Rjack wrote:
Sigh. . . a compiler transforms from one language representation
to another:
A compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that
transforms source code written in a computer language (the source
language) into another computer language (the target language, often
having a
John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote:
Alan Mackenzie writes:
You're saying, I think, that this boilerplate code gives the
boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.
I'm not at all convinced o this. Certainly, the world doesn't seem to
work this way in practice, in
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
The only other components in the executable will be boilerplate
No. Those components may include entire implementations of things
like formatting floating point numbers into strings, trigonometric
functions, calendar functions, and so
How is this GPLv3 + GCC Runtime Library Exception supposed to
enable distribution of binaries compiled from GPLv2-only
applications? It is an exception to GPLv3, but I don't see how
it could excuse distributors from GPLv2 sections 1-3, which AFAIK
require source code to be be licensed under
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
is
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
Anyhow, yes I agree that mere aggregation means what you just wrote.
The critical thing being NOTHING MORE than an aggregation. If two
pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
than aggregation, and thus is not mere aggregation.
The
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
An example of a mere aggregation is two books bound together in a
single spine. However, if two authors were to cooperate to produce a
single book, this would not be a mere aggretation - it would be a
tightly integrated whole - just like a single binary resulting from a
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
Anyhow, yes I agree that mere aggregation means what you just wrote.
The critical thing being NOTHING MORE than an aggregation. If two
pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
than
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
An example of a mere aggregation is two books bound together
in a single spine. However, if two authors were to cooperate
to produce a single book, this would not be a mere
aggretation - it would be a tightly integrated whole - just
like a single
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.
Read Linking to GPL Software and Copyright Law and Linking.
What say you now, Alan?
The whole thing is a mess of rambling gibberish. Is there anything
pertinent anywhere in it?
Actually, it
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...]
This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.
Read Linking to GPL Software and Copyright Law and
Linking. What say you now, Alan?
The whole thing is a mess of rambling gibberish. Is there
anything pertinent anywhere in it?
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
An example of a mere aggregation is two books bound together in a
single spine. However, if two authors were to cooperate to produce a
single book, this would not be a mere aggretation - it would be a
tightly integrated whole - just
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
is merely an aggregation of multiple
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Effective! Brilliant! LICENSE!
Hey Hyman, stay focused on Alan's embryo which is derived from the egg
and sperm comical theory of treating aggregations (with
linking/dependencies between constituents) as GNUish derived works.
As for Larry Rosen, he's also fond of
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
Anyhow, yes I agree that mere aggregation means what you just wrote.
The critical thing being NOTHING MORE than an aggregation. If two
pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
than
Rjack wrote:
The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation
makes it eligible for copyright.
Compilation meaning the output produced by the computerized
programming language translator known as a compiler. Which
should have been obvious from the context.
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
If I write foo.c and compile it to foo.o, I don't think there are pieces
there. I then link it with a few other files and it becomes the
executable foo. The only bits in there which aren't my copyright are
analogues of the book's cover and printing.
That's not correct.
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
If I write foo.c and compile it to foo.o, I don't think there are pieces
there. I then link it with a few other files and it becomes the
executable foo. The only bits in there which aren't my copyright are
analogues of the book's
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
The only other components in the executable will be boilerplate
No. Those components may include entire implementations of things
like formatting floating point numbers into strings, trigonometric
functions, calendar functions, and so forth.
OK. You're saying, I think,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
The an original creative arrangement of materials in a
compilation makes it eligible for copyright.
Compilation meaning the output produced by the computerized
programming language translator known as a compiler. Which
should have been obvious from the
Hi, Alfred!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison
and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to
merit copyright, just as composing the sentence This is
silly.
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few
comparison and conditional/unconditional jump
instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as
composing the sentence This is silly. would be.
Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart
Afternoon, Alfred!
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few
comparison and conditional/unconditional jump
instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as
composing the
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held
by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the
compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
computer program do not have separate copyrights.
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source and
Rjack wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source
Rjack wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered
to be the same work for copyright purposes.
Are you sure, on this one?
Yes. See
Rjack wrote:
I have argued that a compiler adds no creative element to qualify
the translation because of its fixed algorithms but this is a
legally unsupported *conjecture*.
It is the codified practice of the US Copyright Office.
Rjack wrote:
They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a translation of the other.
That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law:
You are wrong.
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a translation of the
other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
law:
You are wrong.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions
provided by Congress in the Copyright Act then you are either
extremely naive or smoking something causing you to hallucinate.
Given the choice of believing you or believing the manual of
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
is merely an
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-)
Actually, it's not the GPL's mere aggregation, which means
putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work.
___
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
That is, indeed, the best answer. ;-)
Actually, it's not the GPL's mere aggregation, which means
putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
shipping.
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote:
Hyman, Alan believes .
Hah! Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said
he was a troll.
Have a nice day Alan!
_ _
In gnu.misc.discuss 7 website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Wrong fool!
No, I think you might actually be the right one.
As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
Erik Funkenbusch e...@despam-funkenbusch.com wrote:
Anyone with even a casual idea of how a c compiler works understands that
the output of a compiler typically includes a certain amount of linked in
code from the standard c runtime library, such as startup code, string
handling routines,
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
copyright, just as composing the sentence This is silly. would
be.
Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll a loop,
and loop unrolling
Hi, Alfred!
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:03:18PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
copyright, just as composing the sentence This is silly. would
be.
On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss 7 website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Wrong fool!
No, I think you might actually be the right one.
As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have
In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote:
On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss 7 website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Wrong fool!
No, I think you might actually be the right one.
As I write the assembler code for how
On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH j...@nomad.mishnet wrote:
On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss 7 website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Wrong fool!
No, I think you might actually be the
Barry Margolin wrote:
I believe the choice of library to incorporate is an original work of
authorship. Linking a set of object files and libraries is analogous
to creating an anthology in traditional literature.
You're never going to convince a court of that - the source which
makes calls
7 wrote:
The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
data held within and the music is protected by copyright.
The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
When gcc produces its output,
Rjack wrote:
REAL men program in C.
And if you go by my wife, real women program in Fortran :-)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
7 wrote:
The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
data held within and the music is protected by copyright.
The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
When
7 wrote:
If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone
to use it without copyright protecting it
Methods cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented.
Statements like this will cause even more confusion in this group.
Please stop making them.
7 wrote:
As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
interpret
Hyman Rosen wrote:
7 wrote:
If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone
to use it without copyright protecting it
Methods cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented.
Statements like this will cause even more confusion in this group.
Please stop making them.
Really fool?
7 wrote:
Rjack wrote:
7 wrote:
As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have
In article 49822021.cf051...@web.de,
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de quoted the FSF:
to the latest version of the license. It also paves the way for GCC to
add a plugin architecture, by adding new protections against extending
GCC with proprietary software.
It's cute how they think they
Tim Smith wrote:
It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
derived from their runtime libraries.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
derived from their runtime libraries.
Prove it!
After takin' a swig o' grog, Hyman Rosen belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
Tim Smith wrote:
It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes:
Tim Smith wrote:
It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
derived from their runtime
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Doesn't matter as long as it is no judge rolling with laughter. Once it
is, there is case law against plugin copyright creep, and nobody will be
more happy about that than the FSF.
plugin copyright creep
LOL.
57 matches
Mail list logo
