Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Uh. Linux has hudreds of contributors. Did hundreds of authors > contribute their copyrighted works to Harry Potter? Actually, apart from "copyrighted", that's what culture is all about. In Homer's times, it took decades and life times for cultural works to spr

Funding

Hello, There is a team of 5 developers hoping to get into the game development industry. We are currently trying to get our hands on an engine from crytek the guys that created the game crysis and/or the Jupiter 3D engine which created the game F.E.A.R. We are in search of someone to help fund for

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote: > > A new version of Linux with a different scheduler serves the same > > purpose: they're both operating system kernels. > > But the new scheduler is not a transformed version of any other code. > Bo

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Barry Margolin wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > >>> But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then > >>> wrote a > >>

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Copyright is what it is, not what you want it to be, unless >what you want it to be is what it is. I think you missed the part where HyProg users were copying libGNU as the HyProg author's agents. But still, law is quite dynamic. You will recall that the

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: I think a court trying to rule in an unsettled area of law might well pay attention to public policy considerations of the type that the CAFC addressed in the JMRI case, i.e., how best to allow authors of GPL software to achieve their goals within the letter and spirit of exist

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Can you explain where the infringement is occurring? The user of >HyProg has libGNU on his computer. The license of libGNU, the GPL, >says "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do >not convey, without conditions so long as your license oth

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: Is HyProg causing the shared library to be copied into memory Yes. was HyProg written to require that specific shared library libGNU Yes. is there no other way of using HyProg Yes. If so, then the author of HyProg might be liable for contributory > infringement. C

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Let's review. Someone creates a library and distributes it under >the GPL. Let's call it libGNU, and suppose that it exists in DLL >form. I create a program that dynamically links to libGNU and >uses its services. Let's call it HyProg. I assert that I may >

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: Usually, "owner of a copy" refers to a copy that the copyright owner or his representative or retailer already made, and then physically gave to you, e.g., on CD-ROM. I doubt that you are the owner of a copy if you made the copy yourself. You're wrong, but in any case, if th

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. Usually, "owner of a copy" refers to a copy that the copyright owner or his representative or retailer already made, and then physically gave to you, e.g., on CD-ROM. I doubt that you are

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: Causing the linked library to be copied into memory is governed by copyright law. Unless you can find an excpption (such as fair use or implied license), causing such copying would infringe any copyright on the library. Well, here's the statute:

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On what basis is a program which links dynamically to a >library a combined work such that the program would be subject >to the GPL if the library is? I think you diverted from the original topic. But still: Causing the linked library to be copied into m

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: [...] > ***NEITHER GPL V2 NOR GPL V3 MENTIONS DERIVATIVE WORKS.*** Go to doctor, Rahul. -- ... a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any ***derivative work*** under copyright law ... the Program or its ***derivative works*** ... -- The above is

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: ***NEITHER GPL V2 NOR GPL V3 MENTIONS DERIVATIVE WORKS.*** However, it does appear that the FSF believes that a program written to interoperate with another program is somehow tied sufficiently to that other program such that if the other is GPLed then the whole program is

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Rahul Dhesi wrote: Here is what the CAFC said in the JMRI case: Here is what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said (while sitting en banc) about its authority in copyright law matters: "The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in al

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

David Kastrup wrote: All the library parts accomplish their intended purpose in the binary, and compiling and linking their source transforms them into the binary. Here is a quote from the Compendium II, which the U.S. Copyright Office uses as a manual of procedure:

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

But being serious, writing a generic scheduler isn't practical. That would be like writing a generic "chapter 8" that can replace chapter 8 of not just Harry Potter but also many other too :-) Chapter 8 See next chapter. ___ gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... >In short: I read and understand your words and explanations, but they >don't seem to apply at all. Your fundamental error was assuming that anything in this discussion thread made any sense. Rjack sent you all off on the wrong course by quoting a bunc

Re: Freedom. . . NOT

In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "So over the weekend I began to think about the GPL and my general > disdain for it. For a license that is touted as 'free', it certainly > doesn't feel that way. As a libertarian, I've often found myself baffled > by the leftist stance t

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

If your scheduler was truly generic and could (even just theoretically) be plugged into many kernels, then you might be free from copyright obligations. But being serious, writing a generic scheduler isn't practical. That would be like writing a generic "chapter 8" that can replace chapter 8 of

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... > >In short: I read and understand your words and explanations, but they > >don't seem to apply at all. > > Your fundamental error was assuming that anything in this discussion

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then wrote a > completely new scheduler for Linux, then that would be a derivative work, > AFAICT. Whether you link or compile it all together, or whether

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> prgm clearly is a derivative work of all the various modules. > > No it isn't. A derivative work is a transformed form of an > original work that accomplishes the same purpose. All the library parts accomplish their intended purpos