and not to promote a commercial product,
I suspect that neither you nor the purported rights owners would have
any traction in court.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is and using it unless
somebody tells you you can't or it's a big deal -- such as including the
NFL logo would be a big deal, including this isn't, makes me rather
uncomfortable.
It is not Debian's problem if you are uncomfortable with legal acts.
[Further FUD snipped.]
Michael Poole
, trademark law narrowly defines restricted
use. See 15 USC 1114 and 15 USC 1125 for details.
It's mostly disappointing.
It is more than disappointing when people attempt FUD, especially in
the face of repeated explanations and corrections from others.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
package? Or should Debian use some new and creative
alternative?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the discussion.
Michael Poole
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:28:42PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
The DFSG supposedly allow users to use Debian-distributed software in
any way they wish. The theme of this thread seems to be that some
people believe run-time linking of an application against a GPLed
.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
have no such
requirement.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from what you describe?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that works with Kaffe?
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Walter Landry writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been explained on debian-legal, the interpretation you propose
would mean that the GPL is a non-DFSG-free license.
Where was that? I have seen no such convincing explanation.
Eclipse compiled against Kaffe
, but
others who contribute to the kernel objected to that practice.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
The gpl-interpreter FAQ addresses the interpreted scripts, not
programs that use the utilities to operate.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is that both cases are mere aggregation.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that is (according to
your argument) based on the GPLed work, and that work is not licensed
according to the GPL. If the collective work Eclipse+Kaffe is
subject to the GPL, the collective work Debian+Linux must also be.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Walter Landry writes:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eclipse is, similarly, not a derivative of Kaffe and by itself is
not subject to the GPL.
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 11:07:37PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The key word is by itself
Walter Landry writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under copyright law, collective works include those that the GPL
refers to as mere aggregation. How do you propose we distinguish
between what the GPL considers mere aggregation and others?
When one work requires the other
, but it is pretty close to how I would distinguish mere
aggregation from other combinations of software.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
redistribution rights, and none of the
modification or other rights listed in the DFSG, software (including
firmware) covered by that license may only go in non-free.
If the rest of the driver software satisfies the DFSG, contrib is the
least controversial place to put it.
Michael Poole
the
same kind of whole work capture effect? PDF may not have the
language flexibility of Java, but it has programmable features.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that both sides give consideration,
and the DFSG generally is about the copyright owner giving to the user
rather than the other way around.)
Michael Poole
[1]- Choice-of-venue requiring a contract that may not be in fact
executed does not diminish the other arguments, since an end-user
defendant
Glenn L McGrath writes:
On 03 Feb 2005 08:28:36 -0500
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several arguments why choice of venue violates the DFSG.
The first, relatively weak (since it is not clearly based in the DFSG)
is that having to defend yourself in a foreign
options. It is likely that the software and
its workings would be considered a trade secret of your employer, and
that you would be barred from creating a work-alike based on what you
did in their employ.)
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
that upstream distributes. There may be no layered
precursor file; the precursor file may no longer exist; or it may be
in a non-free format.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the FSF's interpretation, in part because the FSF wrote the GPL.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
That seems the same as what I said except that the FAQ uses includes
where I used is a derived work of. (-legal went through the mere
aggregation flame war recently, and I would rather not repeat it.)
Michael Poole
to the jurisdiction
of the United States.
For those outside the US's jurisdiction, the copyright license is the
only one relevant to software freedom.
Michael Poole
and multiple) discussions about this topic.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]- http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
[2]- http://www.uspto.gov/main/ccpubguide.htm
[3]- http://www.rcfp.org/news/2004/1209microd.html
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
broad it is.
Because of that, you still need license from the copyright holder to
create a derivative work.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
agrees with your hypothesis that the compiled
program is a derivative work of the source (which I doubt would
happen), and you find some permission outside of the GPL to prepare
that derivative work, you still need permission to copy it further.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
question: is it legal to redistribute the Kylix libraries in binary form?
You would have to find out from Borland whether, and under what terms,
they allow redistribution of their libraries. These are orthogonal to
the GPL's requirements for DBDesigner4, and terms may be incompatible.
Michael
or elaborations to qualify as a derivative work, but
that is different from the specific case you mention.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
occasionally come true -- to expect that courts will
agree with you in the absense of a clear basis in case or statute law.
Claiming he is being presumptuous without supporting that claim does
not help; it makes it seem like you have no better argument than a
belief that you and the FSF share.
Michael
Raul Miller writes:
Then again, as an example of a copyright case where
contract law was held to be irrelevant, consider Huston v. La
Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991).
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, so a French court could claim jurisdiction over a case where
,
the base software license would not need to be modified.
Michael Poole
for Debian, since Debian would not be distributing the
Windows shareware version, but Debian may not want to support software
whose authors do things like X-Chat's maintainer has done.
Michael Poole
maintainer seems to willfully
violate copyrights (not just the copyrights on the patches, but also
those on libraries such as gtk+).
Michael Poole
requirements for redistribution, since
they do not have the source code to rebuild the key-checking code, and
they do not have scripts or directions to build minigtk.dll.
Michael Poole
, the world would be a slightly poorer place.
Michael Poole
programs or CPU-specific
kernels) from being in main because they require non-free microcode.
Michael Poole
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:40:22PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
That doesn't really change the fact that drivers that only work after
pointing it at a non-free data block have a non-free dependency, and
belong in contrib, though.
The driver operates as designed
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not at all. If you fill the block with random data, the driver will
continue to do what you expect and what you can follow by reading its
source code. It is the device that will not perform and that will not
live up
with the firmware, except as an
opaque blob when sending the firmware to the device?
Michael Poole
:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The drivers really do nothing differently based on the firmware[1].
In the sense that providing a -1 is no different from providing a 0,
or in the sense that providing a 100k message is no different from
providing an empty string, sure -- no difference at all
and behavior of everything it distributes. Case in point:
the fairly recent -project discussion along the lines of Reflections
on Trusting Trust and whether it applied to Debian's toolchain.
Michael Poole
observations.
Michael Poole
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
But the functionality of the driver is a function of the functionality
of the device.
The functionality of a program is a function of the functionality of
the compiler that compiles
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the CPU is hardware, so not covered by the DFSoftwareG.
Is the device you mentioned not hardware?
The device is hardware. The software uploaded to control it, from a
file on disk, is software.
Even granting
.
I hoped that he would address the differences in our premises once I
pointed them out; that was why I mentioned that they differed.
Michael Poole
, the software in Debian is not
useful. (gaim is the partial exception, since it talks some protocols
that have server implementations in Debian.)
Michael Poole
Andreas Barth writes:
* Michael Poole ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041028 07:25]:
[...]
I hope you don't really mean it.
I don't really mean it. I think when the dependency is across some
hard interface like the PCI bus, a serial port, or a network, it is
none of Debian's business.
As far as I
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:45:29AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Even granting that, it does not establish a very clear dependency
chain from the firmware to the driver. Is the driver case different
from the various network clients (AIM, Exchange, etc.) in Debian
Raul Miller writes:
Note that we do treat dependencies on software we do not distribute as
real dependencies.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:20:12AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In the goal of seeking consistency, I think this requires mass bug
filing against packages with unmet
Bernhard R. Link writes:
* Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] [041026 19:51]:
The driver contains code to interact with the firmware in operating the
hardware device, just as the program contains code to interact with the
library in performing its function. The driver does not contain all
for removing drivers for
firmware-driven devices can be applied to these other cases. If we
agree that they are applicable to both, we can move on to discussing
whether we *should* apply those arguments to each of those cases.
Michael Poole
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:52:36AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In both the network protocol cases and the unwritable format cases, if
you do not have appropriate non-Debian software, neither the hardware
nor the client (software) do anything useful. I am
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We do it that way because that's the way we do it? The SC is
specifically not limited to software; that was what GR 2004-003 was
about, and that was an editorial change: it was supposed to clarify
the meaning
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 07:43:05PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The details[1] of the proposal that passed are pretty clear: It
removes the word software from a number of places, replacing it with
works, although it replaces software with components in the
first
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 06:50:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
It's true that different firmwares (or bytecodes, or pieces) might satisfy
this, but all that's important is whether there exist at least one of
them which is free and in main. If they're all free
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 08:27:47PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Regardless of whether works and components mean the same as
software, a computer's BIOS is a work, component and software.
Commercial IM and Microsoft Exchange servers are works and software
is a reason
to ignore that dependency, why object to firmwares (or even programs
that require non-free compilers)?
Michael Poole
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 10:05:05PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
BIOSes are in the EPROM case that I've described--part of the hardware,
already present--and go in main.
How does this exception follow from either the SC, DFSG or Policy?
Hardware is not part
, I wish others (Glenn) would stop
using EPROM when they mean something else. Few, if any, consumer
electronics, and probably no motherboards, use an EPROM to hold
program or firmware data. Google can explain the difference between
PROM, EPROM, EEPROM and flash memory.
Michael Poole
Raul Miller writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 08:38:21AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
So not only is there a runtime dependency from the boot loader to the
BIOS, but there is a Build-Depends-like dependency as well. I still
see no conflict with the SC or Policy.
I'm not sure
Glenn Maynard writes:
That does not mean that software freedom should be the only freedom
that Debian pursues, but it does not help to pretend that Free
Software is the same thing as Free License Texts or Free Reference
Documentation or Free Speech.
It does not help to pretend that Free
Francesco Paolo Lovergine writes:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:06:35PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
To adapt an analogy that someone used earlier, when you go to a store,
you might find fonts, images, or other data in a box in the software
section. However, you are not likely to find
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:06:01AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Many of us believe that any string of bits is software, and that the text
of the GPL is software, and so the old SC applied to the GPL text equally
to the new one--but nobody was silly enough to try
Glenn Maynard writes:
I have not yet thought hard about how to break the wording above in
the sense of there being some way to follow it that takes away what I
would call an essential software freedom.
The entire purpose of your proposed wording is to take away an essential
software
Nathanael Nerode writes:
Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently the
caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
There is a specific legislated exemption in copyright law for the copies
made in the course of normal use (or some such), I
Justin Pryzby writes:
I'll mail them today. The UCAR/NCAR routines are:
Copyright (C) 1986 by UCAR
and the LZW compression routine algorithm, which will be allowed in
Debian main shortly has:
Date of Patent: Dec. 10, 1985
Are the UCAR routines copyright of the type
Raul Miller writes:
Given that arbitrary functional modifications would include illegal
activities and arbitrary legal functional modifications would not
include activities which are disallowed by the copyright statement,
and that arbitrary functional modifications which would be legal if it
Adam McKenna writes:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:32:22PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
That would bring me to the conclusion that I must accept the GPL in
order to make a copy of a GPL'd work.
See for example GPL#4:
[ 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
[
Adam McKenna writes:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 07:20:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I'm not sure how you interpret that as allowing modifications for
personal use -- creating a derivative work or other adaptation would
not be an essential step in the utilization of the computer program
(etc
The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
#
# Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright notices)
#
# This work is made available to you under the terms of Version
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or
# extensions to this work which alter its source code become the
# property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for
# inclusion in the work.
What
Humberto Massa writes:
Brazilian copyright law distinguishes between derivative works,
compilation works (in which the organization/selection/disposition of
the contents *is* an intellectual creation on its own), and collective
works (where you just select a load of works and bundle them
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
holder (with some references to
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
believe it goes back to the argument whether the mere aggregation
clause
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:34:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
How are going to use that firmware without the linux kernel
Joe Wreschnig writes:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
copyright notices
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:25:17PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
How to use it without Linux? There is more than one operating system
in the world. At least a few of them (including Linux) provide more
than one way to load firmware to a device, although
Raul Miller writes:
It's a compilation work.
[Some people might think that compilation and aggregation are the
same thing -- but the GPL goes to great lengths to specify that it does
apply where the compilation is a program and not where the compilation
is not a program.]
I think you are
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
Program, it refers to any program or other work licensed under the
GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
derivative
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
ls source.
I disagree here. Why do you claim that is derivative work? Note
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what it says?).
You seem to be ignoring
Joe Wreschnig writes:
I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
times an identifier is used, count the number of lines,
Frank Küster writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
[...]
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant
Raul Miller writes:
Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
into the kernel.
According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective work
Joe Moore writes:
Michael Poole wrote:
See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
mechanical (non-creative, ergo non
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The installer can be GPLed, sure. Why shouldn't it be? You will
likely run into other copyright issues because you do not have
permission to redistribute Microsoft Word like that, but it is
irrelevant to the GPLness of the installer.
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
derivative works from the
Alexander Cherepanov writes:
Look, it explicitly mentions a work containing the Program. The
language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that work based
on the Program is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
the original work, be it a derived work, a compilation, or
Raul Miller writes:
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
The usual contention is that having some helper function load the
William Lee Irwin III writes:
I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct: DFSG
requires that anything without source be removed. As far
Josh Triplett writes:
Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
are distributed on a volume of a storage or distribution medium.
Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
They are part of a Debian system. That makes them neither
Patrick Herzig writes:
The question is if the Linux kernel itself can be interpreted as being a
storage or distribution medium. Storage or distribution of binary
blobs is at least not the primary purpose of the Linux kernel as it
would be much easier to just store or distribute them on tape.
Michael Poole writes:
What does the primary purpose have anything to do with it? When I buy
a new computer, I do it because I want the functionality it offers --
not because it is a distribution medium for software.
To tie that into GPL: Does that mean that if I buy a machine
pre-installed
requirements.
Michael Poole
1 - 100 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
