In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.
Did I misunderstand?
I believe that there are people who argue that even the
standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL.
If
Barry Margolin wrote:
But if you write the new scheduler for the purpose of merging it into
the Linux kernel, then the scheduler doesn't really have a license of
its own. You've simply created a derivative of the Linux kernel, and
you're bound by its license, which is GPL.
See? You're one
Hyman Rosen writes:
Only if putting the new scheduler into Linux involves enough changes to
the rest of Linux to be considered a significant work of
authorship. Otherwise, Linux + new scheduler is just a combined work.
So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does not create a
John Hasler wrote:
Hyman Rosen writes:
Only if putting the new scheduler into Linux involves enough
changes to the rest of Linux to be considered a significant
work of authorship. Otherwise, Linux + new scheduler is just a
combined work.
So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does
John Hasler wrote:
So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does not create a
derivative?
I don't know enough to say. Copyright extends to characters and the
right to sequels. Writing an unauthorized story using those characters
is not permitted, and someone who creates an unauthorized
Barry Margolin wrote:
That's precisely the case I thought we were discussing.
Did I misunderstand?
I believe that there are people who argue that even the
standalone scheduler code must be licensed under the GPL.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul, we need something out of you besides whining out of context
quotes as your criticism of the various posts to a thread
...
1) Post the additional context to illustrate why readers' citations
are out of context.
Rjack, you
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The square brackets are a signal used in legal citations to *indicate*
that the original quote has in some manner been altered. In the case
at hand the square brackets surrounding [T]he first. . . is a signal
that the proceeding introductory phrase has been
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The square brackets are a signal used in legal citations to
*indicate* that the original quote has in some manner been altered.
In the case at hand the square brackets surrounding [T]he first.
. . is a signal that the proceeding introductory
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you missed the part where HyProg users were copying libGNU as
the HyProg author's agents.
It's not illegal to copy libGNU as authorized by the GPL.
If I wanted to, I could ship, perhaps on separate media,
a copy of libGNU and its sources along with HyProg.
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel
that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux.
But the new scheduler itself is not entangled with the copyright
of Linux. And
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
I think you missed the part where HyProg users were copying libGNU as
the HyProg author's agents.
It's not illegal to copy libGNU as authorized by the GPL.
If I wanted to, I could ship, perhaps on separate media,
a copy of libGNU and its
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Why did you change the example? Is it because the previous example
didn't work correctly?
No, it's to try to remove as many extraneous issues as possible.
Again, I assert that a program written to dynamically link with
a GPLed library, which requires that library for its
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux
kernel that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel.
I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux.
But the new scheduler itself is not
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Rjack, we need some out-of-context quotes to support my
arguments here. Where are you when we need you?)
Rahul, we need something out of you besides whining out of context
quotes as your criticism of the various posts to a thread.
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I assert that a program written to dynamically link with
a GPLed library, which requires that library for its operation,
may be distributed on any terms its author chooses. The FSF says
that such a program must be distributed under the GPL. Wondering
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Barry Margolin wrote:
It's not the scheduler that's a derivative, it's the new Linux kernel
that results from replacing the scheduler in the old kernel. I.e.
Linux - schedulerA + schedulerB = derivative of Linux.
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rahul, we need something out of you besides whining out of context
quotes as your criticism of the various posts to a thread
...
1) Post the additional context to illustrate why readers' citations
are out of context.
Rjack, you repeatedly post on the same
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
thread
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:
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 the
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 the
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
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.
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 otherwise
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
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
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
completely new scheduler
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.
Both are
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
spread,
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work.
Correct, or more precisely, does not *necessarily* create a
Ciaran O'Riordan 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
No, it would not. By statute, in the U.S., a derivative work is a
transformation of another work which retains its
No, it would not. By statute, in the U.S., a derivative work is a
That's not about software, and that's only one jurisdiction.
Programs written to interoperate with other programs are not derivative
works of those programs.
True, but we're not talking about that. The example you're
On 2008-09-16, Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work. Some people think
that compiling module1.c, module2.c, .
JEDIDIAH wrote:
...it also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.
...which still does not make the program a derivative work.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
No, it would not. By statute, in the U.S., a derivative work is a
That's not about software, and that's only one jurisdiction.
Unless you can find something in the statute that defines derivative
works of programs differently than derivative works in general, the
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Whether X is a derivative of Y is determined at time of writing, not
at time of linking or compiling.
Not true.
1 Nimmer on Copyright ยง 3.02 ('[T]he originality called for in a
collective work consists of the collection and assembling of
pre-existing works, while
On 2008-09-17, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
...it also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.
...which still does not make the program a derivative work.
Someone just tried the same sort of thing with JK Rowling and lost.
--
Nothing today,
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2008-09-17, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
...it also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.
...which still does not make the program a derivative work.
Someone just tried the same sort of thing with JK Rowling and lost.
Was JK
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2008-09-17, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
...it also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.
...which still does not make the program a derivative work.
Someone just tried the same sort of thing with JK Rowling and lost.
Um, did
Hyman Rosen wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2008-09-17, Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:
...it also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.
...which still does not make the program a derivative work.
Someone just tried the same sort of thing with JK Rowling
Rjack wrote:
Was the Lexicon written in C++ or Python?
Python, of course. And the comments were in Parseltongue.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work. Some people think
that compiling module1.c, module2.c, . . . into -o
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. For example,
translation to another language, or writing a screenplay of a
novel. In the Harry Potter
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.
Both are required for a work to be derivative.
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
completely new scheduler for Linux, then that would be a derivative work
No, it would not. By
It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work. Some people think
that compiling module1.c, module2.c, . . . into -o prgm translates
the source code into
47 matches
Mail list logo
