 106(3) is severely limited 
by the exception to 106(3) in section 109. The reason why 106(3) 
is listed in 106 is to provide legal basis to punish not only 
somebody who pirates works and who may not even try or want to 
distribute pirated copies, but also somebody who distributes pirated 
copies to the public that were unlawfully made by another. Now, 
GNUtians, you tell me how does that apply to the GPL (not-a-contract
according to the FSF). Neither RMS nor Moglen can explain it. 

Perhaps you can. I doubt it.

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU General Public License?

Hey misc.int-property, enjoy GNUtian view on IP (it indeed is not 
property and belongs to the state _under_ _current_ _laws_).

GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Fung wrote:
 
  [... the GPL ...]
 
  The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU Republic in a nearby
  alternative universe where First Sale is nonexistent, IP is not
  property (it belongs to the state),
 
 Intellectual property indeed is not property and belongs to the
 state _under_ _current_ _laws_.  The originators have _limited_ rights
 for exploiting them, limited in extent and time.  Copyright and
 patents _expire_, not by an act of the state confiscating the said
 intellectual property, but by the state relinquishing his special
 protection for time-limited exclusive exploitation, granted in
 exchange for the act of publishing, passing the work into the public.

You do know that works in public domain are subject to appropriation 
by anyone, eh?

 
  and where distributing software under any license other than the
  GPL (which is akin to a lottery or any other permits from the state
  and is of course not a contract or a property right in the GNU
  Republic) or GPL compatible license (but that's for extra
  regulation fee) is a felony under GNU law.
 
 You are babbling.  Of course you were babbling above as well, but I
 chose to use that as an excuse for showing something people tend not
 to realize.

Well, the GNU Law is about this:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html

RMS: ... the source code might not be available or they might try to 
 use contracts to restrict the users instead. So making software free 
 is not as simple as ending copyright on software: it's amore complex 
 situation than that. In fact, if copyright were simply abolished from 
 software then we would no longer be able to use copyleft to protect 
 the free status of a program but meanwhile the software privateers 
 could use other methods--contracts or withhlding the source to make
 software proprietary. So what would mean is, if we release a free 
 program some greedy bastard could make a modified version and publish 
 just the binaries and make people sign non-disclosure agreements for 
 them. We would no longer have a way to stop them. 

regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?

2006-02-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov


GNUtian John Hasler wrote:
[...]
 The license is a unilateral grant from you to others.  It does not
 bind you in any way.

Only in the GNU Republic. Outside the GNU Republic, IP licenses are 
contracts that bind licensors not to sue licensees for IP infringement.
And licensees are bound by license conditions and covenants. Except
that the contract laws recognize a concept called efficient breach 
which encourages breach of a contract if it's economically efficient 
to do so. Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if
you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to 
compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy interest.

http://sunsite.queensu.ca/localov/dhoucc97/law2.htm
http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/review/Contract/Alpa-1995/alpa2.html

regards,
alexander.

--
This posting sort of infringes the copyright of PTravel. Or not.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
 But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two programs is not
 just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
 copy of the other. 

What do you mean by merge. They remain as two separate computer 
programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No 
protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative 
work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer 
program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you 
with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct 
components.

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


Barry Margolin wrote:
 
 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
  Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Barry Margolin wrote:
  [...]
   But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two programs is not
   just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
   copy of the other.
 
  What do you mean by merge. They remain as two separate computer
  programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
  protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
  work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
  program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
  with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
  components.
 
 Who said combined executable? 

I said.
 
 I'm talking about copying parts of the
 source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
 program C.  

You're talking nonsense. Or, if you like, you're talking marketing.

Go read IBM's GLOSSARY, for example.

Application program
A collection of one or more programs cooperating to achieve
particular objectives, such as inventory control or payroll. 

 An analogy in traditional media would be a collage, I think.

Oh yeah, still can't forget those former sins of yours in grade 
school?

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3d8d2d6ee96a9322

Relax, Barry. Relax.

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


David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  GNUtian logic in action.
 
  GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
 
  Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
   David Kastrup wrote:
  
   Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept)
directly to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code
or object code form (both forms are wildly available).
  
   The mere presence of duplicable material somewhere does not give
   you any automatic right to create copies of it.
  
   If somebody leaves his door open, that does not mean that this
   gives me the right to go inside and take or copy whatever I
   wish.
  
   Go tell this to Honorable ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.
 
  No need to:
 
   http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
  
   Netscape's SmartDownload, ... allows a user to download and use
   the software without taking any action that plainly manifests assent
   to the terms of the associated license ... Netscape argues that the
   mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is
   hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of
   downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement.
   ... Netscape's failure to require users of SmartDownload to
   indicate assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and
   using its software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been
   formed.
 
  Contract.  See?  The GPL explicitly states:
 
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
  signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
  distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
  prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
  modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
  Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
  all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
  the Program or works based on it.
 
  In the court case you cited, the judge decided that if a copyright
  holder makes something available for download without further
  technical measures to announce its licence, then no contract is
  formed and the recipient is merely bound by copyright law if he
  decides to ignore the license.
 
  But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies.
 
  It does. 17 USC 109, idiot.
 
 You are losing it.  You always resort to insults when running out of
 arguments.
 
  See also
 
  http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
 
  There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
  form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
  DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies
  in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a
  digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy
  disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109.
 
 lawfully made.  There is no law that permits you making copies of
 whatever you may come across on the web.  You need the permission of
 the copyright holder.  There is permission implied in the act of
 making the stuff available for download, but it is certainly a stretch
 to assume that this implied permission would cover an unlimited number
 of downloads for the sole purpose of artifically and nominally
 circumventing the restrictions on the number and use of copies for
 _personal_ use that copyright law permits.
 
 In general, courts don't react favorably to trickery intended to
 circumvent the intent of a law.

Handwaving. Go tell it to Microsoft. I'm eagerly awaiting to be sued.
In addition to a copy of winxp64 download (which was meant for you 
my dear dak -- recall it?) that I sold on ebay, the rest (14 copies) 
went on sale recently on debian-legal.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00161.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00177.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00466.html

BTW, consolidated know-how on escaping the GPL can be found in that
Distributing GPL software thread on debian-legal. And it's free as
in beer.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00163.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html

and etc.

Enjoy.

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

GNUtian logic in action.

GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  David Kastrup wrote:
 
  Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
   Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
  
   On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
 But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two
 programs is not just making references, you actually merge
 parts of one program into a copy of the other.
   
What do you mean by merge. They remain as two separate
computer programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under
copyright law. No protected expression was
transformed/modified forming a derivative work. Combined
executable is just an aggregation of many computer program
works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you with
maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
components.
  
   You can't include someone else's book into your own book unless
   they allow so.
  
   One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept)
   directly to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or
   object code form (both forms are wildly available).
 
  The mere presence of duplicable material somewhere does not give
  you any automatic right to create copies of it.
 
  If somebody leaves his door open, that does not mean that this
  gives me the right to go inside and take or copy whatever I wish.
 
  Go tell this to Honorable ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.
 
 No need to:
 
  http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
 
  Netscape's SmartDownload, ... allows a user to download and use
  the software without taking any action that plainly manifests assent
  to the terms of the associated license ... Netscape argues that the
  mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is
  hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of
  downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement.
  ... Netscape's failure to require users of SmartDownload to
  indicate assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and
  using its software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been
  formed.
 
 Contract.  See?  The GPL explicitly states:
 
   5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
 signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
 distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
 prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
 modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
 Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
 all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
 the Program or works based on it.
 
 In the court case you cited, the judge decided that if a copyright
 holder makes something available for download without further
 technical measures to announce its licence, then no contract is formed
 and the recipient is merely bound by copyright law if he decides to
 ignore the license.
 
 But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies.  

It does. 17 USC 109, idiot. See also

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf

There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
 form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
 DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
 copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
 of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
 floppy disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
 109.

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

GNUtian logic in action.

GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
 On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any I accept) directly
  to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
  form (both forms are wildly available).
 
 Of course, you don't have to agree when your rights are increased upon
 copyright law, only when they are decreased. The decree of rights is
 unilateral, you can only abide them or not at all.

What?

 
  Archivers and linkers don't create derivative works.
 
 Yes on the first case, not on the second. In the second case you make a
 work that is the direct combination of two works, without either of
 which nothing exists.
 
 Either you are allowed to combine thus creating a derived work or not at
 all.

When two or more preexisting works are combined to form a new work, 
in copyright law that work is called a compilation  a work formed 
by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data 
that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the 
resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. 
The copyright in the resulting overall computer program comprises the 
copyrights in the preexisting component computer programs and a new 
copyright in the compilation. But that compilation copyright is very 
limited.

There's no exclusive right to prepare compilations -- you just can't 
allow it.

Once you've got a lawfully made copy of a computer program (a set 
of instructions... see the definition) for example in source code 
form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional 
copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing), 
link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per 
statute.

Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy 
(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in 
object code form see above) along with the copy from which such 
copies were prepared.

 
  Nothing is merged in linking software.
 
 Of course not, in the domain of lies, mischiefs and circular
 self-references.

Apart from circular self-references this nicely characterizes the
domain of GNU.

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


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
  But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies.  The
  GPL grants you additional rights.  You are free not to accept those
  additional rights.
 
  quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 [cacd.uscourts.gov]
 
  Adobe characterizes each transaction throughout the entire stream
  of commerce as a license.8 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.
 
  /quote
 
  s/Abobe/FSF
 
 Still confused about the difference license/contract?  

Yep. Totally confused. Illuminate me. Please. 

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 Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
  copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
  link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
  statute.
 
 Folks, read what he points to instead of taking his word.
 
 Alex, you should know that that is about you giving _your_ copy to
 someone else, and not about giving _a_new_copy_ of _your_copy_ to
 someone else.
 
 While on the first case you are right, on the second you made a copy,
 which you can only as long as you respect the conditions stated by the
 author.

-
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies.  If the law requires that
a backup or adapted copy be distributed with the originals, Alexander would
do that and then acquire, at no expense, a new copy.  Rinse lather repeat.

You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.

I'm not aware of an expectation or requirement to accept the GPL before
downloading the software.  Free software is often made available for
downloading without any notice obtained before, during or after the download
that the copies obtained must be deleted if the GPL is not accepted.

Anyone can obtain GPLd software, and provided only that they include source
code, operate a free or paid distribution ftp site in which they allow
GPLd software to be downloaded without restriction.

Isaac
-

The only correction is for an adapted copy to escape the GPL, it requires 
two legal persons and two transfers.

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


Lee Hollaar wrote:
 
 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
 (source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
 object code form see above) along with the copy from which such
 copies were prepared.
 
 That's not really what it says, especially if the copy contains
 modifications. 

My reading of what it says is that if a copy contains modifications 
than it's an adaptation and not an exact copy. I know that 
adaptations may be transferred only with the authorization of the 
copyright owner. I don't think that unmodifed copies in object code 
form fall under adaptations.

-
The Copyright Act defines a computer program as a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result.  17 U.S.C.
§ 101. Computer programs can be expressed in either source
code or object code. Source code is the computer program
code as the programmer writes it, using a particular programming
language. Compendium of Copyright Office Practices,
§ 321.01. Source code is a high level language that people can
readily understand. Object code is the representation of the
program in machine language [binary] . . . which the computer
executes. Id. at § 321.02. Source code usually must be
compiled, or interpreted, into object code before it can be 
executed by a computer. Object code can also be decompiled into
source code. Source code and object code are two representations
of the same computer program. For registration purposes,
the claim is in the computer program rather than in any
particular representation of the program. Id. at § 321.03.
However, source code created by decompiling object code
will not necessarily be identical to the source code that was
compiled to create the object code.
-

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 Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
 
 Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute

The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
copyright owner) is statutory. 17 USC 109. And license-not-a-contract 
fiction just can't interfere with that right. But anyway, if one needs 
to distribute multiple copies (no sources, draconian contractual terms 
that impose forbearance from the GPL via shrink-wrap or something), one 
can simply unrestrictedly download multiple copies (implied license to 
save bandwidth aside for a moment). I keep all my download logs in safe
place. ;-)

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

2006-02-03 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
 OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the
 topic of the thread?  The OP said a derivative work combined from
 software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software
 licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0.  This sounds to me like he's using
 pieces of source code, not combining executables.

Because just like with combined executable, copying source code doesn't 
create a derivative work. If anything, it creates a compilation. When 
you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF), you're 
not creating a derivative work. And the same goes when you put several
pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. Think 
tarball.

 
 
   I'm talking about copying parts of the
   source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
   program C.
 
  You're talking nonsense. Or, if you like, you're talking marketing.
 
 I'm talking about what programmers do when they copy source code to
 create a new program.

Yeah, new program? That new program is nothing but a compilation
(as in copyright law) of multiple computer program works.

 
 It sounds like you're assuming that he's linking a program with a
 library.  I'm not sure how you got that from what he wrote.

See above.

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

2006-02-03 Thread Alexander Terekhov

GNUtian logic in action.

GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
 On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
  
   On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
  
   Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
 
  The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
 
 Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
 _copies_of_your_copy_

Ok. Think of two copies. Try to understand that I've downloaded both 
copies. Downloaded two times. And I didn't click on any I agree. 
As for additional copies of these two copies (apart from 17 USC 117) 
that I can as well make pursuant to the GPL, they also fall under 17 
USC 109 because they are authorized and only contractual covenant
(restriction) can interfere with my right to distribute those copies 
as I see fit. Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for 
certain that the GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard 
Stallman has clarified that fact at least a hundred times. 

 
 And since it's not for lack of information, I can only assume that it's
 either for lack of English Comprehension, because otherwise it would
 have to be malice.

Hey [EMAIL PROTECTED], you are as malice as Mini Me of Doctor Evil 
(except that you are a Mini Me of RMS). Translation: you both are
so amusingly insane that it is really fascinating.

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


David Kastrup wrote: (to uber GNUtian ams)
[...]
 Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about?

Property is theft.

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

GNUtian logic in action.

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
 You can combine software to create both a plain compilation and a 
 derived work.

Only in the GNU Republic.

 I shall not try to draw the line, but I'd put my money on there being more
 derived works than you seem to think.

Yeah, I know.

http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html

[begin textual copying]

July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes


Legal notes

Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying

Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library

Still a derivative work:

Dynamic linking

Distributing only the executable (testtriangle)

Still a derivative work:

Distributing the source code of software which links to a library

when that library is the only software to provide that interface

-
Copyright (C) 2004, Free Software Foundation. Verbatim copying
permitted provided this notice is preserved.

[end textual copying]

I suppose that through textual copying, this message and all 
archives (google's, etc. that now contain and combine it), 
constitute unauthorized (note that only verbatim copying was 
permitted and no right to prepare derivatives was conveyed) 
derived work (i.e. derivative work under GNU law) of the 
FSF's legal notes. I've thoroughly contaminated the Internet. 

Oh my bad. 

 
  When you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF),
  you're not creating a derivative work.
 
 Exactly. There is no creative effort on my part in just putting one after
 the other (except perhaps if the selection of stories in itself has artistic 
 merit).
 
  And the same goes when you put several
  pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. Think
  tarball.
 
 Intentions matter. Putting things in a tar file is usaually with the
 intention of moving them together. Putting them in the same jar file 
 usually means using them together. 

So what? Copyright protects software as literary works (subject 
to the AFC test). Functional and environmental aspects like using 
together, address spaces, enclaves, kernel/user space, and etc. 
are all totally irrelevant.

A jar file can be a single program, 
 combining different works into one derived work.

The copyright law outside the GNU Republic doesn't concern itself 
with single programs. Whatever that is. It's just a bunch of 
literary works to be used in a computer in order to bring about a 
certain result. And a jar is just an archive (apart from optional 
META-INF), my GNUtian friend.

http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/jar/jar.html

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

[... jar ...]

And here comes bloby Eben.

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117tid=123
(Professor Eben Moglen Replies)


2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno 

One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in 
situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually 
modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is 
reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? 
I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with 
my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR 
themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package. 

Eben:

The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the 
rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. 
The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on 
static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your 
code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, 
forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be 
distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL.


IBM: (Tenth Defense)

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.

s/SCO/FSF

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


David Kastrup wrote: ...

Dak, dak, dak. You are losing it. To comrade ams: in recognition of 
this event I'm unplonking you right now (many months before scheduled
unplonk), congrats.

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


Uber GNUtian Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: (to GNUtian dak)
[...]
 No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you.

Erm. I've unplonked you both sometime around last Silvester. Then I've
replonked you, ams. GNUtian dak didn't take my offer of free replonk,
go ask mini-RMS (he volunteered to be a witness).

And now I've unplonked you. I see you had a nice weekend with dak. ;-)

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


Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
 Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control
 how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating
 such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right
 to make and distribute copies that is granted to the copyright holder,

The right to distribute authorized copies is statutory. See 17 USC 109
(it is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the
rule are specified in the statute and not some lay reading of first,
sale, or even first sale). Over here in the EU, that statutory
doctrine is known as copyright exhaustion.

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.

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 Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
  [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...]
 
 I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone
 to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft.

Oh c'mon mini-RMS, you're a rightful co-author.

(Future press conference in Boblingen regarding FSF's anti-copyleft 
conspiracy lawsuit)

Q) Who authored that legal scheme to escape copyleft?

A) You know, rms himself co-authored it. 

(Dead silence in the audience)

 
 Another of your nice works of fraud, Alex?

Objection! See above.

 
  But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't
  contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc.
 
 You hide behind first sale, copyright misuse, and etc, but you
 constantly hide behind the confusion of what you do with _your_copy_ and
 what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_.

Go talk to your doctor, really. Let him hear your answer to this
rather simple question:

Are those _copies_of_your_copy_ AUTHORIZED copies or how not?

Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with 
distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution
doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. 

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/0a794dfd7697e067

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:
[...]
 The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
 explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
 were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?

What they are stating is this: (MS EULA)


* Installation and use.  You may install, use, access,
  display and run one copy of the Product on a single
  computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
  (Workstation Computer).  The Product may not be used
  by more than two (2) processors at  any one time on any
  single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
  of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
  a Device) to connect to the Workstation Computer to
  utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
  Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
  access (including connection sharing and telephony
  services).  The ten connection maximum includes any
  indirect connections made through multiplexing or other
  software or hardware which pools or aggregates
  connections.  Except as otherwise permitted by the
  NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
  features described below, you may not use the Product
  to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
  executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
  nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
  or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
  the Device has a separate license for the Product.   

[...]

* Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
  of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
  server, used only to install or run the Product on your
  other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
  however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
  license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
  from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
  displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
  shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
  Computers.

[...]

 4. TRANSFER-Internal.  You may move the Product to a different
Workstation Computer.  After the transfer, you must
completely remove the Product from the former Workstation
Computer.  Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user.  The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity.  The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment.  Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. 
No Rental.  You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services to third parties with the
Product. 

[...]

 6. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft
may cancel this EULA if you do not abide by the terms and
conditions of this EULA, in which case you must destroy all
copies of the Product and all of its component parts.

[...]

19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual
property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own
the title, copyright, and other intellectual property
rights in the Product.  The Product is licensed, not sold.



Well, of course when you buy it for example in retail (separately 
or in a bundle with a new computer), the product (copy) is sold. 
But the moment you agree to that contract (e.g. when installing 
and pressing something to manifest assent), you give up all your 
rights under 17 USC 109 and 117 (subject to local regulations 
regarding unfair contractual terms), and, to quote the FSF's 
brief in Wallace v. FSF the contract controls.

BTW, given the set-in-stone FSF's stance on legal status of the 
GPL (everybody and his dog knows for certain that the GPL is a 
unilateral-permission-not-a-contract) I have no idea what 
contract the FSF hired lawyers in Indian are talking about. 

Hey mini-RMS, what do you think? C'mon share your thoughts on 
that.

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:

[... FSF: the contract controls ... ]

 I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking.
 But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little
 credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes.

Try http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf.

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 Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with
  distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution
  doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies.
 
 Here you go again, confusing _your_copy_ with _copies_of_your_copy_

Yeah, you're incurable.

 
 plonk

What a tiny plonk you have, mini-RMS. And the whole act lasted less 
than ten minutes?! To doctor, to doctor you should go.

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


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


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


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

2006-02-08 Thread Alexander Terekhov

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

2006-02-08 Thread Alexander Terekhov

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: GPL and other licences


Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
 For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards
 a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for Local Variables:, and
 then deletes any following lines containing mode: or eval:.  I
 extracted the code which did the searching out of an existing function,
 then added the bits to do the deletion.

fancy_file(Alan Mackenzie)
  .locate_backwards_from_end(Local Variables:, 3000)
  .delete_any_following_lines_containing(mode:, eval:);

You grabbed some code for locate_backwards_from_end() and changed it.

I authored delete_any_following_lines().

 
 The resulting function is in no way a compilation - it is a derivative
 of the original function.

The resulting overall program is a compilation of your work and my 
work. Your work (function locate_backwards_from_end() that contains 
someone else's *modified* code) may well be a derivative work. That 
doesn't change the status of the resulting overall program -- it's 
still a compilation.

Got it now?

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: GPL and other licences


Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
 The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available
 in SourceForge) is materially different from the above.  The extracted
 code (what you've called .locate_backwards_from_end) has been
 extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably derived from
 it.

Fine. Let your monstrous function be derived in its entirety. I don't 
write monstrous functions. http://www.terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp 
(all rights reserved). My native language is Russian.

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