Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [... FSF: the contract controls ... ] I don't think anything since I don't know not of what you're speaking. But the anecdotal evidence portrayed by your posts leave you very little credit as far as saying a truthful thing goes. Try http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf. 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
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Keep in mind that copyright law doesn't concern itself with distribution of AUTHORIZED copies and that the act of distribution doesn't turn AUTHORIZED copies into unauthorized copies. Here you go again, confusing _your_copy_ with _copies_of_your_copy_ Yeah, you're incurable. plonk What a tiny plonk you have, mini-RMS. And the whole act lasted less than ten minutes?! To doctor, to doctor you should go. 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
Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You couldn't link proprietary video drivers into it whether dynamically or statically, and you couldn't link drivers which were proprietary in their license terms. /quote I just wonder under what impure GPL license terms do you think Moglen thinks (in all good faith) the Linux kernel is developed currently (note that the context is kernel drivers which has nothing to do with Linus' not-really-an-exception for user space). Any thoughts? Even if you have any, then how does that play out regarding what the FSF is telling to the judge in Iniana... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005061934277 The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL. ^^^ Here's more evidence that notwithstanding what the FSF says to the judge in Indiana, the FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact doesn't really understand the licensing terms relevant to the use of Linux. http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL, where's the uncertainty? Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL violations. Nonetheless, we all know that there are a large number of such modules and their existence is tolerated or even to some degree encouraged by the kernel maintainers, and I take that to mean that as an indication that there is some exception for those modules. The kernel also maintains a technical mechanism, namely the GPL-only symbols and tainting structure, which seems to suggest an API for the connection of non-GPL'ed code to the kernel, which also seems to me a strong indication of the presence of an exception. The difficulty as a lawyer, even a lawyer that is reasonably knowledgeable about these matters, is that I don't understand what the terms of that exception are. So, say I want to audit a system, say an embedded product, in which I find non-GPL loadable kernel modules present, how do I know whether that fits within an exception which is legitimately available to third parties and when it is not? [...] So then there are parties in the world who think they are in legal trouble on one side with the regulators if they do release source code for loadable kernel modules that drive their software- controlled radios, and they don't know if they're in legal trouble on the other side if they don't release source code. For those parties, in particular, it would be very helpful if the kernel developers had decided to formalize the nature of their exceptions, and the Free Software Foundation and I have made a few attempts to discuss that matter with kernel developers. I had conversations with Ted Ts'o, I talked to Linus about it and I understood there were some reluctances to clarify, in a full and complete way, what was going on. There may have even been disagreements among kernel developers about that, I wouldn't know. But I continue to think that it would be useful, for a whole variety of people who are trying in good faith to do the very best they can, and who may be navigating some dodgy legal territory, for them to be able to refer to something beyond the COPYING file which -- with all due respect -- I think probably doesn't contain all the terms that are relevant to the use of the kernel. - 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
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and no rules apply. No one is saying that. Copying of windows software is illegal. So regardless of whether the companies are distributing or not, the activity you describe would be copyright infringement. You cannot make copies of Windows software for personal use. Company A gives Bart a legal copy of Windows. Since Bart now in possession of this CD, AFAIK according to David, no rules apply to him, so he can ignore the copyright license of Windows. Company A has given explicit permission to Bart to do whatever he wants. However you can make internal use only copies of GPL software without exceeding the permissions given by the GPL. It's really that simple. Where does the GPL state that? I can't see anything about `internal use'. Cheers. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
In the case of our friend Backslash, I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling me obscure names. where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his company gave him the CD (to file), it would not be your unfinished software, now would it? If the company recived the CD legally, and gives it to me, then the company cannot dictate what I can do with it, only the copyright holder can. If the company got a hot CD with David's software, and I would then distribute it, then both the company and I could be sued by David for copyright infrigment, and other fancy stuff. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
I am not. A company is a legal entity that enters into agreements as itself. Agents of the company are not party to these agreements. It is not because a work is released under the GPL that you can grab from whenever you please. I never claimed that. Please reread what my claim is: If company A gives me a legally obtained CD with GPLed software on it, then company A cannot dictate what I can do with it, since the copyright license gives me explicit permission to redistribute, if I want to. Property != Software! Why are you confusing the two? I'm not talking about property, we agree on that. If the company lends me a car, then it isn't my car. Simple as that. Why are you insisting on this? And if the company gives you its software to perform your duties, it isn't your software, simple as that. You have only the right to use the software as instructed by the company, like you have only the right to use the company car as instructed by the company. No, not true. The company cannot dictate the terms of how the software can be used, only the copyright holder can. If the license of the software disallow something, the company cannot go and say that it is allowed. Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating such), The company is not the copyright holder. And on top of that, the program is licensed under the GNU GPL. So how the software can be used is already defined. If the license of the design allows me to do this, yes. Only if the design is licensed to _you_. The license is not an intrinsic property of the design or software, but a grant of rights from the copyright holder to _you_. This is were you are confused. The fact that a design or software is intangible has got nothing to do with the right to copy, it's whether _you_ have a license to do so. And in the case of your employer entrusting you with a CD, you do not acquire a copy, or a license, and hence the provisions of the GPL (or copyright law in general) do not apply to you. I do aquire a license if the employer entrusts me with the CD. It is the same thing if I give a CD with the same content (legally obtained) to a friend. They recive a license to use/modify/look/redistribute. There are no laws that say that a company gets to dictate the terms of someone elses copyrighted material. If the license explicitly states that the material can only be used in building A, that is a different matter. But with the GNU GPL, there is no such clause, and allows anyone who recived the software leagally to use, modify and redistribute the software. The company cannot redictate the terms of the license. You'd have a point if the license explictly disallowed this, but as it is, it doesn't. Simply repeating a mantra doesn't make it true, you know. To have something in ones hand is not the same as being the owner of a legal copy. I'm assuming that the `thing' was obtained legally, if it wasn't, then the case is quite clear. OK, this again shows where you go wrong. The license is not part of the content, but an agreement between two parties. This is why the copyright holder can license the same work under different licenses to different people. This is something different entierly. But it _is_ relevant - the postman is not the owner of the CDs he's delivering (though he has the CDs in his hands), and you as an employee/agent of the company are not the owner of the CDs with the GPLed software. Thus, neither you nor the postman can invoke the license, or have the right to copy the CD. Since the postman didn't obtain the CD's _leagally_, it really doesn't matter. Employee recived the CD's leagally from his employeer, and the employeer recived the CD's directly from the copyright holder. The CD's contain GPLed licensed software. Since the GPL explcitly allows me to use, redistribute, etc, then the company cannot state that I am not allowed to do so. If you are not in legal posession of the CDs to begin with, then there is no point in the discussion. All arguments from me are based on the assumption that the content was legally obtained! Since the company gave me a copy of the CD legally, I am legally bound by the software licenses that are on the CD, and can only do the things that those software licenses dictate me to do. If they allow me to redistribute the software to others, then I am allowed to do so. Wrong. I tried to explain that the company handed you a CD for specific purposes, but they did not transfer ownership of said CD. The fact that the word to give can mean a transfer of ownership (I give you this present) as well as a mere temporary transfer (I gave the parcel to the postman) does not mean that you can pick and choose the meaning
Re: GPL and other licences
In defending your position that combining GPL and some other software on my computer system was not allowed you cited some statements indicating that the GPL did not allow putting additional restrictions on users. How can you draw a conclusion that I can pop by your place, and copy stuff from your computer? That is really beyond me. Since you missed the whole argument, let me resummarise it: You cannot violate the copyright license. It doesn't matter if it is in your home, if you are the only person who knows about it, or whatever. To make an extrem example, if you steal someones car, and nobody knows that you stole it, or that the car actually vanished, then you are still liable for theft. Same here, if you violate the license at home, you are still liable for copyright infrigment. (if it is right or wrong to dictate this something completely different, but obviously, it is wrong. Sweden had a recent law changed I think--I don't recall, so if someone from Sweden remebers, please shout!--that disallows private backups of copyrighted material. According to all these arguments, you should still be able to violate the license for internal/private use. Well, you can't, the law dictates otherwise.) ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again: [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ] [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ] Do we see a pattern here? We have here a person who pokes around apparently all day, every day, on Google, finds stuff and repeatedly reposts it into misc.int-property and gnu.misc.discuss. At the risk of repeating myself: How about writing something useful yourself, instead of merely posting repeated citations of what others have written? Your mission, should choose to accept it, is to post 5 articles in which you provide 80% content that is original and useful enough that multiple people will consider it profound enough to quote you in multiple other fora. -- Rahul ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rahul Dhesi wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again: [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ] [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ] Hey Rahul, but the most charming piece regarding GNUtian legal system from you is this: http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/ca73c9fd532841b5 - Appended below is a copy of what I posted previously. (Sometimes discussions stray so far nobody remembers what the original question was :-) I am essentially making the claim that by placing software under the GNU license, you are not losing any rights over it. You are granting others certain rights. Corollaries: - You can violate the GNU license for your software without violating copyright law. Why? Because you cannot unilaterally give up your rights. So you are not bound by the GNU license even though you have placed your software under it. - You can later revoke the rights that you granted to others when you placed the software under the GNU license. Why? Because you did not grant any rights to any specific person. What would be the grounds of a lawsuit? That you violated a contract? There was none. Fraud? Maybe. Some sort of general tort for damages? Perhaps. Even if a court rules that you can't revoke your decision, that ruling will likely only be given to protect a specific defendant who suffered actual damages as a consequence of your revoking your decision. I doubt very much that a court will rule that you can't revoke your decision at all, only that you must compensate *this* specific defendant with *proven* damages, or let him keep using your software. I don't know of any enabling legislation that allows a person to place software under the GNU license and be unable to revoke this decision later. I am not claiming that my claim is provably correct, only that it's a claim! Sometimes such claims are proven wrong, not because they were wrong when they were made, but because judges make new law all the time. Free software lies near the periphery of tried and trusted legal precedents. Who knows what the next judge will decide? Most judges who use computers at home use Macintoshes. Need I say more? - 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
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 18:28 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: - When you get GNU software by anonymous ftp, *there is no contract* and you have no legal right to use it. You are granted rights by the GPL that you did not have, but these are not legal rights, because you cannot enter into a binding contract without consideration. So although you are permitted to use the software, you have no enforceable legal right to do so. This is bullshit. Usage is not covered by copyright law[1], only distribution of copies of the work outside fair use. - When you order a tape from the FSF, the situation is unclear. If your payment is clearly only a handling free, then any contract that exists is solely for the purpose of the tape being shipped to you, and it does not govern the contents of the tape. If the payment is actually for the software itself, then there is a contract that affects how you use it. When you pay for a CD of Microsoft Windows, you only have warranties on the _CD_ itself, not on the data it contains. That's almost all you get as far as your money is concerned. Then there's this license, that restricts your rights even more by forbidding private copying (install on no more than one computer at a time), and since it restricts beyond default copyright, you have to agree to its terms. Since not agreeing means you don't have even a single license, all you get is a worthless piece of plastic. With Free Software you get default copyright + extra rights. In the case of the GNU GPL, distributing new copies is allowed under certain unilateral restrictions. Nothing else gives you the right to do that. This is just plain copyright. Rui [1] except in what relates to DMCA and equivalent horror laws. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] is at it again: [ 8 + 39 lines of quoted content ] [ 2 meaningless lines of original content ] And he follows up with 48 more lines of quoted content! Does anybody remember the zumabot? We seem to have a reincarnation of it here. It was apparently an awk script, but today I assume it would more likely be in perl or python. Try a Google search -- it's interesting history. Over and out. Let the Terekhov quote-script have the last word. -- Rahul ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:35:00 +0100 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of our friend Backslash, I'm assuming that I am this Backslash person; if I'm not ignore the following: Have the decency to call me by my name, instead of calling me obscure names. As you've noticed, it the backslash in your name. It stands out like a sore thumb. My apologies, I was frustrated with you and David. where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his company gave him the CD (to file), it would not be your unfinished software, now would it? If the company recived the CD legally, and gives it to me, then the company cannot dictate what I can do with it, only the copyright holder can. As I tried to explain, for certain values of give. If the company you work for instructs you to file all CDs in a cupboard, they do not transfer ownership to you, and thus you're merely acting in your capacity of agent of the company. You might describe your job as they *gave* me a lot of CDs (to file), but that value of give is not the same as when they give the CD to you to keep (Hey Alfred, here's an old copy of Linux, would you like to have it or do I throw it in the bin?). If the company got a hot CD with David's software, and I would then distribute it, then both the company and I could be sued by David for copyright infrigment, and other fancy stuff. 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). Take care, -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sources.d/msg/3c633bf50d950b8c (early Rahul Dhesi, before he was brainwashed by GNU) You mean that people can't know better and learn in almost 20 years? Know better what? The FSF hired lawyers are telling to the judge in Indiana that the contract controls. So once again, what contract are they talking about? The judge in Indiana is gonna be real pissed when he finds out that Ice Miller and the FSF were just joking about the GPL being a contract so they could get Wallace's case dismissed. 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
Just to stress... Alexander Terekhov wrote: [...] http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL, where's the uncertainty? Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL violations. - LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see proprietary modules as an infringement? Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with some modules loaded is a a work and because any module that is dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the license if it's pure GPL. - And (from another Moglen's piece regarding GNU legal system) - After many years of securing compliance with copyright law as it applies to GPL'd work, and in view of recent court decisions in Germany, to say nothing of SCO, I think there should be no remaining doubt in any well-informed mind about the legal soundness of GPL. - Recent court decisions in Germany? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf Note that that Visiting Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute is no stranger. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hoeren http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/panel/profiles/hoeren.pdf MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL BODIES Member/Vice President, German Association for Law and Informatics (DGRI); Member, Society for Computers and Law, U.K.; Member, German-Japanese Law Association, Hamburg and Tokyo; Co-editor Computer und Recht, Computer and Law, Cologne; Member, Institute for European Media law, Saarbrücken; Member, Editorial Board, Law, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, BNA's Electronic Information Policy and Law Report and EDI Law Review; Legal Advisor, European Commission/DG XIII, Legal Advisory Board on Information Technology; Co-editor, Multimedia und Recht, Munich; Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the European Commission; Legal expert in several research projects commissioned by the European Commission/DG III (COPEARMS), DG XIII (MULTISOLUTION, EDIBOL, EDIPAY) and the DG XV; Member, Legal Advisory Board, DENIC, Frankfurt. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Intellectual Property law; Internet Regulation; Information Law; Unfair Competition Law; International Business Law. EXPERIENCE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Judge at the Court of Appeal in Düsseldorf within the Trademark Copyright Senate; Professor in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Muenster; Member, Task Force Group on Intellectual Property Law, European Commission/DG XIII. Now the most charming part of that Moglen's piece regarding GNU legal system: - As to the definition of derivative work, the uncertainty is experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only arguably infringe the free developer's copyright. The correct answer, of course, is that those who want to take advantage of the enormous quantity of freely distributable best of breed software now available should do so in a fashion that respects the principle of freedom in which it was created. All doubt can be eliminated, for Mr. Michaelson and all other seekers after wisdom, if they remember what they learned in kindergarten: share and share alike. IBM, HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded businesses have no problem with this, nor should Mr. Michaelson's readers. - Well, HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded aside for a moment, http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/october2005_recommended.html#RETocos20051014 (OCO modules for the October 2005 stream) It doesn't seem to match with Moglen's alternative reality. 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
Recent court decisions in Germany? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual court decision. The courts decision was in favour of the GPL. In short, what Moglen says is perfectly correct, and what you say is bunk. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
As you've noticed, it the backslash in your name. It stands out like a sore thumb. My apologies, I was frustrated with you and David. Noted, I am still abit frustrated with David; and it might have come over you. As for the backslash, I really have no idea how to fix that, sorry. where he's trying to argue he can copy GPLed software because his company gave him the CD (to file), it would not be your unfinished software, now would it? If the company recived the CD legally, and gives it to me, then the company cannot dictate what I can do with it, only the copyright holder can. As I tried to explain, for certain values of give. If the company you work for instructs you to file all CDs in a cupboard, they do not transfer ownership to you, and thus you're merely acting in your capacity of agent of the company. You might describe your job as they *gave* me a lot of CDs (to file), but that value of give is not the same as when they give the CD to you to keep (Hey Alfred, here's an old copy of Linux, would you like to have it or do I throw it in the bin?). This example is more aking to the postal service poking in your mail; they have only permission to deliver the mail, and not open it. I'm speaking about a specific case where the company gave me the CD, to do something with its content. I.e. they gave permission to me (as a employee) to access the content on the CD. I claim that the company cannot dictate that I am then not allowed to give you or David a copy of the content. Sorry if I haven't been specific enough with the example. In short, the employee is in legal possession of the binary/code of the CD, which he recived from his employer (note the difference between the `postal service' example, where the postal service was not granted access to the actual content or the actual CD; but only to deliver it to the proper place). If the company got a hot CD with David's software, and I would then distribute it, then both the company and I could be sued by David for copyright infrigment, and other fancy stuff. 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). I disagree with the first part, i.e. that the company wouldn't be liable. They too are in posession of an illegal copy. I also disagree with the later part, if David gives a pre-release of his sofware which is GPLed to the employeer (notice how I don't speak about the `company', but about a specific person), then the employeer has a license to use the four freedoms, this of course includes giving people a copy of the pre-release. Take care, You too. Happy hacking! ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Portuguese Judges wouldn't show such a high level of tolerance against people who make fun of the Judicial system as Wallace is doing. There are rules for dealing with frivolous litigants. I think Wallace is quite serious (though loony), and I think that the judge thinks he is serious, too. US courts go to considerable lengths to accomodate pro se litigants as access to the courts is an important right. It is possible (though unlikely, I think) that Wallace will have attorney's fees assessed against him. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: Recent court decisions in Germany? http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/feedback/OIIFB_GPL3_20040903.pdf You are confusing a `critique' of a court decision, and the actual court decision. That utterly defective judgement (keep in mind that the context is Einstweilige Verfuegung -- ex parte action) based solely on Welte attorneys (the gang at ifross) wild fantasies regarding the GPL being a contract coupled with AGB based on German concept of condition subsequent*** isn't worth the paper it was printed on. But anyway it doesn't seem to match Moglen's alternative reality where the GPL is a lisense-not-a-contract. regards, alexander. ***) Beispiele: Beim Eigentumsvorbehalt, bei dem der Käufer sich das Eigentum an der Verkaufssache bis zur vollständigen Kaufpreiszahlung vorbehält, handelt es sich um eine aufschiebende Bedingung (§§ 929 S. 1, 158 Abs. 1 BGB). Im Rahmen der Sicherungsübereignung, bei der eine Sache bis zur vollständige Tilgung der Raten an den Verkäufer übereignet wird (z.B. beim Raten-Kaufvertrag), handelt es sich um eine auflösende Bedingung. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
David Kastrup wrote: [...] If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? would seem like it would have to be printed on _very_ expensive paper in order to be worth less than that. Oh dear. I take it that you agree that the GPL is a contract coupled with AGB based on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedingung_(Recht). Yes or no, dak? 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
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] If it is from September 2004 and has not been overruled since then, it Sitecom didn't bothered. So what? If the issue would have been unimportant to them, they'd have ceded without waiting for an injunction, wouldn't they? If the case were as cutdried in the manner you claim, Sitecom would have gotten back the legal costs associated with the injunction, once the stuff would have gone through court properly. So Sitecom would have been a fool _not_ to bother _unless_ their chances in court would have been less than favorable. -- 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
Re: Intellectual Property II
- As to the definition of derivative work, the uncertainty is experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only arguably infringe the free developer's copyright. Nah... the uncertainty is experienced by those who read the FSF FAQ. What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. - A protocol exchange would qualify (in Moglen's world) as an example of exchanging complex internal data structures, like a GPL'd daemon talking with a proprietary client app or vice-a-versa. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
