Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the DFSG and the GPL it does. Saying You may not
distribute this work along with a frame designed to hold it violates
DFSG 1.
But saying You may only distribute this work with a frame designed to
hold it if that frame is freely distributed is
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But in the case of the DFSG and the GPL it does. Saying You may not
distribute this work along with a frame designed to hold it violates
DFSG 1.
But saying You may only distribute this work with a frame designed
to
hold
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:51:34AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A compiler can only perform a transformation from source to object form
programmed into it by its creators; it is neither an author nor capable
of creativity; it can this not produce an original work of authorship or
thus a
Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Actually, I've never heard the FSF claim that the _source_code_ of a
program using a (black-box) library is derived from the library. What
it claims is that the executable is derived from both,
Maybe there is some confusion here between derived in everyday
language
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in there,
it looks nice, that's probably not derivative. But if I bolt the two
paintings together, and ship
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:37:08AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in there,
it looks nice, that's
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in there,
it looks nice, that's probably not derivative. But if I bolt the two
Andrew Suffield wrote:
This does appear intuitively to be the correct answer for the case
where two otherwise non-derivative works are combined into a single
binary. They don't magically become derivatives, invoking that clause
of the GPL, but you still have to follow its rules for binary
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Compare, for example, a painting. If I make a painting with a 5' by
3' hole in it, that is not derivative of Starry Night.
Even if I paint in complementary art such that if you put SN in
there,
it looks nice, that's
Henning Makholm (with my emphasis):
If library L provides to program P an well-defined generic service
with a simple black-box interface, and it is provided in a way that is
essentially independent that the client is P rather than an unrelated
program Q, then I think it is very hard to argue
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If there is -- if Wontshare in some way tries to enforce the use of
readline, then this non-distributable product is being distributed
Why? Distributing X, which relies on Y, isn't the same as distributing the
combination. Surely you don't think that if
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If there is -- if Wontshare in some way tries to enforce the use of
readline, then this non-distributable product is being distributed
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 07:31:06AM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Why? Distributing X, which relies on Y, isn't the same
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If I ship some product in three parts, such that the combination of those
three parts is consistently assembled and used, then I'm distributing
that product.
Says who?
Shipping parts can be different from shipping a combination if for some reason
you are
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If I ship some product in three parts, such that the combination of those
three parts is consistently assembled and used, then I'm distributing
that product.
Says who?
Shipping parts can be different from
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
If I ship some product in three parts, such that the combination of those
three parts is consistently assembled and used, then I'm distributing
that product.
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:36:42PM -0800, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Says who?
That was me that
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 10:01:04PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Hopefully that then makes them query what is going on, and they won't be
keen to do business with Mr Wontshare.
More likely, they'll just use editline. Since that's what Wontshare's
software is built against and distributed
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Wesley W. Terpstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
As far as I can see, I haven't misunderstood it at all;
what you describe is what's happening here.
Mr. Wontshare has taken my work and integrated it as a critical component
into his project which he then ships together
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:49:51AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
So how can the FSF talk about linked applications being derivative
works.
They use a legal loophole known as freedom of speech, which enables
them to make claims that may not be actually be true as stated. If the
question of
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(The FSF's statements that linking with a library creates a derviative
work of the library confuse people; it may help to remember that this
only applies to the *binary image* created by the linkage, which contains
elements of the library, not
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
(The FSF's statements that linking with a library creates a
derviative work of the library confuse people; it may help to
remember that this only applies to the *binary image* created by
the linkage,
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
created without creative input?
An anthology, or a compilation, I think.
From Title 17, Sec 101:
A ''collective work'' is a work, such as a periodical
I am concerned there might have been some confusion about terms here.
Code here can mean three things:
source code -- my copyrighted implementation of an:
error correcting code -- an algorithm I developed which operates on:
encoded data -- the data being transmitted in a
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:07:02AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
If it isn't creative, it isn't a work under copyright law. See, e.g.,
Fesit v. Rural Telephone Service, holdings (a) and (b).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=casecourt=USvol=499invol=340
A problem
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
created without creative input?
An anthology, or a compilation, I think.
From Title 17, Sec 101:
A
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
What is a binary image? I think it makes most sense that it includes the
entire shipped product---both my executable and it's dependent: his.
Whether the library and binary form a single file seems irrelevant.
Otherwise,
Scripsit Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If your library has a well-specified API, anyone could make a library with
the same API, and his client could use that.
I am perfectly fine with this.
If he uses someone else's source code to implement my API, so be it.
Of course, that new
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
That statement is
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If your library has a well-specified API, anyone could make a library with the
same API, and his client could use that. Under those circumstances, his
client is not a derivative work of your library (although it may be a
derivative work of the *API and other
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[On -legal we generally operate under the assumption that for any case
where the outcome is in doubt, it will go against us; entities with
better lawyers than ours can afford to take larger risks]
Just for the record, it's not the quality of
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
I've heard all sorts of arguements in IRC that drawing the line in a good
way is very hard. I believe that. However, what I want to know is, if this
went to court, would things like the intention and degree of dependency be
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving
three programs, A, B and C.
Scenario 1:
1. A is written.
2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative
work of A.
3. C is written, and is compatible with A. B is clearly not
Jonathan ILIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving
three programs, A, B and C.
Scenario 1:
1. A is written.
2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative
work of A.
3. C is
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
--
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
4. Writing to debian-legal and asking for advice.
Now that's a good idea. Why did you do that on debian-devel instead?
s/instead/, too/
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f.
Good evening!
I'm developing an error-correcting code library which works on a lot of data
at once. Since the API is quite simple and the cost of process creation
relatively insignificant, I would like to provide a command-line API.
I feel this has several engineering advantages:
1) it's easier
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Good evening!
I'm developing an error-correcting code library which works on a lot of data
at once. Since the API is quite simple and the cost of process creation
relatively insignificant, I would like to provide a command-line API.
I feel this
* Wesley W. Terpstra
| What can I do to prevent the above scenario from happening?
I don't think you can, at least not while keeping the library DFSG
free. (I guess it would be fairly trivial to write up a similar
application which would not be affected by your license for the
application,
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:00:54PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:30:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Given that Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a small investment of
effort, refuses to port doesn't sound like much of a problem.
I meant to say relatively small investment; sorry.
Even simple applications can be hard to rewrite
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
not is irrelevant.
Mr. Wontshare's program *uses* the GPL program, but isn't derived
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
not is irrelevant.
Mr. Wontshare's
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Or else, his is a derivative work of whichever one he makes use of.
If he ships with one of them, his intention seems to be clear.
I don't see how that is logically inconsistent.
It's all about causality. Consider two
45 matches
Mail list logo
