Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: [...] and I can tell you that anyone with even a little skill to perform research can find out that Mr. Moen is at best deeply mistaken. In what way? Please be specific about which bits of research refute which of Mr. Moen's claims. May I suggest that you finally do your own research, Mr. Nelson? What did you find apart from Mr. Moen's nonsense page? ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: [...] a fallback permissive licence, the document's fundamental reason for existing is foolhardy: the delusional belief that creative works can be safely magicked into the public domain despite a worldwide copyright regime, and the equally delusional belief that it's even desirable to try (and thereby, among other problems, have no protection against warranty claims). http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html Placing documents into the public domain Most rights can be voluntarily abandoned (waived) by the owner of the rights. Legislators can go to extra effort to create rights that can't be abandoned, but usually they don't do this. In particular, you can voluntarily abandon your United States copyrights: It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). Note for people not familiar with legal citations: After a District Court makes its decision in a United States court case, the losing party can appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals that supervises the district court. These Circuit Courts of Appeals are manned by about 200 of the nation's most experienced judges. Each appeal is heard by three of these appellate judges; for example, the Micro-Star v. Formgen appeal was heard by Alex Kozinski, David R. Thompson, and Stephen S. Trott. Judge Kozinski, with agreement from the other two judges, wrote the decision in the case (in 1998). My quote is from Judge Kozinski's decision. Does the public domain exist in Europe too? Yes. You can voluntarily abandon your European copyrights. You can't abandon certain reputation rights (such as the right to stop people from removing your name from your work), but you can abandon your copyrights. How do I place my work into the public domain? The normal way to abandon a copyright is to make a clear written dedication of the work to the public domain. For example: Most documents have a conventional location for a copyright notice (e.g., the bottom of page 1 of a scientific paper). You can write Public domain in this location rather than Copyright 2005, Copyright 2006, etc. This, by itself, clearly satisfies the overt act test. You can write a subsequent document saying I hereby place my paper `On The Origin Of Species' into the public domain. This, by itself, clearly satisfies the overt act test. How do courts resolve disputes over public-domain status? The Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions, 2007 edition, Section 17.19, states a model for the text that courts give to juries: 17.19 COPYRIGHT - AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - ABANDONMENT The defendant contends that a copyright does not exist in the plaintiff's work because the plaintiff abandoned the copyright. The plaintiff cannot claim ownership of the copyright if it was abandoned. In order to show abandonment, the defendant has the burden of proving each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. the plaintiff intended to surrender [ownership] rights in the work; and 2. an act by the plaintiff evidencing that intent. Mere inaction [, or publication without a copyright notice,] does not constitute abandonment of the copyright; however, [this may be a factor] [these may be factors] for you to consider in determining whether the plaintiff has abandoned the copyright. If you find that the plaintiff has proved [his] [her] [its] claim[s] in accordance with Instruction[s] [insert cross reference to the pertinent instructions on the plaintiff's theory of infringement], your verdict should be for the plaintiff, unless you find that the defendant has proved each of the elements of this affirmative defense, in which event your verdict should be for the defendant. See also Section 20.19 in the 2001 edition. Isn't it impossible to place work into the public domain? Lawrence Rosen is a lawyer who makes money helping people create, and comply with, complicated copying conditions. In an essay titled Why the public domain isn't a license, Rosen claims that a clear written dedication of a copyrighted work to the public domain doesn't actually abandon copyright. In particular, Rosen claims that Intellectual property enters the public domain only when it grows old and that There is no mechanism in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain. If you see a Ninth Circuit panel writing It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned, and then a lawyer making the opposite claim, you probably expect the lawyer to explain the contradiction. Rosen doesn't do this. In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware that he's contradicting anybody, let alone three federal judges and the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: [...] Someone in the other thread raised the points of first sale and patent exhaustion, but by the same token I doubt if pulling source code off a website counts as a sale: there is neither an express nor an implied contract here, I'd say. First sale in the copyright context is just a shorthand for the judicially-created doctrine that is now codified in 17 USC 109. It does not require a sale but applies to anyone who is the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title. You can become the lawful owner of a copy by gift or similar things that are not a sale. And if You are the lawful owner, You can dispose of your copy in any way You want, except for rental in the case of phonorecords or most computer programs, as far as 17 USC is concerned. regards, alexander. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: [Moving this back over to license-discuss where it _still_ belongs, thank you.] Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): [paring the distribution list] Previously CC'd to Basingstoke and back, I wouldn't doubt. For the record: I've simply followed suggestion from my gmail (https://mail.google.com/mail) interface window saying: Consider including: OSI Board OSI License Review and clicked on the links. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: [...] I think this language is much too strong. It's true that there is no treaty or statutory language allowing abandonment, ... Certainly there is statutory language, e.g.: http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks Executive Summary Introduction The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) directed the Copyright Office to conduct a study to assess for Congress the impact of the waiver provisions contained in that legislation. On December 1, 1992, the Copyright Office submitted to Congress an Interim Report summarizing the responses to its earlier Request for Information and outlining other proposed inquiries and avenues of research it would undertake on this question. This final report represents the completed Office study responsive to Congress' request. I. THE VISUAL ARTISTS RIGHTS ACT OF 1990 In 1990, Congress for the first time legislated limited moral rights of attribution and integrity to authors of narrowly defined works of visual arts. These rights, following the model suggested in the international Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, mirror rights granted to authors by most industrialized nations of the world. They guarantee to authors of so-called fine arts and exhibition photographs the right to claim or disclaim authorship in a work; limited rights to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification of a work; and the right, under some circumstances, to prevent destruction of a work that is incorporated into a building. After hearing testimony from artists' representatives, commercial users and other interested parties, Congress determined that the artists' rights should not be absolute, but that they should be tempered by commercial realities, provided that provisions were enacted to insulate authors from being unduly influenced to give away their new-found rights. Thus, the legislation provides for waiver of these moral rights, but only by a signed, written agreement specifying the work and the precise uses to which a waiver applies. ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A Transfer and Waiver.— (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors. (2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] First Sale in Europe (upcoming preliminary ruling)
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Alexander Terekhov alexander.terek...@gmail.com wrote: This may be of interest to lawyers and non-lawyers on these (license-rev...@opensource.org, license-discuss@opensource.org, bo...@opensource.org) lists: The European Court of Justice, upcoming preliminary ruling on software first sale: https://emeapressoffice.oracle.com/Press-Releases/Bundesgerichtshof-legt-Frage-der-Zul%C3%A4ssigkeit-des-Handels-mit-gebrauchten-Softwarelizenzen-dem-Europ%C3%A4ischen-Gerichtshof-vor-1a3d.aspx http://www.usedsoft.com/images/pdf/presseinfo/usedSoft_PM_usedSoft_saniert_Final_120202.pdf http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/policy-information/ecj/ecj-2011/ecj-2011-c12811.htm http://www.golem.de/news/eugh-wilder-schlagabtausch-um-gebrauchte-softwarelizenzen-1203-90303.html EuGH Wilder Schlagabtausch um gebrauchte Softwarelizenzen Oracle und Usedsoft wollten eine Entscheidung darüber, ob gebrauchte Downloadsoftware ohne Zustimmung des Herstellers weiterverbreitet werden darf. Doch es kam anders. Oracle und Usedsoft haben am 6. März 2012 vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof ihre Positionen zum Vertrieb gebrauchter Software dargelegt. Wie eine Sprecherin von FPS Rechtsanwälte Notare Golem.de erklärte, kam es aber zu keiner Entscheidung. Es sollte eine Entscheidung fallen, aber es kam nur zu einer Anhörung. Der Generalanwalt will seinen Schlussantrag am 24. April 2012 stellen. Mit dem Urteil ist erst einige Monate später zu rechnen. Eine Entscheidung werde richtungsweisenden Charakter für das seit Jahren umstrittene Marktfeld haben, so die Anwälte. Es geht darum, ob gebrauchte Software, die per Download zur Verfügung gestellt wird, ohne Zustimmung des Herstellers weiterverbreitet werden darf. Oracle hat den inzwischen insolventen Münchner Gebrauchtsoftwarehändler HHS Usedsoft verklagt. Usedsoft warb damit, Lizenzen für gebrauchte Oracle-Software anzubieten. Die Lizenzbedingungen von Oracle verbieten aber eine Weitergabe der Nutzungsrechte. Die Vorinstanzen haben diese Weitergabeverbote für wirksam erklärt und in dem Angebot von Usedsoft eine Verletzung der Urheberrechte Oracles gesehen. Auf die Revision von Usedsoft hat der Bundesgerichtshof das Verfahren ausgesetzt und dem EuGH Fragen zur Auslegung des Rechtsschutzes von Computerprogrammen zur Entscheidung vorgelegt (Az. C-128/11). Anschließend fällt der Bundesgerichtshof auf Grundlage des EuGH-Spruchs das letztinstanzliche Urteil. Oracle spricht von Schwarzmarktmodell Usedsoft legte die Anhörung für sich aus und erklärte: Oracle musste heute vor dem EuGH eine entscheidende Rechtsposition aufgeben: Es bestehe kein Unterschied, ob die Software per Datenträger oder über das Internet vertrieben werde; beide Wege führten zum selben Ergebnis, gab die Oracle-Anwältin zu. Usedsoft-Anwalt Andreas Meisterernst hatte in seinem Plädoyer betont, dass Computerprogramme juristisch gesehen Sachen seien. Körperliche und Onlineübertragung seien substanziell äquivalent. Die Trennung der verschiedenen Vertriebswege sei durch Oracle künstlich erfolgt, um den Gebrauchtmarkt zu verhindern. Dies sei jedoch mit dem im EU-Recht verbindlich verankerten Erschöpfungsgrundsatz nicht vereinbar. Karl Cox, European Vice President für Public Policy von Oracle, hielt dagegen: Mit diesem Schwarzmarktmodell gibt es einige Probleme. Mit dem Angebot von Second-Hand-Software auf dem Schwarzmarkt durch zweifelhafte Händler werden Kunden betrogen. Anders als sie erwarten, erhalten sie Software ohne das Recht auf Garantie, Support, Bug Fixes und After Sales Service. In fast allen Fällen kauften sie damit nicht, was sie glaubten zu kaufen. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: KDE violates IBM patent
Where do we go to get our license? http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/contact I'd guess. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL, derivative works and C++ templates
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] boost (http://www.boost.org/) or even portions of GNU libstdc++? http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64361.php http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64381.php http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64388.php boost-ly y'rs, regards, alexander. -- // IANAL; my own opinions; and in no way reflect // official opinion or policy of IBM Corp. #include disclaim.er -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: [off-band] Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license exception
Read the GPL section 1. Read also creativecommons.org's share-alike licenses. Finally, do me a favor and, in kinda spirit of the above mentioned section, please post the entire message of mine (including disclaimer) to the list. You can remove [off-band] prefix from the subject (given that you've already chosen to ignore it). regards, alexander. To: Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [off-band] Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license exception Alexander Terekhov scripsit: The copyright law does NOT establish exclusive right to combine works. FSF's theory of derivative works (just like the sort of FSF-inspired SCO's theory of derivative works) is total crap. If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money publishing books that contain reprints of stories and articles from magazines without paying royalties to the authors of those stories and articles. Send us an email from the honor farm. -- Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and when his time comes I shall http://www.reutershealth.com buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: [...] moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB. Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm See also http://lwn.net/2001/1108. (License agreements and first sale doctrine) Here's the ruling: http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2 regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Source Distribution License
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: [...] Having said that, Alexander's mistake appears to be ... My mistake was the omission of reference (and context) to the source of my comment. http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise26.html (VI.B. Source Code and Object Code) quote Even though source code and object code are distinct, it is still useful to maintain the concept that the source code and the object code are just different forms of the same copyrighted work. The Copyright Office regards the source code and object code as equivalent for purposes of registration. In fact, it generally requires a deposit of at least a portion of the source code (generally the first and last 25 pages - see their Circular 61) and questionsany registration that includes only object code. Where an applicant is unable or unwilling to deposit source code, he/she must state in writing that the work as deposited in object code contains copyrightable authorship. The Office will send a letter stating that registration has been made under its rule of doubt and warning that it has not determined the existence of copyrightable authorship. ... /quote regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Source Distribution License
Mahesh T. Pai wrote: [...] General consensus is that binaries are modified/derived versions of sources. AFAIK, The U.S. copyright office doesn't agree (the copyright office regards the source code and object code as equivalent for purposes of registration). regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] A number of people have argued that if the only implementation of an API is under the GPL, and if the API is not independently described, nor managed by a standards organization, then writing to that API is, in effect, creating a derived work of the software which implements the API. Look at your Linux CD (or Hurd-based something for that matter). The LGPL'd glibc IS linked with the GPL'd kernel(s). It is basically a plug in thing with respect to the kernel(s) (it IS inherently kernel specific stuff). Many of those internal kernel interfaces are neither independently described, nor managed by a standards organization... yet nobody's suing the distributors. Amazing. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [... COPYING*** file ...] http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt http://google.com/groups?threadm=YPep.5Y5.21%40gated-at.bofh.it (Read the entire thread -- this is real fun ;-) ) regards, alexander. ***) http://google.com/groups?selm=11ljP-5SN-21%40gated-at.bofh.it -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: FSF list Apache License, Version 2.0 as GPL-incompatible
http://google.com/search?q=The+GPL+is+not+Compatible+with+itself; regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: [...] Courts don't issue advisory opinions. ... Okay. For the sake of any possible benefit to anyone else who cares, here's some stuff that I think is rather interesting (and highly entertaining ;-) ) reading. Note: follow the links/see the entire context. A) http://tinyurl.com/2f96c quote I hate to have to play this role with a fellow hacker, but... If you don't change to using the GPL, then you'll have to stop using readline. Readline's terms say that the whole program has to be under the GPL, and just having the user do the link doesn't change this. If the program is designed to run with readline as a part, then readline is a part of it. [...] The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part. I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be subterfuges and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is really one program, rather than how it is labeled. /quote B) http://tinyurl.com/2syev quote RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our licenses say, they are operative only for works that are derivative of our code. /quote C) http://tinyurl.com/33na5 quote Feel free to post/add this. I wrote it some time ago for a corporate lawyer who wondered what the GPL exception was. Names and companies removed not because I think they are ashamed, but because I don't want people to read too much into them. Linus /quote D) http://www.oksid.ch/license/rms.html quote Here is a copy of a discussion that I had with RMS about the GPL. This was a private discussion, because RMS has rejected my proposal to talk about it on gnu.misc.discuss. That's the reason why I have removed all RMS's answers. [...] Hello, I would like to have your opinion about this article : http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6366 The official FSF's opinion is OSI is wrong. Do you have a personal opinion about that ? Maybe can we talk about it on gnu.misc.discuss ? [...] Does it mean that all Solaris programs are copyrighted by SUN ? Line removed Line removed Line removed Line removed You confirm what I'm thinking : you don't have any valid arguments. /quote regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1
Ben Reser wrote: [...] But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license that includes an indemnification clause. Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4? regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Ann W. Harrison wrote: [...] In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins. To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide for Version 8. To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation doesn't make this whole book [just like the executable] a derivative work of its components. I tend to think that executables are like Java JARs (JARs are simple archives of java classes files and any other data stuff). I just can't see how a copyright in one Java class can affect other classes (even if something is inherited/composed/linked with the other(s)). regards, alexander. P.S. You might want to take a look at the CPL FAQ (Q15 and Q19). Eclipe.org legal FAQ is also worth reading. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Err. Eclipe.org legal FAQ I meant http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html. To: Ann W. Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: Initial Developer's Public License Ann W. Harrison wrote: [...] In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins. To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide for Version 8. To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015 To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation doesn't make this whole book [just like the executable] a derivative work of its components. I tend to think that executables are like Java JARs (JARs are simple archives of java classes files and any other data stuff). I just can't see how a copyright in one Java class can affect other classes (even if something is inherited/composed/linked with the other(s)). regards, alexander. P.S. You might want to take a look at the CPL FAQ (Q15 and Q19). Eclipe.org legal FAQ is also worth reading. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
John Cowan wrote: [...] Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers break up and redistribute the individual object files into different regions of the executable. Do you seriously believe that such details/linking analysis [whether this or that linker redistributes the individual object files into different regions, etc.] matters? C'mon, RMS is right: it makes no difference whether linking is static or dynamic. Neither constitutes creation of derivative work, I think/hope. I may be wrong, of course. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in the link. ... With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking into court. It could be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action, oder? Just an idea. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Initial Developer's Public License
Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] Who would benefit from taking such an action? The Global Economy, of course. For a free software organization, the upside is minimal, and the downside is severe. Really? I see nothing wrong if a free software organization would have to adopt some EULA (to restrict the use of free software). My, what a mess. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
John Cowan wrote: Alexander Terekhov scripsit: Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine a computer (interpreter) that can run program tarballs. Why simple addition of an intermediate step (required to run the program) makes something a derivative work? Wouldn't that mean that I'll need your permission to use this or that compiler (in order to prepare derivative work)? A compiled program is a derivative work of the source code because it is the result of a transformation of that source code, just as much as if natural-language text in Polish had been translated to French. Note that www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp quote A translation is a rendering of a work from one language to another, as, for example, a work translated from Russian into French, or from German into English. However, transliterations and similar processes by which letters or sounds from one alphabet are converted to another are not copyrightable since the conversion is merely a mechanical act. Thus, merely changing a work from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet would not be copyrightable. /quote To me, compilers (and tools like http://world.altavista.com) do nothing but transliteration, not translation in the legal sense. I may be wrong, of course. If there is no compiled version, and you interpret the source code directly, then there certainly is no derivative work. I think the same applies to the compiled program. Conversion by mere mechanical act doesn't constitute creation of derivative work. regards, alexander. To: Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL Alexander Terekhov scripsit: Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine a computer (interpreter) that can run program tarballs. Why simple addition of an intermediate step (required to run the program) makes something a derivative work? Wouldn't that mean that I'll need your permission to use this or that compiler (in order to prepare derivative work)? A compiled program is a derivative work of the source code because it is the result of a transformation of that source code, just as much as if natural-language text in Polish had been translated to French. If there is no compiled version, and you interpret the source code directly, then there certainly is no derivative work. If the code is Open Source, then of course you don't need my permission to compile it, as that is implied in the general permission to make copies and derivative works that all Open Source programs must have by the OSD. -- Henry S. Thompson said, / Syntactic, structural, John Cowan Value constraints we / Express on the fly. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon St. Laurent: Your / Incomprehensible http://www.reutershealth.com Abracadabralike / schemas must die!http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
John Cowan wrote: [...] Questionless. But machines don't compile code, people use machines to compile code. Similarly, you can use the GIMP to colorize a photograph (thus creating a derivative work), Absent some additional creative input (e.g. selection of color) from human being, I wouldn't consider it a derivative work. I don't think that my screen saver which does pretty funny transformations of screen pictures creates any derivative works. (work-for-hire? slavery? oh-my-god! ;-) ) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL
John Cowan wrote: [...] A tarball that contains works by various authors is a compilation work; a compiled program made from that tarball is a derivative work of the individual files of the tarball, ... Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine a computer (interpreter) that can run program tarballs. Why simple addition of an intermediate step (required to run the program) makes something a derivative work? Wouldn't that mean that I'll need your permission to use this or that compiler (in order to prepare derivative work)? regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Robert Osfield wrote: [...] vulnerabilities and risks to our livelihood. If you don't intend to eliminate all IP laws (as an ultimate solution to the problem of vulnerabilities and risks), then something like www.pubpat.org is the way to go, I think. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source
Ken Brown wrote: [...] I am really interested in this stuff. First all, I have to say that I suspect a tad bit of paranoia in the reporting about what's happening overseas. What sources are you quoting that talk about criminalization for patent infringement? Sources in opposition to the following proposal for a directive (without later amendments), I guess. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003_0046en01.pdf (see Article 20) I'd like to read that stuff. Read also this: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20031126/498789en.pdf (see Amendment 2 and Amendment 27) I may be missing and/or misunderstanding something, of course. Well, http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise16.html (II.L.4. Criminal Infringement) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [... questions ...] http://google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10109131121160.13573-10%40calcutta.flora.ca (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) [...] In order for us to move forward we need to reject the concept of ideas as property [...] You know, rather than asking questions you should have simply posted http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html and be done with it. I, for one, don't share your beliefs, obviously. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Copyright law on the expression ... protects ... Right, *expression*. And that's why patents are your friends. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg5.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg7.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg8.html IANALBIPOOTN, sort of. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with. Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3 and see also http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Section10.txt), I've found the following: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsrp/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml [...] IBM will, upon written request, provide a nonexclusive, royalty free patent license, with other reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, for those patents issued to IBM which contain claims essential, in IBM's judgment, to implementations of the Specification and for which IBM is able to provide patent licenses (including patents issuing on the published patent applications disclosed above), for implementing the Specification. This patent license is available to all entities. If a party requesting a patent license also has claims essential to the implementation of the Specification (hereafter Requestor Claims), IBM will grant this patent license only if the recipient, in return, will grant IBM a reciprocal license, with substantially identical terms and conditions, under the Requestor's Claims. If a party has a license with respect to IBM Essential Claims and acquires, by any means, one or more Requestor Claims and refuses to grant IBM a reciprocal license (with substantially identical terms and conditions) under such Requestor Claims, IBM may suspend or revoke the license IBM granted to such party. Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: in the other thread [...] industry standard software. I would welcome IBM's commitment to THAT goal as well. This can perhaps be accomplished if IBM and other companies actively support open-source-friendly patent policies for standards organizations similar to that adopted by W3C, an effort that IBM has conspicuously refused to make outside of W3C. Well, here's an example that has really nothing to do with W3C. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/meeting-minutes/02-04-18.html [...] On the patent Cowlishaw: - It's normal business practice. - Benefit: Could make the encoding public early on. - Problem: Does it stop necessary support? - RAND licensing it typical, but because it's an encoding, it's more valuable that it's used at all. Delp: This has to get through parent committees. Cowlishaw: At a minimum, do the base requirement for IEEE. Will look into royalty free licensing. This is about http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal (General Decimal Arithmetic) and IBM's US Patents 6,437,715/6,525,679 (equivalents in Europe and Japan aside for a moment), I guess. Now, here's the latest: http://google.com/groups?selm=clcm-20031117-0011%40plethora.net [...] IBM has already written the necessary formal letter to the IEEE stating that this will be Royalty Free for implementers of the standard (rather than RAND), though RAND is permitted by IEEE rules. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing the rhetoric of technology neutrality that is the most common political phrase used against Open Source software. The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than laws, acts of parliament or Roberts Rules are a 'technology'. You're free to believe in whatever you want... just try to keep in mind the following: http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/ippd/softpat/1420.htm [...] a computer program may or may not have a technical character. What is decisive is whether the program in question makes a technical contribution to the state of the art because it is this which lends a technical character to it. This is an important distinction. And, perhaps, also this: http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf (see 3.4 Patents Are Your Friends) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy
Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: [...] There is also a current conflict in open source licensing circles about how IBM and other companies use their patents for defensive purposes, with important implications for open source software. [See thread termination with unrelated trigger considered harmful on both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you have a link? regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?
Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar discussion with IBM? Well, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php and, perhaps, also http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/comp/ibm.pdf [...] IBM has an open patent licensing policy under which we are prepared to licence our patents on a non-discriminatory world-wide basis. Moreover, IBM licences on a royalty-free basis the patents that are necessarily implemented by the use or sale of our open source contributions, a policy that has been endorsed by the Open Source Initiative. regards, alexander. P.S. europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indprop/comp/eicta.pdf -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
www.fsf.org/licenses/NYC_Seminars_Jan2004.html
The following caught my attention. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/200104_seminar.html quote The LGPL is a scaled back version of GPL, designed specifically to allow creation of a very well-defined class of proprietary derivative works. [...] We introduce the two classes of derivative works covered by LGPL, works that use the library and works based on the library, and give some concrete examples of what proprietary derivative works are prohibited and permitted when basing the software on an LGPL'd work. /quote http://www.fsf.org/licenses/210104_seminar.html quote * GPL Violation Case Study C In this case study, we present a violation where an entire embedded GNU/Linux distribution was included in a consumer electronic device. We consider the problems faced regarding kernel modules for device drivers for government-regulated hardware, and cases where both an upstream provider and a downstream distributor are in violation on separate matters. /quote regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License
Patranun Limudomporn wrote: [...] Also, short name of CUA Office Public License is CPL not CUA So go ahead with the CPL (the real one). ;-) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
John Cowan wrote: [...] You can't compare property in physical things directly to its copyright. If you replace the car by a detailed description of it (#1), and incorporate into that a detailed description of the gas pedal (#2) that has already been written, then #1 is indeed a derivative work of #2. I don't think so. Such aggregated work (technical specification) is a compilation, not a derivative work, AFAIK. Now, going back to software, http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html (see VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations) Well, Lee Hollaar (see treatise2.html) also wrote this: quote source=ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by Microsoft may not violate copyright law, and certainly not because of any integrity of the work argument. The United States recognizes moral rights of attribution and integrity only for works of visual art in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies. (See 17 U.S.C. 106A and the definition of work of visual art in 17 U.S.C. 101.) A bookstore can replace the last chapter of a mystery novel without infringing its copyright, as long as they are not reprinting the other chapters but are simply removing the last chapter and replacing it with an alternative one, but must not pass the book off as the original. Having a copyright in a work does not give that copyright owner unlimited freedom in the terms he can impose. /quote To me, the GPL does allow reprinting (that's section 1). So any alternative stuff can be added and distributed together with the original stuff. And, of course, the alternative added stuff doesn't need to be under the GPL as long as the added stuff is NOT a derivative work of the GPL'd thing (read: was prepared without copying any protected elements from the GPL'd thing [clean room] or simply doesn't contain them at all being a completely different [new] functional part of a whole work). www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq.html quote Q: When I incorporate a portion of a Program licensed under the CPL into my own proprietary product distributed in object code form, can I use a single license for the full product, in other words, covering the portion of the Program plus my own code? A: Yes. The object code for the product may be distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL portion and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL. [...] Q: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the Program, must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with the terms of the CPL? A: No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. /quote regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
John Cowan wrote: [...] computer scientist (HINAL) http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html [...] Added material is not itself a derivative work of the GPL'd thing, obviously. A binary, however, which combines them into a single object, probably is. I don't think so. I think that source code and the object code are just different forms of the same copyrighted work. I think that neither static nor dynamic linking constitutes creation of derivative work. Finally, I personally think that all those FSF myths (incompatible licenses, etc.) are laughable and won't stand in court. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Clarification of GPL
Mahesh T. Pai wrote: [...] Regarding legal binding -- In all these years, only the SCO has been silly enough to question its bindingness. OTOH, SCO is probably in full agreement with Linus on this: groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZhWT-39U-3%40gated-at.bofh.it quote Yes, but they will cite the prohibition against *creating* derived works. So? The same prohibition exists with the GPL. You are not allowed to create and distribute a derived work unless it is GPL'd. I don't see what you are arguing against. It is very clear: a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel by default. End of story. You can then try to prove (through development history etc) that there would be major reasons why it's not really derived. /quote Now replace kernel with SysV UNIX and GPL with confidential (OCO or something like that). How nice. regards, alexander. P.S. www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html quote GPL GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
