Re: GPL and other licences
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, as far as I understand it, you would be the only person in trouble. The company might have a pre-release of David's GPLed software, but this does not give you, their employee, the right to copy and distribute it. The fact that the software is licensed to the company under the GPL does not mean that it is licensed to you under the GPL, and hence you would be in the dock for theft (of the CD, and the software). The company would be vicariously responsible for the actions of its agent, no? That responsibility would either include liability to David the copyright holder, or it would not. If liability to David arises, the licence was obviously not an unencumbered GPL, since GPL gives the company exactly the rights which the employee exercised. If David imposed an NDA or other restriction, surely that preempts the GPL (but only because he as copyright holder is free to distribute under any conditions he wishes)? If the company did receive the software under an unencumbered GPL, are there any other vicarious liabilities that may arise? I suppose there could be, if the software embodies Born Secret (pretend for a moment it is constitutional) or is libelous, for example. I don't see this as having anything to do with the GPL though, although I seems to me that the GPL does address this possibility (see part of section 7 below (*)). Other than that I fail to see how the employee can get into any trouble other than insuburdination, which is a matter between employer and employee only. If David doesn't want employees distributing his software before he wants it distributed, I'm sure he's smart enough not to distribute it under the (unencumbered) GPL in the first place! (*) Part of GPLv2 section 7: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. ... - -- If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge. - Henry Spencer -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD6wuLwyMv24BBd/gRAvJKAKCG9wLd+NpjbMRlZnpUV9/YI/xT0gCgmGA1 tMIk5Q3TSiTqloqkv9AJ4HM= =5YsT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] For example, just last week I needed a function which searches backwards a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for Local Variables:, and then deletes any following lines containing mode: or eval:. I extracted the code which did the searching out of an existing function, then added the bits to do the deletion. fancy_file(Alan Mackenzie) .locate_backwards_from_end(Local Variables:, 3000) .delete_any_following_lines_containing(mode:, eval:); You grabbed some code for locate_backwards_from_end() and changed it. I authored delete_any_following_lines(). The resulting function is in no way a compilation - it is a derivative of the original function. The resulting overall program is a compilation of your work and my work. Your work (function locate_backwards_from_end() that contains someone else's *modified* code) may well be a derivative work. That doesn't change the status of the resulting overall program -- it's still a compilation. Got it now? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace on predatory pricing: --- Predatory pricing The GPL establishes a predatory pricing scheme. Setting the maximum price of intellectual property at no charge removes all motive to compete. The Supreme Court has analyzed predatory pricing in a Sherman Act § 1 civil action: [T]his is a Sherman Act 1 case. For purposes of this case, it is enough to note that respondents have not suffered an antitrust injury unless petitioners conspired to drive respondents out of the relevant markets by (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products, or (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost. MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [fn8]. If we exam case (i) pricing below the level necessary to sell their products the obvious result of the GPL is the destruction of interbrand competition (see State Oil Co. v. Khan, supra) when the maximum price of intellectual property is set at zero (no charge). New developers and vendors of intellectual property cannot enter a market for which there is no reward or incentive. Not only competitors are harmed by the GPL scheme. Consumers lose because a lack of competition removes not just product choice but without competitive reward the incentive to improve product quality disappears. When we analyze case (ii) pricing below some appropriate measure of cost we see that a maximum price of zero for the intellectual property in computer programs leads to an absurd result. In addition to the intrinsic value ordained by Art. I, §8, cl. 8 of the Constitution, the cost of creation of intellectual property in computer programs entails the development costs of skilled programmers, new computer hardware, communications costs and administrative overhead. Commercial computer programs are not developed in a zero cost vacuum -- that is an absurd proposition. A maximum price of zero is below any reasonable definition of appropriate measure of cost concerning development and innovation of intellectual property assets. The only economic motive for using GPL licensed intellectual property in a competitive market for computer operating systems is to destroy a competitor who is striving to create positive value based in intellectual property. The Supreme Court has addressed the practical evidentiary burden for a predatory pricing claim: As a practical matter, it may be that only direct evidence of below-cost pricing is sufficient to overcome the strong inference that rational businesses would not enter into conspiracies such as this one; MATSUSHITA ELEC. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. ZENITH RADIO, 475 U.S. 574 (1986)[fn9]. The GPLs term 2(b) is without question direct evidence of a below-cost pricing scheme. Commercial distributors of GPL licensed products conspire to give away their assets in intellectual property and then recoup losses by leveraging ancillary markets such as computer hardware sales (computer hardware obviously requires an operating system), software consulting fees, employee training programs and computer maintenance services. (One uncharged co-conspirator, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, is the Worlds largest computer hardware and computing services corporation.) The effect of the GPL license is to create a Marxist-Leninist model for computer programs, where a vast pool of intellectual property is collectively price fixed at no charge and thus removed from commercial exploitation. In time, due to its recursive nature, the GPLs pool of price fixed intellectual property can grow to utterly destroy a targeted market. It is not consumers that the GPL intends to benefit -- the goal is the destruction of competition in the free market. The GPL license renders U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8 meaningless in the context of computer programs containing copyrights and patents. The defendants assert: The GPL expressly allows Defendants, and any other licensee, to charge a fee to recover the variable or incremental costs associated with distributing software licensed under the GPL: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.. Defendants Brief at 5. Here, the defendants attempt to conflate the definition of intangible copyright assets with the physical media in which a work is embodied: Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. ..;17 USC sec. 202. The present claim is for price fixing in the relevant market of intangible intellectual property assets in computer programs (the Linux operating system) and not an action concerning tangible media or physical acts involving the distribution of tangible media in which a copyrighted work may be fixed. The plaintiffs complaint has certainly met the pleading requirements expressed in PEGRAM. ET AL., and Denny's Marina, supra, by directly or inferentially alleging the element of an resultant unreasonable restraint of trade in
Re: Intellectual Property II
Wallace concludes: --- Conclusion The plaintiff Daniel Wallace in his Complaint has directly or inferentially alleged that the defendants have: (1) used an express contractual agreement to conspire with named co-conspirators and; (2) engaged in an unreasonable restraint of trade by pooling intellectual property that is price fixed and distributed at predatory levels and; (3) defendants threaten injury to competition as well as causally linked personal injury to the plaintiff. Wherefore plaintiff Daniel Wallace moves the Court deny the present REASSERTED MOTION TO DISMISS filed by defendants RED HAT INC. and NOVELL INC., and enter judgment for plaintiff Daniel Wallace. --- regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100: Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting them up with sentences of your own to give a new short story, you have a derivative work. Doing this may be unusual for stories, but is a perfectly normal way of creating software. Maybe in the GNU Republic. Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? I can't recall ever commingling software. You poor thing! No wonder you come over so uptight and frustrated on this newsgroup. ;-) Are you a programmer, in any sense of that word? If so, your failure to commingle existing software might explain why your software is less good than GNU's. Did you actually look commingle up in a dictionary? regards, alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like aa), remove half of them (leaving, say, a). ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...] The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted code (what you've called .locate_backwards_from_end) has been extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably derived from it. Fine. Let your monstrous function be derived in its entirety. I don't write monstrous functions. http://www.terekhov.de/DESIGN-futex-CV.cpp (all rights reserved). My native language is Russian. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alan Mackenzie wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:59:54 +0100: Alan Mackenzie wrote: That is true. However, when you take two short stories, commingle paragraphs from one of them with paragraphs from the other, connecting them up with sentences of your own to give a new short story, you have a derivative work. Doing this may be unusual for stories, but is a perfectly normal way of creating software. Maybe in the GNU Republic. Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? My hobby. I can't recall ever commingling software. You poor thing! No wonder you come over so uptight and frustrated on this newsgroup. ;-) Are you a programmer, in any sense of that word? Sort of. If so, your failure to commingle existing software might explain why your software is less good than GNU's. Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know. Did you actually look commingle up in a dictionary? I know what you mean. It's akin to Moglen's interpenetration. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why do you try to be disparaging about GNU? My hobby. To each his own. Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know. Not really. It's just immortal, so it has all the time in the world to improve. And that's an advantage in the long run. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
