Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
Alexander wrote 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. The definitions and philosophy behind software copyright is fundamentally flawed, simply trying to define the basic terminology causes a problem. To show this, following is some definitions that are still correct, but opposing to some of the commonly accepted terminology. Binary code: Everything stored on a computer system. Since binary computers, CAN ONLY contain binary code. Human readable code: Any binary code, displayed to a human such that the human can read that code. i.e. C++, VB, perl, IL, x86asm. Executable code: Code that can be executed by a computer, i.e. VB, perl, IL, x86asm, etc. Computer program: An aggregation of binary code that will perform a specific function when executed by a computer. Derivative program: A computer program with binary code fundamentally similar to an existing program Translating: Converting binary code from one form into another, while still preserving the functionality of the binary code. This includes Compiling and Interpreting. Source code: The binary code that was originally used to create the computer program. This should also be the preferred method of making modifications to the program. Computer programs should not be treaded any differently from normal copyrightable works. If one can copyright a poem that is a mere aggregation of alphabetical letters, then one can copyright a program that is a mere aggregation of binary code. Exception: The simple act of executing binary code, involves some form of code translation. Therefore, the right to translate a program has to be given to anyone that will be executing the code. Jaco Vosloo Application Integrator for .Net Furyx - South Africa Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +27 43 706 2477 Fax: +27 43 706 2612 Cell: +27 83 361 3203 All statements expressed in this message are opinions of the sender, except where stated otherwise. Emails can contain viruses; make sure your system is protected before opening any attached files. -- 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: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
I just noticed that the Supreme Court denied cert in the case. : An interesting case to watch is Liu v. PriceWaterHouse, wherein you might : say the agreement at issue, if validly enforced, is viral as to the : third-party Chinese programmers in a similar way that the GPL might be. : : : See, e.g., the Liu v. PriceWaterHouse case on petition for certiorari to the : U.S. Supreme Court. Liu v. Price Waterhouse, 182 F. Supp.2d 666 (N.D. Ill. : 2001), 64 USPQ2d 1463 (CA 7 2002). : : Rod : : Rod Dixon : Open Source Software Law : Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org : : : : amado.alves wrote: : : : : I sense there are two senses to this word viral. I'm really : : interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL : is : : viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces : derivatives : : to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is : subsumed).* : : Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot. : : : : Ah but you see, the GPL does not FORCE itself. : : : : : : Sorry, I still think GPL forces itself upon distributed derivatives is : a : : true sentence. : : : : If you distribute a work that is a derivative of GPL-licensed : : code, and you do not comply with the GPL, you simply violate : : the license. The copyright holder can then demand a) that you : : comply with the license or b) that you stop distribution of : : his code. The GPL would be viral if you could not choose : : option b). : : : : For me it is. Other words are: infecting (as 'bad' as viral), : : absorbing (better), reciprocating (maybe the best). : : : : The problem with viral and infecting is that they have : : very strong negative connotations, and create an image that : : GPL-licensed code is just as bad as a virus that wipes your : : harddisk. It also creates the impression that any code on : : the same harddisk will somehow automatically become GPL- : : licensed. : : : : It is true that you have to be quite careful when importing : : GPL-licensed code in your project. But this is no different : : from other third party code; you have to study the license, : : figure out the implications and deal with them. If you take : : proprietary code from some vendor, you sometimes also get : : very problematic conditions imposed upon you. : : : : The main problem with the GPL is that it is not very clearly : : written (if you're a lawyer) and the copyright holder(s) are : : typically not available to answer detailed questions. Often : : it is practically impossible to track down all copyright holders : : to get clarification or an exception for your usage. : : : : Arnoud : : : : -- : : Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself : : Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: : http://www.iusmentis.com/ : : -- : : 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 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
I sense there are two senses to this word viral. I'm really interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL is viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces derivatives to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is subsumed).* Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot. Ah but you see, the GPL does not FORCE itself. Sorry, I still think GPL forces itself upon distributed derivatives is a true sentence. If you write a program, only you can determine what license it is released under. If you accidentally insert GPL code in it, your work does not automatically become GPL, nor will you be forced to use the GPL, since you will always have the choice of removing the code you inserted. Irrelevant. The issue is distributed derivatives. The word viral has several negative implications which are false: (a) That it forces itself. (b) That you don't have a choice. (c) That your work might suddenly become GPL without your concent. This is what a virus does. The GPL does not do that. Sorry, this is faulty. For (a) see above. For (b) I do NOT have a choice of license for distributed derivatives of GPLed work. Basically you say I the choice to distribute or not. That is trivial, and not even always true: distribution is a business *imperative*. The meaning of (c) is fuzzy to say the least. The GPL does encourage people to use the GPL license (because if you do you get the right to distribute the code you are interested in). I only need to license if I distribute! But this is not the same thing as being viral... For me it is. Other words are: infecting (as 'bad' as viral), absorbing (better), reciprocating (maybe the best). Thanks. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
amado.alves wrote: I sense there are two senses to this word viral. I'm really interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL is viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces derivatives to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is subsumed).* Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot. Ah but you see, the GPL does not FORCE itself. Sorry, I still think GPL forces itself upon distributed derivatives is a true sentence. If you distribute a work that is a derivative of GPL-licensed code, and you do not comply with the GPL, you simply violate the license. The copyright holder can then demand a) that you comply with the license or b) that you stop distribution of his code. The GPL would be viral if you could not choose option b). For me it is. Other words are: infecting (as 'bad' as viral), absorbing (better), reciprocating (maybe the best). The problem with viral and infecting is that they have very strong negative connotations, and create an image that GPL-licensed code is just as bad as a virus that wipes your harddisk. It also creates the impression that any code on the same harddisk will somehow automatically become GPL- licensed. It is true that you have to be quite careful when importing GPL-licensed code in your project. But this is no different from other third party code; you have to study the license, figure out the implications and deal with them. If you take proprietary code from some vendor, you sometimes also get very problematic conditions imposed upon you. The main problem with the GPL is that it is not very clearly written (if you're a lawyer) and the copyright holder(s) are typically not available to answer detailed questions. Often it is practically impossible to track down all copyright holders to get clarification or an exception for your usage. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
I don't think the word viral describes the process very well. I prefer to use the term reciprocal for licenses (like the GPL and many others) that require licensees to reciprocate for the licensed software by distributing their derivative works under the same license. Reciprocity is a friendly terms; we're all scared of viruses. /Larry -Original Message- From: amado.alves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...) ...The GPL license is not viral... I sense there are two senses to this word viral. I'm really interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL is viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces derivatives to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is subsumed).* Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot. _ *Other open source licenses (not many) are viral in this sense. -- 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: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:44:48AM -, amado.alves wrote: ...The GPL license is not viral... I sense there are two senses to this word viral. I'm really interested in this so I'll appreciate any input. One sense is the GPL is viral because it spreads itself over derivatives i.e. forces derivatives to be distributed under GPL (if distributed at all, that is subsumed).* Is there another sense, perhaps more 'legal'? Thanks a lot. Ah but you see, the GPL does not FORCE itself. If you write a program, only you can determine what license it is released under. If you accidentally insert GPL code in it, your work does not automatically become GPL, nor will you be forced to use the GPL, since you will always have the choice of removing the code you inserted. The word viral has several negative implications which are false: (a) That it forces itself. (b) That you don't have a choice. (c) That your work might suddenly become GPL without your concent. This is what a virus does. The GPL does not do that. The GPL does encourage people to use the GPL license (because if you do you get the right to distribute the code you are interested in). But this is not the same thing as being viral. If I wrote a license that said if you use this license I'll send you $10 would you call it viral? The only way you can call the GPL viral is by saying that anything that encourages its own replication is viral. But that's a stupid definition as it applies to every living being, plus inanimate things like laughter and thermal energy. I hope this makes sense. Cheers, Daniel. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
