Re: Question about GPL theft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >David Kastrup writes: >> But that does not change that the copyright holder can ask a court to >> stop Microsoft from distributing his software, and can claim damages >> if he can make a plausible case for them. > >In the US he can collect statutory damages without proving any actual >damages. As long as he has registered his copyright, no? - -- (pi^4 + pi^5) ^ 1/6 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGJel/wyMv24BBd/gRAseJAKCneMNAY0POVlkJU4gzyGxuNCXESwCcDjO2 YhZlNkjwcP1+RHJtHY89G2U= =uPA2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: denying rights?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Basically, this is not the GPL, but a different license using the same >words in large parts. Maybe the FSF could demand that they call their >license something else (but I don't know whether GPL is registered as a >trademark), but that's about it. The text of the GPL forbids modification, doesn't it? Such a "GPL except for X and Y" would be a derivative work, wouldn't it? Does that mean that this project is in violation of the terms of distribution of the GPL text? > Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies > of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. [snip] /me isn't sure what exactly "changing it" means... - -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against html email \ /- against microsoft office attachments X - against text above fullquote below / \- against lines longer than 79 characters -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFEYw7ewyMv24BBd/gRAuoBAJ9vCywaefBAtY9yvKtf9eXn78sOaACfSh8v Fq/rirLYkTDxWWk6JHRnqzs= =FGjr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dancefire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am confusing on GPL now, I need someone to clear me. Or maybe you're not confused, but just unhappy that it doesn't condone your desire to take away some of your customers' freedoms. >Do I have to release the patch under GPL if the patch is for a GPL >software? As my understanding, for example, If I modified Linux >kernel, I do not have to release it under GPL if I use it privately, >unless I make it public. But how about the patch for the kernel? That >is, if I generate the patch of my modification for the Linux Kernel, >and never release the modified Linux kernel to public, however, I want >to sell the kernel patch of the Linux to customers as whatever license >as I want, but I don?t want the patch under GPL for some reason. Can I? Your customers will have to apply the patch themselves. If you give them an already patched kernel, you will have to release it to them with the GPL (modulo BSD-type parts of the kernel) covering the *whole* derived work, otherwise your redistribution will be in violation of the only licence you have to redistribute, the GPL (module BSDish and public domain parts). IANAL BTW. - -- "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/ iD8DBQFEW8F/wyMv24BBd/gRAhRrAKCTpbSQ26Ep8nQ9+Vf42yGkFS76jACfQc9x DE538E2WZMAE7w/gj9Dv5Tw= =+ie8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Assignment forms?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Okay, I've received my assignment forms, but I'm not sure if I got the right ones. I checked "yes" to "is there anyone who may have a claim to the work", since at the very least I used company equipment, and also even company time for some of the work, so there *definitely* are grounds to believe that my employer could have some claim to my work. Not that that's too much of a problem, they seem to be willing to waive their claim. The problem is that I now have forms that look very much like individual assignment forms; they do not address the possible claims of my employer in any way; the FSF and I are the only parties of the proposed contract. What do I do now - do I ask the Company Secretary to sign a copyright waiver a la the very last few paragraphs in the ISO standard COPYING file? If I send the signed assignment forms and such a disclaimer signed by my employer, will that be good enough to cover the legal bases? While I'm asking this... what is a "blanket assignment"? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFEOjW3wyMv24BBd/gRAl8/AJ9nAKNLJH/aOqmw9meDBnHld1dyuQCfQc3J Qc2814essBi3dqXzCB+pL00= =PjQQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> billwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dumb ass. You need something to generate DOC files. That could be >almost any WP made today, including OO. The broadband comment is >totally looney, too. At least there *is* Free Software that can read proprietary file formats like .doc. Windows can't even read ELF or xpm's at all, which are as well-documented and easy to interpret as you're likely to get. - -- A PC without Windows is like ice cream without ketchup. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFED+kPwyMv24BBd/gRAuzLAKCG9VSSQd0qddX09j5UkYaY+LvBwgCfRR0k TjxjeiYAoZy+blaP7HPqHfs= =8VXC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: "Preferred form for making modifications"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >There can only be what the copyright holder decides the "source" code >to be. If there's nothing left but the binary, then obviously the GPL >makes little sense; any license that permits distribution of the >program would be equally effective. I'm not aware of any other licences that prohibit further restrictions on downstream recipients. As a more or less kind-hearted head of an otherwise evil empire, you might be willing to give away your abandonware, but unwilling to allow others to turn your product back into a proprietary mini-monopoly. - -- I have neither the need, the time, or the inclination to put words into your mouth. You are perfectly capable of damaging your reputation without any help from me. --Richard Heathfield roasts a troll in comp.lang.c -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFEAw4ewyMv24BBd/gRAmP+AJ9oeUWd+LGCSJ5fCYuVjbMiaCM3HQCgoXbR hk8GQUg7Y23SQ+7kmYUMP1M= =DPfp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: "Preferred form for making modifications"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Maybe, but since there's no source code, there's little value in using >the GPL, and if it was used, a distributor could find himself in >infringement since he could not comply with the source related parts. That's very interesting. What exactly does "source" or "preferred form for making modifications" mean in this context? Is it whatever the copyright holder decrees it to be (the binary itself in this case), or is there some absolute standard for what "source" is, related to the form in which the program was *originally* written? GPLv2 Section 3 states: >The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for >making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source >code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any >associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control >compilation and installation of the executable. So... is "preferred form" referred to the *original* author, or to the immediately upstream provider? Thinking of binary-only redistribution as similar to reimplementation in INTERCAL seems to work for me: you'd be redistributing a *derived* work, and you only need to provide the source code for the *derived* work, not the original. Yes? No? Three bags full? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFEArvJwyMv24BBd/gRAgPmAJ4z8Zm5Igct/k7BN9LGKi376odY6wCfQr2f iORi2GVU3ylZNBmzNg9hmiA= =MpB6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: "Preferred form for making modifications"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 11:32 +, Bernd Jendrissek wrote: >> The reason I wonder is that there is still an awful lot of old >> software floating around that is still useful to some people, and for >> all I know the source code may be lost forever. Supposing the >> copyright holder can be tracked down, and is willing to cooperate, is >> it conceivably possible to get all this stuff released under the GPL? > >And this is probably why the reasoning is a moot point. ??? >Can any of those programs actually do anything useful? Run at least? My job requires me to work with TopSpeed C 3.10 which says Copyright 1992 when it starts up. It's very useful for what we do with it: building programs that run on a PC-104 80386 host in real mode. AFAICT the current copyright holder seems to be Clarion but they only sketchily even mention TopSpeed C in their history page. I have no idea if they'd want to GPL the thing but that's what made me wonder. >Don't run if you can't walk it's better to just use public domain, I >guess. John Hasler made a similar point about using the MIT licence. That might not suit the copyright holder's whim; they might actually like the "viral" nature of the GPL, even for binary-only abandonware. They might *like* the fact that licensees can't legally prevent further redistribution of an improved version they derived. Translations should be easy enough to do, for example. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD/CZRwyMv24BBd/gRAkP+AJ4kTx7Wkradj6H2UJr0WJwwjeSWXACfVOoP ttmeTXR8J2dF/JJRpGC0NNk= =wZdH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"Preferred form for making modifications"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (Or however the GPL defines "source code".) Suppose I want to release some software but I either don't want to or cannot (my house burned down 10 years ago and I lost the source scenario) release source code for it. Is it still possible for (legal) recipients of my software to redistribute (potentially hex-hacked) copies under the GPL I grant them? My first instinct (and IANAL so it's most likely wrong; please tell me exactly how and why if so) is that it would be okay, because I would be the copyright holder and hence I get to define what the "preferred form" for modification is for licensees. That I might have or might once have had a more convenient form is my private matter. Or is it? The reason I wonder is that there is still an awful lot of old software floating around that is still useful to some people, and for all I know the source code may be lost forever. Supposing the copyright holder can be tracked down, and is willing to cooperate, is it conceivably possible to get all this stuff released under the GPL? - -- A PC without Windows is like ice cream without ketchup. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD+vlFwyMv24BBd/gRAtylAJ9YtaIGp+5+L73eX3t8HLjeXofLFQCfTQiY lCR2hIvUm5Xd90Rp4ouLl/k= =Hhus -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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bernd Jendrissek wrote: >> employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma >> redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the >> employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir > >Hey GnuPGP junkie, Hey Armenian Thanksgiving Turkey, >"redistribution (into RAM)" is covered by 17 USC 117 (and equivalent >"Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs" copyright >provisions in all WIPO nations). It doesn't need a license. I didn't say it did. Do you need a licence for any copies you may make subsequent to putting one into RAM for running? Would I need a licence to make a legal copy of 'cp' if 'cp /proc/self/mem /tmp/newcp' actually did something useful? - -- Problems experienced downstream are symptoms of neglect upstream. Upstream problems can only be solved upstream. - someone -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8fmzwyMv24BBd/gRAtINAJ9GUBGBDOUibiCOjuQoD2yzwB40eACfdUpU labY4IVzbUDotZ/mGASaWw4= =M+bk -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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that >would violate the license. The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require the recipients to do foo and bar and not to do x and y. But: it doesn't seem entirely clear that an employer giving an employee a CD with which to do some work is, in fact, redistributing. I the work is to be done on machines owned by the employer, I suppose that is definitely *not* redistribution. OTOH if the work is to be done on the employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir employer. Once sie has that copy, sie can do as sie pleases since the employer has no right to impose further restrictions. Or maybe not (IANAL). - -- Q: Why does this scheme have so many keys? A: We added them as the need arose. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8aKQwyMv24BBd/gRAv6GAKCGhOzserrYVMcYkm1+mw5/IMNCTwCfRHiA qsIEmYCJsg6KEiDg7GnvpKQ= =e9P0 -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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bernd Jendrissek wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing >> >independent works for all its components is indeed "still just a >> >compilation". But it now contains a derivative program (among other >> >computer program works) -- a derivative set of instructions to >> >eliminate FSF. >> >> So all compilations of independent works are also derivative works in >> their own right? Is that what you are saying? > >Not at all. An independently created compilation is never a derivative >work. So really it was just a poor example you made up? - -- You're proposing to build a box with a light on top of it. The light is supposed to go off when you carry the box into a room that has a Unicorn in it. How do you show that it works? - Dr. Gene "spaf" Spafford, at Dr. Wenliang Du's qualifing exam -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8OKFwyMv24BBd/gRAqYeAJwNAoI2uXc/xPn4O1FM75/y7+bXOACeIPd7 24N5BnE9/G/c12+1oAGG4Ik= =dQwA -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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing >independent works for all its components is indeed "still just a >compilation". But it now contains a derivative program (among other >computer program works) -- a derivative set of instructions to >eliminate FSF. So all compilations of independent works are also derivative works in their own right? Is that what you are saying? - -- "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8JV2wyMv24BBd/gRAkP4AJ0cg/WwaZ2etc9BF/hj8NFnp+8hVACfZasC vOGgolaXm7judcCWnUCC1po= =ubyp -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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights. What if I, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool stuff, some across a three-year-old CD with a bunch of GNU packages on it? I assume such a copy is legally acquired, even if the CD might have originally been stolen by a burglar only to be discarded later. The copyright holder is still the FSF, and it is only the FSF which can grant me a licence to certain uses of the copy I have. If I am instructed by my employer to use some piece of GPLed software on my home PC (I wonder if such an instruction is lawful - probably), then using the software necessarily entails making an incidental copy that resides on my own hard disk and in my RAM, perhaps even on my (personal) USB flash disk. Is this incidental copy sufficient to trigger a unilateral grant of the GPL from the copyright holder to me? I am, after all, the legal owner of that (incidental but nevertheless real) copy. Right? Wrong? WTH??? - -- Your filthy ancestors, the Thanksgiving Turkeys, are responsible for the brutal genocide of millions of Armenian earthworms. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8JGNwyMv24BBd/gRAm71AJ0ahb47CC7pXnTYIVuf/GGL3c4UPgCfY4NE Ugll1juvS0WT0Iq8ippJ/90= =yAf/ -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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Original:
>
> unsigned explosive_power = 0;
> while (still_not_eliminated("FSF"))
>send_a_bomb("FSF", explosive_power += 10/*kiloton*/);
>
>Derivative:
>
> unsigned explosive_power = 0;
> while (still_not_eliminated("FSF")) {
>fork();
>send_a_bomb("FSF", max((explosive_power += 10) + random(),
> 666)/*kiloton*/);
> }
No, that's still just a compilation. All that's changed is that you've
aggregated the original with the independent works "fork();\n", "max((",
and ") + random(), 666)".
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/
iD8DBQFD7LShwyMv24BBd/gRAtx4AKCO691Uj3Y7ggRxvj3oyva6Odk16QCfXsZg
hvefJiW30PMNsfhItp7yUsI=
=7qUG
-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
-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
SA government should encourage sharing tech and ideas, not hoarding
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.cbn.co.za/dailynews.php?id=1152 > A common problem experienced by capital seekers is that many funds > will only consider a business that has intellectual property such as > patents. "This is especially frustrating," says de Waal, "because a > great business concept based on existing technology could be rejected > in favour of a shakier proposition having proprietary intellectual > property. In any event, a patent is only ever worth anything if you > also have the means to defend it." I thought the SA government liked free software (they seem to prefer to talk about "open source" which IMHO is an ideological oversight), so the patent "requirement" alone should concern it. As far as I understand it, the government's social mandate is to improve the wellfare of *all* the country's citizens, not just that of individual companies. This mandate would be better served by seeking to maximize *consumer* surplus, not *producer* surplus. Especially in a developing economy with only a small stockpile of its own patents, it seems to me that having a strong patent culture can only be disruptive to the innovation that's required to develop a country. I don't have any links handy (volunteers, anyone?) but I heard the Indian government specifically excluded software (algorithms?) from patentability precisely so that India's burgeoning software industry can go crazy and take over the world. - -- You can't truly consider yourself a mad scientist until you have seriously considered transmutation of base metals into gold. (By neutron bombardment, of course.) - me -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD0MLEwyMv24BBd/gRAhtOAJ9uVwG5thD8Q8/07oDWwH7Mtl2bYACfSb1b VmZj2iRnaZMbhlaUpkVUnQ0= =pVQ2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Including GPL and LGPL'ed software in a solution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The MySQL Protocol is proprietary. [...] > Because this is a GPL protocol, [...] Make up your mind. - -- "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFDpnrgwyMv24BBd/gRAj9OAJ9Z/ih5ZySA3IhHgRCPfp8LWv64ogCeLaJg p35kQgPumTK+W4sDnDwHMeo= =nLb0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Protecting developer benefits in an open source project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >How could the original founder of an open source project, protect and >keep his project as his own, and prevent other external factors ( a >company or group of developers) from getting his source, invest a lot >of money on the base project, start their own businness out of it, and >leave the original developer out of the way? Said founder could find a way to out-develop said evil company. Better yet, said founder could celebrate that somebody else is incurring the cost of maintaining said project. >It may well happen that, a promising open source project is abandoned >due to the fact that some company just has enough money to raise the >leverage on the project and claim his own *branch*, make it effectively >better than the original *base* and attract all open source developers >to this branch, who would otherwise continue developing on the *base*. So either out-develop that branch, or let go of the egotistic belief in the moral superiority of the "base" and take advantage of all this work being done by others, even if you no longer have ultimate authority over the project. It isn't as if GCC is spontaneously going to turn into a window manager, is it? >A second issue is, how could copyrights prevent this problem, if at >all? Is it a problem? >Would it be unethical, or inappropriate to say, "this project is mine, >and no entity can start a project with the same purpose, using my >sources", at least temporarily until the project gets enough leverage >that no external factor can interfere? Please define "interfere", making clear if necessary, why it is harmful, and to whom. Nobody forces you to release a work whose copyright you own. Keep your trade secret... secret. >Perhaps even doing so, since your sources are publicly accessed, one >could easily grasp your novel idea and rewrite it from scratch, having >had the financial resources that you don't, and "raise above the water >like olive oil" (is what Turks say for this). There are few truly novel ideas. Why rewrite your "idea" from scratch if your sources are publicly available (and presumably Free Software, considering this thread is in gnu.misc.discuss)? If the sources are complete enough to embody the idea of the solution to be gleaned and reimplemented, then I suspect your sources are close enough to completion that rewriting from scratch would be a sunk cost. Why bother incurring it? If you're concerned about proprietary reimplementation, well, I guess you have a marketing problem: convincing people that your FREE solution provides them with more value than somebody else's PROPRIETARY solution. It's amazing how many people metaphorically prefer to buy a car with the hood welded shut, rather than taking a gratis one with a hinged hood. If your idea really is so novel, maybe you can find money yourself. >Or maybe this is the fact of life, and projects should continue by >tough, natural selection? Maybe if it's a really novel idea, get >patents for it, not to put it as an obstacle to others but just to be >in control of what you've started. How does/should it work? It "should" work like this: non-free (speech) information doesn't exist. Then you wouldn't have to be concerned about piracy. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFDdGFXwyMv24BBd/gRAhmdAJ49Y4WJSP3DYJILn+NWpyIhEa5oTwCaA4TG vxEVHGcS58sLn3EFdZztTvc= =3qPW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Dating a Dirty No-Good Slut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Crossposting to gnu.misc.discuss, and alt.psychology.nlp since I think this is WAY more topical there than the spam that infests g.m.d and the trainer wars that infest a.p.n now. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Michaela wrote: >MCMLXVI wrote: >> There are few things that wound my heart more than a person who >> firmly believes that s/he has a dearth of options. > >To me our very belief in scarcity is what creates that scarcity in the >first place. And that's arguably why we seem to have such a problem >with self-help authors. Perhaps we don't believe they should be >charging for their services for some reason. But I disagree. They have >a skill/talent and need to be rewarded for sharing it as much as anyone >else! It's not *their* responsibility to give their help for free; that is *ours* to fight the laws that prohibit people from helping and sharing each other, just because somebody else wrote some words on a piece of paper. (I'm referring to Copyright - by no means a "natural" right.) *Does* any "author" (*) "need" to be rewarded? (Presupposition alert.) Why do all those epic works of classical music exist? Their composers weren't rewarded via copywrong... (*) The idea of the "romantic" or "heroic" author is a recent one - in reality almost all copyrightable works are derived from a vastly greater intellectual commons. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that... - -- There is a lot of food in a supermarket, too, but a supermarket isn't the best place to hold a dinner party. -- Christopher Faylor -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQFCMEjX/FmLrNfLpjMRAhz+AJ0fp6v0NigwklelrqIUGZOcWyM65ACdGWpI LUpkHeloa/Z/JHuOlEF5tXA= =H7Bz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
