subject:"Re\\\: GPL and other licences"

   Each licensee is addressed as you.

   You in the GPL refers only to licensees.  To be a licensee, you
   have to enter into interaction with a licensor.

And since I have a copy of the program, I am the licensee.  Simple, is
it not?

   They don't say anything different.  How comes you just make
   _claims_ about the GPL without actually quoting anything that would
   support your point?

If I had to start quoting things, then I'd have to quote the whole
license for you, since you are obviously incapable of reading it.  I
assume that anyone here has a copy of the GPL, and can read the
sections.  If you don't I can give you a copy of the whole license,.

   Quote it, then.

It is pointless to quote things that the other party will simply not
read, as you on a contibued basis do.

   Without ownership of a physical copy, there is no licensee.
   
Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the
license.

   You can accept the license all you want, but that does not give you
   the right to access a physical copy of the code owned by somebody
   else.

If that person gave me access to the physical copy, it does.  Have you
bothered reading _anything_?  It isn't the simply matter of just being
able to access it, it is the simple matter of actually being legally
allowed to do so.  This has been stated, restated, and repated so many
times that I'm getting quite bored of doing it.  If you are not
interested in actually reading anything that is written, and
understand it, please state it so that we don't have to waste our
times.

   Section 0:

   Each licensee is addressed as you.

   Bystanders are not addressed by the license.  Only licensees are.

Since I have recived a legal copy of the program, I am the liecnsee.

I recived the source code from my employeer.  I get the right to
copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code
in any medium (provided I do some stuff which I didn't quote
here).

   Nobody gives you that right.  

The license does. 

   The copy is owned by your employer.

The CD is owned by the employeer, yes.  Not the software.

   You are not free to do with is as you like.

Nobody claimed so, stop inventing things.

   Even if he were breaking the
   license in some manner by not letting you use it like you want to
   (which he doesn't), the only party that has a legal standing against
   that would be the copyright holder, not you.  

Sure, but nobody claimed otherwise, once again, stop inventing things.
The employeer gave legal access to the software to the employee, the
employee can accept the license.

   You can't take the justice (or in this case rather the putative
   justice) for the copyright holder into your own hands.

Once again, nobody claimed this.  Stop inventing things.

   The terms of the license apply to the licensee, not every
   bystander.  You are not a licensee.
   
Since I recived the source code, *I*AM*IN*FACT*THE*LICENSEE*.
The GNU General Public License version 2 explcicly states this.

   It doesn't.  And waffling about that won't change it.  Quote anything
   that would state such a thing.

I have quoted several sections, that you are incapable to be bothered
to understand those sections is not my fault.



___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences


   Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under
   the GPL is within the scope of the original license.
   
Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the
work.  I.e. change the license of the original copyright code.

   Oh nonsense.  If the original license permits usage in a context with
   different conditions, of course anybody can do so.  That is the
   distinguishing feature of the BSD licenses as opposed to the GPL: the
   freedom to distribute under unfree conditions.


Only person who can re-license something is the copyright
holder.
   
   Wrong.  The only person who can give _permission_ to sublicense
   is the copyright holder.
   
Sub-license != _re_-license.
   
Re-license == Changing the license.

   Your point being what?  Whatever license you get the stuff under is
   valid.

I can infact extract BSD licensed code from an GPLed program, if I am
entierly sure that the code that is extracted does not contain any
GPLed bits.  Hence why this is not relicencing, but dual licensing.

So no relicensing happened, a dual license is in effect.

If you could infact relicense BSD licensed code, then one could remove
the copyright notice with the license blurb, you cannot.

Once again, only the copyright holder can change the license of the
work, i.e. re-license it.  When you combine a modified-BSD-license
(just so that David who doesn't understand assumptions grasps this)
licensed, you are dual licensing the work, part of it is under the
modifed-BSD license, and part of it is under the new license, for
example the GPL.

   Uh, Microsoft is relicensing a whole bunch of BSD software.  Quite a
   bit from their network stack.  BSD is a source license.  Where is the
   source for the BSD parts?  Obviously, this is not a dual-license
   scheme.

No, they are dual licensing it under two licenses.  Microsoft cannot
change the license of a BSD licensed work.  They have to include the
copyright notice, and the license in their source code.

When you relicense a work, you can _remove_ the original license.
This is not allowed with the modified-BSD license.

   But the conditions of modified-BSD don't prohibit binary-only
   distribution even though BSD is a source license.

I have no idea what this means.  I can license binary-only stuff under
the BSD license if I so wish.  There is nothing `source' specific
about it, the same goes for any license.




___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread David Kastrup

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can give
you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium that is
not your property.

 The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by giving
 access to the content.  What part of the scenario do you simply not
 understand?

If I give some person the key to my apartment and ask him to fetch a
book from there, that does not mean that he gets all rights that I as
the owner of the apartment have.  It does not give him permission to
read my letters, even though the content of the letters is not
tangible property.

You still confuse access and ownership.  The owner is the
licensee, nobody else.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

   This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into
   contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted
   by the FSF itself.

Nobody claimed this, stop inventing lies.

   So it would seem you're out on a limb with your interpretation.

He isn't, you are though.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Graham Murray

Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 This very wide interpretation (giving copies to all who come into
 contact with the program) is not how the GPL has been interpreted by
 the FSF itself.

Do you not agree that section 2 states that the users of modified[0]
programs which accept commands interactively[1] must be given (by the
licensee) the opportunity to acquire a copy of the program, become a
licensee and therefore be allowed to copy, modify and distribute the
program?

This seems to be saying that, for this specific class of programs, if
the owner of the copy (the licensee) gives (someone) permission to use
(ie run) the program then permission must also be granted (to that
same person) to acquire a copy. If this applies (explicitly) to
modified programs which accept interactive commands, then by
implication it also applies to other modified programs which are
licensed under the GPL.

The interpretation is not as wide as to apply to all who come into
contact with the program, just those whom the licensee allows to run
the program. I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that
this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a
server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so
it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that
special case' describes a situation where the licensee has to provide
a copy of the work.

[0] In other words, the original creator of a work does not have to
allow users to obtain copies, but those who create derivative works
have to do so.

[1] Which is a class of program which at the time the GPL was written
(when multi-user computers were much more common than 'personal' ones)
was very likely to be run by people (users) other than the owner of
the copy.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-15 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:51:56 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I can see nothing in the FAQ you quoted which states that
 this is not the case, but one part 'However, putting the program on a
 server machine for the public to talk to is hardly private use, so
 it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that
 special case' describes a situation where the licensee has to provide
 a copy of the work.

But the selfsame entry says that the current GPL does not require it,
and that version 3 might do something about that. Plus, it suggests
another license in the meantime. Thus, your interpretation is not
supported by the FSF. They clearly distinguish between what they'd like
the situation to be, and what it is:

| It is essential for people to have the freedom to make
| modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those
| modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for
| the public to talk to is hardly private use, so it would be
| legitimate to require release of the source code in that special
| case. We are thinking about doing something like this in GPL version
| 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.
| 
| In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for
| programs designed for network server use. 

Notice it _would be_ legitimate, not _it is_. Thus, it clearly _is
not_ at this time. Notice that It is essential for people to have the
freedom to make modifications and use them privately. 

In fact, the entries I quoted refute all the assertions made by Alfred
and yourself:

1. Users of a web-based program are not covered by the GPL (and you who
like to extrapolate should have no problem in applying that to people
in front of a glass teletype).
2. An organisation making copies for internal use does not distribute
the software and can forbid its employees from distributing it outside
the company
3. You cannot demand a copy of a GPLed program from the owner of a
copy. It is the owner of a copy who decides to distribute it or not
4. If you get an unlawful copy of a GPLed work (steal one), you can
distribute it under the GPL (ie become a licensee) only (and then only
probably) if it is available elsewhere. It is legal for companies to
treat modified GPLed programs as trade secrets. 

Read the FAQs again. Try and find _one_ that supports your
interpretation. Think about what the great Confucius said: Mind like
parachute, only works when open. :-)

You are describing how you'd like things to be, not how they are.

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: GPL and other licences

   First, no third party (even the author of a GPLed work) can
   give you permission to copy anything from a computer or medium
   that is not your property.
   
The owner of the computer/CD explcitly gave this permission by
giving access to the content.  What part of the scenario do you
simply not understand?

   If I give some person the key to my apartment and ask him to fetch
   a book from there, that does not mean that he gets all rights that
   I as the owner of the apartment have.  It does not give him
   permission to read my letters, even though the content of the
   letters is not tangible property.

   You still confuse access and ownership.  The owner is the
   licensee, nobody else.

And you are confusing property with software.  If I take your book,
you loose the book.  If I make a copy of a program that is stored on
the CD (I'm legally allowed to make a copy, I have access to it, and
the license allows me to do this), you do not loose the CD or the
program.  If you had a duplication machine which could duplicate the
book a million times, you'd have a point, sadly, no such machine
exists to my knowledge, so you don'g have a point.  You are also
forgetting whatever license the book might have.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Bernd Jendrissek

-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

   I believe the OP must have had the following in mind software
   wants to be free). A GPLed work was modified by an employer to
   suit their business, but they don't intend to release it.

The license applies to anyone who is in posession of the software, no
matter who made the modifications.  If it is an employee or not is
irrelevant.  See section 0 of the GNU GPL.  Since the employeer gave a
copy of the GPLed work to a employee, the employee can accept the
license, and if he does, he is free to redistribute the work.  The
employeer cannot stop this other than by simply not giving the
employee a copy of the work.

Once again, section 0.

   The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful
   copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright
   holder can grant.

Nobody claimed this.  



___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

   Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me
   permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the
   license?

Nobody made such a claim, stop inventing things.

   Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but
   your right to refuse anyone to make copies of your copy is
   inalienable(*).

The basis of the whole discussion is that someone (employeer) gave a
CD to someone (employee).  The person gave up this right in the
instance when it gave access to the content of the CD.  If there are
files on that CD that are licensed under the GNU GPL, then the person
who is in legal posession of the CD can now redistribute those
specific files.

   Imagine that you have purchased a license from me. The software is
   my property,

Software cannot be property, different laws apply for software and
property.

   and I can license it as I please to whom I please, but I simply
   cannot give someone the right to make a copy of your property
   (i.e. the licensed copy you bought from me) even if that someone
   has legitimate access to your computer, and the license allows
   *you* to make copies. You own that copy, and whatever the
   license(*), you can refuse that someone makes copies of it.

The GNU GPL explicitly gives access to anyone who is simply in the
legal posession of those particular files to accept the license.  See
section 0 of the GNU GPL.

   What the OP claimed was that the GPL allowed him to ignore the
   rights of the legitimate owner of the copy. This of course is
   patent nonsense,

The only nonsense is your claim that the OP (i.e. me) claimed this.  I
never did.

   if only because the GPL is not an intrinsic attribute of the
   software, but an agreement between two parties, and thus external
   to the software, even if the text of a proposed license accompanies
   it.

The two parties being the copyright holder, and the person who has the
software.  Not the CD, not the disk it resides on, but the software.
See section 0 of the GNU GPL.

If you do not know what the discussion is about, stop participating in
it or figure out what is being disucssed.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

   This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had
   understood copyright law to participate in this discussion.

Which has what to do with the rights that are applied to a work which
does not have a copyright notice?  None.

Do you know what default copyright is?


David, stop the name calling, and insults.  If you do not wish to keep
discussing, don't reply.  Simple as that.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
licenses that are compatible with the GPL.

   [...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
   LGPL like clause that allows it.

This is true.  The original work is still covered by the original
license.  What happens is a dual licensing, the original code is still
licensed under the BSD license, and the new code is licensed under the
GPL.

Only person who can re-license something is the copyright holder.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov


David Kastrup wrote:
 
 Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
  BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
  licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
 
 [...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
 LGPL like clause that allows it.
 
  This is true.  The original work is still covered by the original
  license.  What happens is a dual licensing, the original code is still
  licensed under the BSD license, and the new code is licensed under the
  GPL.
 
 Wrong.  You are spouting more and more nonsense.  If we are talking
 about the old BSDL, the licenses are incompatible. 

They are incompatible only in the GNU Republic.
 
With the new one
 (without advertising clause), relicensing under the GPL is within the
 scope of the original license. 

You both are spouting nonsense. 
 
Whoever receives the software _under_
 a different license has to heed the relicense.  That's what makes
 BSD-licensed software popular with outfits like Microsoft in the first
 place: they can relicense the BSD-licensed software under EULA. 

MS doesn't relicense BSD-licensed software under EULA. MS EULA 
is a contract about what you can and can not do with your copy 
of software (how you can use it). It doesn't convey any 
exclusive rights under copyright that belong to the copyright 
owners.

One can download some GNU pearl like emacs (binary), attach 
similar contract (e.g. in shrink-wrap form) to that copy, and 
distribute it to the FSF by snail mail. (Distribution is made
under first sale.)

Got it now, GNUtians dak and ams?

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

2006-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

[... derived work (i.e. derivative work under GNU law) ...]

I suppose that id lrosen belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm.

Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense
version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU definition of
derivative work.)

Interesting things are going on over there at gplv3.fsf.org.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20Creator%20=%20'lrosen'%20%20AND%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'gplv3-draft-1'%20Order=DESCOrderBy=idRows=

It appears that Rosen was (?is?) on the Committee A. He identified a
bunch of issues (including his comments and a bunch of comments made
by others) and claimed them for the Committee A. Now, just a few days
later someone fontana downgraded and removed all that stuff from
docket for Committee A.

I suppose that fontana belongs to Moglen's underling at SFLC
Richard Fontana.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/team.html

I knew that gplv3 process was destined to deliver first class
circus... and it turns out to be just stunning. ;-)

regards,
alexander.

--
Comment 641: Incompatibility and attorney's fees

Regarding the text: your terms may add limited kinds of additional
requirements on your added parts
In section: gpl3.licensecompat.p1.s1
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 21:08 EST

Comment noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 21:08 EST:

Eben reminded me to ask about this: Does the fact that another
license has an attorney's fees provision automatically make it
incompatible with GPLv3? I would much rather that GPLv3 were merely
incompatible with licenses that contradict the terms of this GPLv3
license for this work, and leave out all the other list of limited
kinds of additional requirements below. Otherwise, we'll be arguing
about various kinds of license compatibility provisions forever.

Claimed for Committee A by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 21:09 EST
Identified as an Issue by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 21:09 EST
Issue downgraded, moved back to Inbox by fontana on 2006-01-25 at 17:24
EST
Remove from docket for Committee A by fontana on 2006-01-25 at 17:24 EST

Comment 639: Contemplated by whom?

Regarding the text: reasonably contemplated use of the covered work
In section: gpl3.licensingpatents.p0.s2
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 20:13 EST

Comment noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 20:13 EST:

What is the reach of the reasonably contemplated provision?
Contemplated by whom? As of what date? Must the contemplation be written
somewhere? Most patent licenses are limited to claims that are
necessarily infringed by or embodied in the software as delivered.
Anything more is risky for holders of large and diverse patent
portfolios.

Claimed for Committee A by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 20:17 EST
Identified as an Issue by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 20:17 EST
Issue downgraded, moved back to Inbox by fontana on 2006-01-25 at 17:24
EST
Remove from docket for Committee A by fontana on 2006-01-25 at 17:24 EST

Comment 638: True, but so what?

Regarding the text: Not a Contract.
In section: notacontract.0.0
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 18:58 EST

Comment noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 18:58 EST:

NONE of the free and open source licenses are contracts without the
external formalities of offer, acceptance and consideration, and the
GPLv3 IS a contract when those external formalities are
undertaken--despite what the GPLv3 license says. The fact that some
licenses memorialize the contract formation externalities doesn't
actually make them contracts; it is the formalities themselves that do.
Each licensor decides for him/herself whether to require formalities;
the license author cannot decide that on anyone else's behalf. There are
many advantages to forming a contract, including the opportunity for the
licensor to seek contract remedies such as specific performance. There
are no disadvantes to forming a contract with the GPLv3, because the
license terms are still enforceable under either contract law or
copyright law. If a licensor seeks to enforce the GPLv3 under copyright
law rather than contract law, the license then is merely a potential
defense to a claim of infringement. Contract law is the same, except
more alternative remedies exist for licensors besides statutory or
actual damages, or injunction. Why isn't that something good we should
encourage, rather than discourage them with factually inaccurate phrases
such as Not a Contract?

Claimed for Committee A by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 20:16 EST
Identified as an Issue by lrosen on 2006-01-23 at 20:16 EST
Issue downgraded, moved back to Inbox by fontana on 2006-01-25 at 17:24
EST
Remove from docket for Committee A by fontana on 2006-01-25 at 17:24 EST

Child comment of 638:
Comment 259: Should this be removed?

Regarding the text: Therefore, by modifying or propagating the Program
(or any covered work), you indicate your acceptance of this License to
do so, and all its terms and conditions.
In section:

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Graham Murray wrote:
[...]
 Taking this in conjunction with clause 3b, even if the user is not
 allowed to copy the binary from the system on which it is being run
 then they are, under the terms of the GPL allowed to obtain the source
 code of the program (being as it has to be made available to *all*
 third parties who request it).

I can see headlines: Association of Uber GNUtian employees hire SLFC 
to file a class action against their employers to enforce the GPL. 
To hell, to hell go all those trade secrets, give us the source 
code! shouted the crowd of Uber GNUtians led by gmurray again and
again.

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

2006-02-14 Thread David Kastrup

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You are not a licensee, as you are not the owner of the copy.  So the
GPL language does not apply to you when it says you.

 Since I'm in the lawful posession of the copy, I'm am allowed to
 accept the GPL.

Non sequitur.

 Section 0, section 1 (since you are to lazy to read the GPL) also
 applies.

I am too lazy?  You already forgot section 0:

Each licensee is addressed as you.

You in the GPL refers only to licensees.  To be a licensee, you have
to enter into interaction with a licensor.

It says no such thing.  The complete section 0 is

0. This License applies to any program or other work which
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may
be distributed under [...]

 I suggest you continue reading section 1, 2 and 3.  If you are going
 to quote things, read the bit you quote.

They don't say anything different.  How comes you just make _claims_
about the GPL without actually quoting anything that would support
your point?

 Nothing of what I have written is wrong.  It is stated _explcitly_
 in the license.

Quote it, then.

Without ownership of a physical copy, there is no licensee.

 Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the
 license.

You can accept the license all you want, but that does not give you
the right to access a physical copy of the code owned by somebody
else.

There is nothing in section 0 that declares anybody coming across
code a licensee, and indeed that would be frivolous.

 For the sake of my own sanity, I'll give you this.  Section 1 state
 it.

   1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
  source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you

Section 0:

Each licensee is addressed as you.

Bystanders are not addressed by the license.  Only licensees are.

 I recived the source code from my employeer.  I get the right to
 copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code in
 any medium (provided I do some stuff which I didn't quote here).

Nobody gives you that right.  The copy is owned by your employer.  You
are not free to do with is as you like.  Even if he were breaking the
license in some manner by not letting you use it like you want to
(which he doesn't), the only party that has a legal standing against
that would be the copyright holder, not you.  You can't take the
justice (or in this case rather the putative justice) for the
copyright holder into your own hands.

The terms of the license apply to the licensee, not every
bystander.  You are not a licensee.

 Since I recived the source code, *I*AM*IN*FACT*THE*LICENSEE*.  The
 GNU General Public License version 2 explcicly states this.

It doesn't.  And waffling about that won't change it.  Quote anything
that would state such a thing.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:25:51 -0600
Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
  Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
  software to be a licensee
  
  You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright holder without
  owning a copy. A license is an agreement between two parties, and I
  believe that quite often Microsoft Volume licensing deals do not
  include copies of the software. 
 
 I did not say that such a thing was generally impossible.  The
 question is whether the GPL itself provides for becoming a licensee
 without making a copy.

There are two activities that are normally forbidden by Copyright that
are allowed when one accepts the GPL:
1. Making and distributing copies
2. Preparing derivative works.

I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy. For example, if you steal
a CD with GPLed software from me, you are not in a position to claim
that you are entitled to redistribute this software under the GPL, as I
might not have wanted to give you a copy in the first place. This could
be software that I did not intend to distribute, but had prepared for
my own purposes. The fact that the CD contains the COPYING file with
the GPL doesn't mean that I have to distribute it, or that when it is
stolen, I cannot recover my property.

Obviously, when the CD contains an old unmodified version of GCC
neither I nor the copyright holders will care much about the thief
copying and distributing it. If, however, it is a CD that contains
software that looks like a GPLed work (which it would if it was a
derivative work prepared in accordance with the requirements of the
GPL), only a lawful copy (i.e. given to a third party by the owner of
the derivative work) would enable the rightful owner (and not just
anyone having physical access to a copy) to obtain a license under the
GPL.

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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Bernd Jendrissek

-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

2006-02-13 Thread David Kastrup

Bernd Jendrissek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 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.

What if you, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool
stuff, come across a cheque to bearer?  Is that cheque legally
acquired and can be cashed in by you?

What if you, as a homeless vagrant scouring the city dump for cool
stuff, come across the medical records of the town mayor?  Are those
records legally acquired and can be sold to the newspapers by you?

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread John Hasler

Stefaan writes:
 I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
 GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.

I believe that he must _own_ a copy.  A bailee or agent can be in lawful
possession of a lawful copy.
-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
 
 -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?

Not at all. An independently created compilation is never a 
derivative work. It may contain derivative works (i.e. modified or 
transformed works... and even include smaller derivative 
compilations -- modified set of works) but that doesn't make a 
whole work (overall compilation) a derivative work. See also HOUSE 
REPORT NO. 94-1476:

-
Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative
work is copyrightable if it represents an ''original work of
authorship'' and falls within one or more of the categories listed
in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that
the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102
apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to
those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also
intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7
of the present law (section 7 of former title 17), the important
interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting
and of ''new'' material in a particular work. The most important
point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright
in a ''new version'' covers only the material added by the later
author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or
public domain status of the preexisting material.

Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works''
which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable
work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There
is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically
represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a
process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging
previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether
the individual items in the material have been or ever could have
been subject to copyright. A ''derivative work,'' on the other
hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting
''one or more preexisting works''; the ''preexisting work'' must
come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in
section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted.

The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a)
deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work
unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In
providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the
work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill
prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright
protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves
protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the
preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel
could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in
an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole
anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of
one of the poems was unauthorized.
-

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

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:24:25 -0600
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Stefaan writes:
  I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to
  accept the GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
 
 I believe that he must _own_ a copy.  A bailee or agent can be in
 lawful possession of a lawful copy.

OK, thanks for the correction. I've reformulated the same stuff so often
in this discussion with Alfred that slip-ups were bound to happen.

For the record, I agree that owning a lawful copy is a prerequisite for
accepting the GPL. 

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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread Bernd Jendrissek

-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

   But you have to be the legal owner to be entitled, under the
   current laws, make any copy. Thus, whatever the license, unless
   you're the lawful owner of the copy, you may not make a copy.

You only have to be in legal _possesion_ of the copy, you do not have
to be the owner of it.

   [...] but it is quite clear that you let your understanding of the
   current reality be clouded by your convictions.

I could say the same thing about you, doesn't mean that it is true for
either of us.  You have continued claiming this, and diverging from
the discssuion; I'd rather have a discussion instead of mud throwing,
which you have tried to turn this into.

I have yet to see a single paragraph from any law codex from you, so
your what you say is equally as valid as what I say.

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

   Cleaning personnel is not permitted to read unclosed material,
   either.  System administrators are not permitted to read mail that
   they have legal access to.  And so on.  Physical access to content
   does not imply permission to actually make use of the content in
   the same manner as the owner of a copy.

You are missing the point, once again.  It isn't just physical access
that is the requirement, but _LEAGL_ physical access.  

And system administrators are infact allowed to read mail that they
have legal access to.  

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

2006-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
 
 -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?

Yet another GNUtian playing idiot. Ok, I'll explain it once again if 
and when you'll become capable of posting without that PGP junk in your 
messages. Ok?
 
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

You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.

   If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it
   might be-- doesn't enter into it at all.

The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the
software.  Please read the license, it even says so


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-13 Thread David Kastrup

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
 the rights given in the GPL.

If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it
might be-- doesn't enter into it at all.

 The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to the
 software.  Please read the license, it even says so

But you can't get the software without accessing the physical media,
and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's decision.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

The license does _not_ apply to the physical copy, it applies to
the software.  Please read the license, it even says so

   But you can't get the software without accessing the physical
   media, and what you are allowed to do with the media is its owner's
   decision.

I don't have physical access to the disk drivers on ftp.gnu.org.  I
don't have physical access to most, if not all, places where I get
free software.


___
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, 13 Feb 2006 23:27:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 This is netiquette.  Group reply is common. 

It is not, and additionally it is customary to mention that you mailed
and posted in your reply if you do so. 

 If you have such a hard
 time figuring out who wrote what, look at the CC and reference fields.
 I happen to like this quotaion style, do not try and enforce what you
 consider sane on me, I'm not doing that to you.

You should follow the quoting and attribution style in use in this
group, not what you happen to like. That is, if you're interested in
getting answers. Of course, you could just be a rude person.

 _IF_ I give you access to my computer, _AND_ to the actual content,
 _YES_.  How hard can it be to understand this?  I have now several
 times said this.  Please _READ_ what is written.

That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under the
GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and for the
sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You give the
disk to a repair person, and grant this person access to your disk,
ostensibly for the purposes of recovering it. During the recovery, the
repair person notices that some directories contain the file COPYING
(usually associated with GPLed software), and decides --without asking
your permission-- that because the GPL allows copies to be made, that
these directories are fair game and copies them for her use. Or maybe
keeps a copy of the whole 80GB because it contains a file called
COPYING.

Think about this situation, and then answer the following questions.
Please note that I will consider an incomplete or evasive answer as
proof that you are clueless.

* Does a third party with obviously lawful access to your disk, but not
for the purposes of making personal copies of well-defined files, have
the right to decide, for themselves, that certain files on your disk are
GPLed and thus can be freely acquired? 

* Is the presence of the file COPYING a reliable indicator of the
license status of the files on a computer storage device?

* How does a third party, without your approval or instructions,
determine which files -if any- are covered by the GPL? 

* How could you prove which files are not covered by the GPL if the text
of the GPL appears in a directory (are all the files in that directory
covered? All files in all sub-directories? The whole disk?)

* Does all GPLed software include a comprehensive and exhaustive list of
all the files it contains, with suitable hashes so that prospective
copiers can make sure they only copy genuine GPLed files and not a
straggler with the same name?

* Are files that do not contain a copyright notice affected by the
presence of a file containing the text of the GPL on the same medium?

* Are files that contain a different copyright notice still covered by
the GPL if the text of the GPL is somewhere on the medium?

* What happens if the texts of the GPL, BSDL, MPL, Artistic License
and the Microsoft and Adobe EULA all appear on the medium.

* Is it a condition of the GPL that all material released under the GPL
should contain a notice stating that it is covered by the GPL?

* Do the copyright statutes mandate a copyright notice? (Hint: No).

* Can files not under the GPL be copied if they are in a directory that
contains a file with the text of the GPL?

* What recourse would you have if certain files were not under the GPL,
did not contain a copyright notice, and you would like to stop the
computer repair person from distributing your unpublished love letters
to Carly Fiorina, written in C++ without exceptions, under the GPL?

BTW, stating that your computer only contains GPLed software and that
you never wrote love letters to Carly is disingenuous. 

   Do you think its OK for a computer repair person to copy software
   from your machine because she notices that a directory contains the
   file COPYING?
 
 _IF_ I have him access to the content, _YES_.

Even if only to try and recover a crashed disk?

OK, then please answer *all* the questions above. 

Cheers,

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:10:22 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

That was not what I asked. You have placed a lot of software (under
the GPL and under more restrictive licenses) and on your disk, and
for the sake of the argument, your disk needs to be recovered. You
give the disk to a repair person, and grant this person access to
your disk, ostensibly for the purposes of recovering it. During the
recovery, the repair person notices that some directories contain
the file COPYING (usually associated with GPLed software), and
decides --without asking your permission-- that because the GPL
allows copies to be made, that these directories are fair game and
copies them for her use. Or maybe keeps a copy of the whole 80GB
because it contains a file called COPYING.
 
 The existance of a COPYING file does not change the copyright status
 of a file.  If you think that it does, then it shows that you have not
 studied copyright law, even basic copyright law.

Indeed. But this is what _you_ say when you maintain that you can copy
software that you believe is under the GPL. I give you, as my employee,
a CD to install on my machines. You look at at, and say Hey! this is
GPLed software - let me make a copy of it. You do not, and cannot know
that this is GPLed software.
 
Think about this situation, and then answer the following
  questions. Please note that I will consider an incomplete or evasive
  answer as proof that you are clueless.
 
 Once again you resort to name calling.  The only person who is
 clueless is the person who cannot dicuss something without name
 calling.

I'm not calling you clueless. I said I will consider you clueless if
you skip pertinent questions as you are wont to do. Learn to discern
the basic meaning of words. 

* Does a third party with obviously lawful access to your disk,
 but not for the purposes of making personal copies of well-defined
 files, have the right to decide, for themselves, that certain files
 on your disk are GPLed and thus can be freely acquired? 
 
 This assumes that the person can slap a license over files that do not
 have such a license, which is illegal unless you are the copyright
 holder.

Thanks again for making my point. Obviously, files are not covered by a
license simply because of proximity. Thus, even _if_ the GPL would
allow copies to be made of files you do not own but merely have access
to, you have no way of knowing which files are indeed covered by the
GPL. 
 
* Is the presence of the file COPYING a reliable indicator of the
license status of the files on a computer storage device?
 
 COPYING is a verbatim copy of the license, it has no legal
 significance over what a file is licensed under.

Thanks for making my point. 

* How does a third party, without your approval or instructions,
determine which files -if any- are covered by the GPL? 
 
 A copyright notice in the file.  I suggest you read the `How to Apply
 These Terms to Your New Programs' from the GNU GPL is a good place to
 start.

This is how you can inform people about your intentions. It doesn't
mean however that it is mandatory (it is not, because copyright under
the Berne convention is automatic - no need to register or put a mark
on each page).

 
* How could you prove which files are not covered by the GPL if
 the text of the GPL appears in a directory (are all the files in that
 directory covered? All files in all sub-directories? The whole disk?)
 
 Only files with proper copyright notices can be protected by
 copyright, if there is no copyright notices: no rights.

No, every work of authorship is automatically covered by copyright
under the Berne Convention. 

 
* Does all GPLed software include a comprehensive and exhaustive
 list of all the files it contains, with suitable hashes so that
 prospective copiers can make sure they only copy genuine GPLed files
 and not a straggler with the same name?
 
 I have no idea what you mean here.

Because works are copyrighted even when not identified as such (Berne
Convention), there is no way in which someone with mere access to a
medium can determine which files are covered by the GPL. How can they
decide what they may copy?

 
* Are files that do not contain a copyright notice affected by the
presence of a file containing the text of the GPL on the same
 medium?
 
 If the file does not contain a copyright notice, then `no rights' is
 applied.  This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had
 understood copyright law to participate in this discussion.

OK, you are clueless. Works do not need to be registered, nor do they
need to carry a copyright notice to be protected by copyright. You put
drivel on paper or in electrons, and presto, they're covered. 


* Are files that contain a different copyright notice still covered
by the GPL if the text of the GPL is somewhere on the medium?
 
 If they contain copyright notices, then the

Re: GPL and other licences

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead.

Darn spellcheckers. It's angels of course :-) 

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt

| Intellectual property
|
| Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as intellectual
| property---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other
| more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and
| differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It
| is best to talk specifically about copyright, or about patents,
| or about trademarks.
|
| The term intellectual property carries a hidden assumption---that
| the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an
| analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
|
| When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
| difference between material objects and information: information can
| be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects
| can't be.
|
| To avoid the bias and confusion of this term, it is best to make a
| firm decision not to speak or even think in terms of intellectual
| property.
|
| The hypocrisy of calling these powers rights is starting to make
| WIPO embarassed.

   If give means making you the owner of the copy, then yes, you
   now have a lawful copy of the software and hence copyright law
   applies.

Once again, you do not have to be the _owner_ of the CD to be able to
access the content.

   Unless you acknowledge that you have grasped this fundamental
   difference, I will no longer answer your posts, and consider you a
   troll.

Since you have such a fundamentally wrong idea of physical objects
vs. non-physical objects, such a reaction is understandable since you
simply do not acknowledge what property actually is, be it in legal
terms, or even in non-legal terms.

People who resort to name calling are the ones who do not grasp this
`fundamental difference'.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Graham Murray

David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
 containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
 entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book
 and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the
 physical copy you copied) permission to do so.

 Not?  You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with
 a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain
 public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out?

No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I can
borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I can
do with it anything allowed by copyright law. I can quote from
copyright works therein (within the restrictions set by copyright
law), if there is any public domain works in the book I can make a
copy of such works. If there is a CD accompanying the book and if that
CD contains works licensed under the GPL, I am suggesting that the GPL
gives me the right to accept the licence and make copies etc. even
though I am neither the owner of the physical copy nor has the owner
given explicit permission to make copies.

I still do not see why the licence only applies to the owner of the
physical copy and not to anyone who (legally) has access to the work
(for whatever purpose). To answer the point raised about the postman,
the reason I think this is different is that postman only has legal
access to closed package and not to the contents thereof.  
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt

You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise
the rights given in the GPL.

   You have to be the owner, period.

Not according to the GPL: 0. This License applies to any program or
other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder
saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public
License.

   Not?  You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning
   with a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to
   contain public domain material, without actually borrowing the
   stuff out?

   You'll find that this is not the case.  You have to meet the
   library's conditions for borrowing the stuff, and only then they'll
   grant you access to it pursuant to the conditions of the copyright
   holder as permitted to them.

They granted me access to it, so if the material is in the PD, then I
am actually allowed to do so without `borrowing' the 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

2006-02-12 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:11:52 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to
  do with it.  The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to
  you. Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of
  the copy, you don't get the rights associated with its ownership.
 
 No. The owner of the physical copy does not have the authority to
 permit creation of additional copies or modifications. Only the
 copyright owner has that authority. The copyright owner has, by
 licensing under the GPL, given permission for copies and modifications
 to be made and for the these (possibly modified) copies to be
 distributed subject to certain conditions specified in the GPL. 

Indeed. But please notice that the GPL doesn't oblige you to distribute
copies, it gives you the right to do so if you want to. And instructing
an agent to perform an installation on one of your machines is not
distribution, which is the act of giving ownership of copies to third
parties. If you cede ownership of a copy to your employee, then yes,
you have to do so under the GPL. But there is no transfer of ownership
here, just a sequence of actions to be performed by the employee/agent.

 You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the
 rights given in the GPL. 

If you are not the owner of the copy, the license --whatever it might
be-- doesn't enter into it at all. 

 For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a
 CD containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
 entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book
 and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the
 physical copy you copied) permission to do so. 

You cannot make a copy of that CD because the Copyright statutes
explicitly forbid making copies, and neither can the library grant you
the (legal) right to make a copy. The library can make lawful copies of
the CD as long as the CD contains the source code because the library
is the lawful owner of the copy. You, on the other hand, are not the
lawful owner, and hence you most definitely cannot make any copy,
whatever the license may be.

Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy
would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies
under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot. But from the legal
perspective, there is a chasm between your making an unlawful copy, and
the lawful copy made by the library.

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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:35:30 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Please refrain from removing attributions. If you quote, have the
decency to include the name of the author.
 
 I said:
  No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD.
  You are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your
  principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action.
 
 ... Unless the license gives me such rights.

But in this case there is no license between you and the licensor, so
it cannot give you any rights. Whatever rights you have would have to
come from the Copyright statutes, but they only apply when you are the
lawful owner of a copy (which, to belabour the point, you are *not*).

 `My' principal cannot redictate the terms of the license of the
 copyright holder without getting the copyright holder to redictate
 them.  If the license allows for sharing, then I am allowed to do so
 if I recived the copy in an lawful manner.

But you did not receive a copy. You received the instruction to do
something with your principal's property. Whether you use to receive
or to give, what matters is whether you became the lawful owner of a
copy. And when you're handling your principal's property on his behalf
and at his behest, you do *not* become the owner of that property,
whether it be a CD with software, or a car, or a power drill, or the
text of a novel. The contents or type of property doesn't enter into
the equation at all.

  This is wrong. The word has must mean is the owner of the copy
  for any rights to accrue. Simply having it in your grubby little
  paws gives you the same rights as the mailman - exactly none.
 
 Please, do I really have to be this detailed after having exlpained
 the specific situation several times?  It is the person who is in the
 lawfull posession of the GPLed software who can accept the license,
 not just the person who owns the CD.

But you are not the lawful owner (or have lawful possession) of the CD.
You're merely using it to execute your job. 

 If you _lend_ me a CD, then I'm not the owner of the copy, and
 according to you, I wouldn't be able to access the content.  This is
 clearly false, and absurd.

Well, you have the physical ability to access its contents. But if this
CD contains software, then I am not allowed to lend it to you for the
purposes of installing the software on *your* computer, as I only have
the right to install said software on *my* computer. I am allowed to
sell it to you (first sale) as long as I remove every trace of the
program from my computer.
 
The FSF gives you the right to make a lawful copy of the content of
their servers on your computer. If you, as AMS and not as agent of
your employer, make a copy of software on those servers, you own a
lawful copy, and that copy resides on your disk.
 
 And since the employeer gave me access, leagl such, to the content of
 the CD, then I can lawfully make a copy of that content.

If he transferred ownership of the copy to you, yes. If he merely
instructed you to install the software on one of his computers, no. 

  AMS uttered:
   According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the
   content of the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for
   the software.
 
  If you do so as yourself. When you are acting as an agent for your
  employer, you are not acting for yourself, and all rights remain
  with your principal. That is what the law says. Using Word on your
  employer's computer doesn't give _you_ a license (that is, you do
  not enter into a business relationship with Microsoft which is what
  a license to use Word is).
 
 I don't know what the license is of this program.  I can only assume
 that it is non-free, so it will have specific clauses that prohibit
 sharing.  Since the license prohibits sharing, I can't share it
 legally with someone else.

It doesn't matter what the license is, because the license is between
the owner of the copy, and the owner of the software. It would matter
if a license were a property of the software, but (for the umpteenth
time) *it is not*. 

 Can we stick to the GPL? Since that is the only thing that matters
 here, if the license doesn't give you the four freedoms, then the
 discussion is moot.

Again, Alfred, the license is an agreement between you and the owner of
the software. Without a license, the Copyright statues forbid copying.
When you are handling a CD (as an agent or the mail carrier or a
helping hand during a move) you do not become the *owner* of a copy,
and thus you cannot do *anything*. The fact that the owner of the
software is prepared to license it to you under the GPL doesn't mean he
*has* licensed it to you. The only way you can invoke the GPL is when
you first have acquired a legal copy.

In the case that interests you - namely that you can make copies of
your employer's software as long as you presume the software has been
licensed under the GPL, to forget that the employer might have

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread David Kastrup

Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
 containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
 entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book
 and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the
 physical copy you copied) permission to do so.

 Not?  You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with
 a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain
 public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out?

 No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I
 can borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I
 can do with it anything allowed by copyright law.

Because a library is a special agency, with special rules fixed in
special laws.

 I still do not see why the licence only applies to the owner of the
 physical copy and not to anyone who (legally) has access to the work
 (for whatever purpose). To answer the point raised about the
 postman, the reason I think this is different is that postman only
 has legal access to closed package and not to the contents thereof.

Cleaning personnel is not permitted to read unclosed material, either.
System administrators are not permitted to read mail that they have
legal access to.  And so on.  Physical access to content does not
imply permission to actually make use of the content in the same
manner as the owner of a copy.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread John Hasler

Stefaan writes:
 Obviously, the simple expedient of asking the library to make a copy
 would give you both a lawful copy and the right to make further copies
 under the GPL, so to a degree the point is moot.

The library could also direct you to make a copy as its agent and then give
you the resulting copy.
-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:36:44 +
Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  The assertion that the GPL gives you the right to make unlawful
  copies is obviously incorrect, as it is not a right the copyright
  holder can grant.
 
 GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who
 *can* give permission to make copies? 

Indeed, but he cannot grant you the right to make copies of something
that doesn't belong to him. Do you really believe that a copyright
holder can give me permission to make copies of files on *your*
computer, whatever the license? Don't forget that you own the copy, but
not the work. The right to make copies is with owner of the work. Your
right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but your
right to refuse anyone to make copies of your copy is inalienable(*).

Imagine that you have purchased a license from me. The software is my
property, and I can license it as I please to whom I please, but I
simply cannot give someone the right to make a copy of your property
(i.e. the licensed copy you bought from me) even if that someone has
legitimate access to your computer, and the license allows *you* to
make copies. You own that copy, and whatever the license(*), you can
refuse that someone makes copies of it. 

What the OP claimed was that the GPL allowed him to ignore the rights
of the legitimate owner of the copy. This of course is patent nonsense,
if only because the GPL is not an intrinsic attribute of the software,
but an agreement between two parties, and thus external to the
software, even if the text of a proposed license accompanies it.

Take care,

(*) I know one could write a license that stipulates that copies, and
a male goat, must be provided to anyone who asks. However, only a fool
would sign such a thing, so could those who like to dot the t's and
cross the i's please refrain from bringing it up? Thanks.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Isaac

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:30:45 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:18:22 +0100, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 For example you borrow from the library a book which comes with a CD
 containing GPL'd software. Under the terms of the GPL are you not
 entitled to make a copy of that software before returning the book
 and CD to the library? You do not need the library's (owner of the
 physical copy you copied) permission to do so.

 Not?  You mean, I can just walk into a library and start scanning with
 a hand scanner or a digital camera from media that happen to contain
 public domain material, without actually borrowing the stuff out?

 No I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that I
 can borrow a book from the library and once it is in my possession I
 can do with it anything allowed by copyright law.
 
 Because a library is a special agency, with special rules fixed in
 special laws.

 I don't think it is necessary to argue that the library is special.
 The library owns books and allows access to them as they choose.
 There are only a few provisions of copyright law that are triggered
 by owning a copy and the ones of interest here don't apply to books.
 No license or permission of any kind is allowed to exercise fair use
 just as no license is required to read a book.  Fair use is copying
 done without permission.
 
 I don't think that lending out books for money to people you don't
 know with the intent to let them read and copy them is still covered
 by the normal fair use.

What's your point?   How does that make the library special?

Copyright law allows lending books out for the purpose of reading them
for free or for profit.  Your correct that it would not be fair use, but
reading does not involve any of the exclusive rights reserved to copyright
holders.  Copyright law places a few more restrictions on the lending out
of software, which IMO makes the libary analogy even less useful.

The library cannot lend the books out for the purpose of allowing copying.
How is that relevant?

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-12 Thread Isaac

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:16:56 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:22:38 -0600
 Isaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL
 software to be a licensee
 
 You can indeed obtain a license from the copyright holder without
 owning a copy. A license is an agreement between two parties, and I
 believe that quite often Microsoft Volume licensing deals do not
 include copies of the software. 

I did not say that such a thing was generally impossible.  The question
is whether the GPL itself provides for becoming a licensee without 
making a copy.

Isaac
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and
follow quoting conventions?

 I'm already doing that.

It depends on the license.  The GPL gives an explicity right for
 this, some other licenses may not.  If I'm in the legal possession of
 GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and
 install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute
 it.
 ^^
 The _content_on_it_! not the acutual CD.

You do not have the right to copy the CD, so how could gain access
to the contents?

 Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD.  See the
 above sentence.

If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not
mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music
collection.

Access is not ownership.  You don't get when internal use is.

It is only the owner of the CD who can accept the GPL and acquire
the right to make copies and distribute those.

 It is the person who has the GPLed software who can accept the
 license, not the person who owns the CD.

There is nothing to accept in a license.  One accepts contracts.
And no, the rights granted by either contract or copyright are just
granted to the owner.  The GPL states:

  0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License.  The Program, below,
refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term modification.)  Each licensee is addressed as you.

This means that the GPL _only_ grants rights to licensees.  As a
worker for a company that has licensed the software, you are not a
licensee, unless the company chooses to give you license for personal
use.

 For example, I do not own the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org.  According
 to you, since I am not the owner of those disk drivers, I'm not
 allowed to accept the license.

Right.  But the rightful owner of those copies grants you access to it
for the sake of creating your own copies of it under the GPL.  It
distributes the stuff.

Are you claiming that a company distributes software when used
internally?  If so, it would have to adhere to

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

If your employer tells you to use company internal software for some
task, do you really think you are in a position to demand the source
code?

 According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content of
 the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software.

Wrong.  Because you are granted access for the _purpose_ of creating
your own copy licensed under the GPL, you are able to do so.  The mere
access itself (which could have been gained by accidental server
misconfiguration) is not a license to do so: if I leave open the door
to my house by mistake, that does not allow you to enter and read my
books.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alexander Terekhov


David Kastrup wrote:

[... license not a contract ...]

Only if it's a license to do something regulated by government. Like
a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun dealer. Such permits 
from state are neither contracts nor property rights. Moglen and RMS
managed to bullshit you into believing that software belongs to state 
and hence is regulated by license not a contract. That may be true in 
the GNU Republic, but in the rest of the world IP licenses (to execise
exclusive right protected by IP laws; EULAs aside for a moment) are 
contracts.

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:

 David Kastrup wrote:

 [... license not a contract ...]

 Only if it's a license to do something regulated by
 government. Like a permit to run a public lottery or become a gun
 dealer. Such permits from state are neither contracts nor property
 rights. Moglen and RMS managed to bullshit you into believing that
 software belongs to state and hence is regulated by license not a
 contract. That may be true in the GNU Republic, but in the rest of
 the world IP licenses (to execise exclusive right protected by IP
 laws; EULAs aside for a moment) are contracts.


URL:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license

license n. 1) governmental permission to perform a particular act
(like getting married), conduct a particular business or
occupation, operate machinery or vehicle after proving ability to
do so safely, or use property for a certain purpose. 2) the
certificate that proves one has been granted authority to do
something under governmental license. 3) a private grant of right
to use real property for a particular purpose, such as putting on
a concert. 4) a private grant of the right to use some
intellectual property such as a patent or musical
composition. (See: licensee, licensor)

As you can see, you are wrong.  Again.  Too bad.  The meaning of
license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of
that term.  Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid
uses.


-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Alexander Terekhov


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
 As you can see, you are wrong.  Again.  Too bad.  The meaning of
 license you refer to above does not exhaust the legal meanings of
 that term.  Those are meanings 12, but meaning 34 are also valid
 uses.

Legal dictionaries are not legal authorities to begin with. And it 
doesn't say that #4 is not a contract (conveying a grant) subject 
to condition and covenants. So how am I wrong, dak?

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

2006-02-11 Thread Graham Murray

Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
 software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
 (become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
 you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you
 for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you
 are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner
 of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium)
 that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. 

Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a moment,
a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book containing a
work which has passed into the public domain. Although you have not
become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally entitled (under
copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a copy. You then
become the 'owner' of the copy you created. 

Why is a GPL'd program any different? The copyright owner has, under
the terms of the GPL, given permission for copies to be made as long
as certain conditions are met. These conditions do not mention being
the legal owner of work which is copied, just that source code must be
made available (by one of the 3 mechanisms stated), that the copy and
any derivative works must be subject to the same licence, and that no
extra conditions be added. The preamble of GPL2 states to make sure
the software is free for all its USERS (my emphasis). Is this not
saying that it is the user of the software, not just the 'owner' of
the copy, that has the rights outlined in the GPL?  So surely, all
that is required is legal access to a copy not legal ownership of the
copy.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a
 moment, a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book
 containing a work which has passed into the public domain. Although
 you have not become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally
 entitled (under copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a
 copy. You then become the 'owner' of the copy you created.

That's because the copyright has ceased: the contents of the book are
no longer subject to the protection of copyright law.

 Why is a GPL'd program any different?

Because its copyright has not ceased.

 The copyright owner has, under the terms of the GPL, given
 permission for copies to be made as long as certain conditions are
 met.

This permission is bound to actual copies.

From the GPL:

  0. [...]  Each licensee is addressed as you.

This makes explicit that the GPL is valid only for licensees.  You
can't become a licensee without acquiring a physical copy: that's what
copyright covers.

 These conditions do not mention being the legal owner of work which
 is copied,

What about licensee don't you understand?

 just that source code must be made available (by one of the 3
 mechanisms stated), that the copy and any derivative works must be
 subject to the same licence, and that no extra conditions be
 added. The preamble of GPL2 states to make sure the software is
 free for all its USERS (my emphasis). Is this not saying that it is
 the user of the software, not just the 'owner' of the copy, that has
 the rights outlined in the GPL?

The GPL could state no such thing even if it wanted to.  Its reach is
to the owners of copies.

 So surely, all that is required is legal access to a copy not legal
 ownership of the copy.

The ink manufacturer can't grant people access to my letters, and the
GPL software manufacturer can't grant people access to my software
media.  Once I pass copies on into separate ownership, I can only do
so under the GPL (or the default provisions of copyright law).  But
internal use does not amount to that.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD.  See the
above sentence.

   No, he instructed you, as his agent, to do things with the CD. You
   are not accessing that CD as AMS, but as the agent of your
   principal. You, as AMS, do not derive any rights from this action.

... Unless the license gives me such rights.

`My' principal cannot redictate the terms of the license of the
copyright holder without getting the copyright holder to redictate
them.  If the license allows for sharing, then I am allowed to do so
if I recived the copy in an lawful manner.

   This is wrong. The word has must mean is the owner of the copy
   for any rights to accrue. Simply having it in your grubby little
   paws gives you the same rights as the mailman - exactly none.

Please, do I really have to be this detailed after having exlpained
the specific situation several times?  It is the person who is in the
lawfull posession of the GPLed software who can accept the license,
not just the person who owns the CD.

If you _lend_ me a CD, then I'm not the owner of the copy, and
according to you, I wouldn't be able to access the content.  This is
clearly false, and absurd.

   The FSF gives you the right to make a lawful copy of the content of
   their servers on your computer. If you, as AMS and not as agent of
   your employer, make a copy of software on those servers, you own a
   lawful copy, and that copy resides on your disk.

And since the employeer gave me access, leagl such, to the content of
the CD, then I can lawfully make a copy of that content.

According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content
of the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software.

   If you do so as yourself. When you are acting as an agent for your
   employer, you are not acting for yourself, and all rights remain
   with your principal. That is what the law says. Using Word on your
   employer's computer doesn't give _you_ a license (that is, you do
   not enter into a business relationship with Microsoft which is what
   a license to use Word is).

I don't know what the license is of this program.  I can only assume
that it is non-free, so it will have specific clauses that prohibit
sharing.  Since the license prohibits sharing, I can't share it
legally with someone else.

Can we stick to the GPL? Since that is the only thing that matters
here, if the license doesn't give you the four freedoms, then the
discussion is moot.

   Can you now please stop posting, ans start thinking?

I have thought about it.  You have each time compared totally
different cases, I'm not talking about some postman here.  Please read
my message carefully.

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


   Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
(become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you
for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you
are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner
of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium)
that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. 

   Why do you have to be the 'owner' of the copy? Consider, for a moment,
   a different scenario. You borrow from a library a book containing a
   work which has passed into the public domain. Although you have not
   become the 'owner' of the work, you are legally entitled (under
   copyright law) to transcribe the work and create a copy. You then
   become the 'owner' of the copy you created. 

Very nice example, but lets make it a bit more specific to the
discussion at hand.  I borrow a CD from the library with GPLed
software.  I'm not the owner of the CD.  AFAIU according to David
(feel free to correct me), since I am not the owner of the CD, I am
not allowed to recive a license, and thus am not allowed to even use
the content in any way or form other than how the library wants me to
use it.

Clearly, this is absurd by any and all means.  Why?  I lawfully
recived a copy of the GPLed software, and by the GPL I now have
recived an license (if I choose to accept it) to copy, modify and
redistribute the software.  If there is a differently licensed program
on it, then this license applies of course.

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

   Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual
   Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a
   work of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship
   like a novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that
   work.

In the legal frame work there is no such thing as `intellectual
property'.  It is a term used to confuse people.  Intellectual
Property can mean anything from trademark law, to copyright law, to
patents.  None of which have anything related to each other.

Neither of these things are a form of property, property laws are a
totally different thing.

I'd like to answer your message, but once again you mix up property
with non-property so it is sadly impossible for me due to the
continued mixups of different forms of law.  A CD is property, yes.
Code is not.  If you give me a CD and tell me `you are not allowed to
access the content on it', then I'm not allowed to do so, correct.
But you cannot give me a CD, tell me that I can install the software
on it on one machine, and then say `sorry, the GPL does not apply so
you are not allowed to redistribute it'.



___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD.  See the
above sentence.

   If I am giving cleaning personnel access to my rooms, that does not
   mean that they are free to read my letters and listen to my music
   collection.

   Access is not ownership.  You don't get when internal use is.

And you are still confysing property with copyrighted works to which
one has been granted legal access.  David, you are a capable person,
but please read what is written.  Your example would be similar if the
employeer only gave me the CD to give it to someone else, i.e. postal
office.  But it has no relation to when you have legally aquired the
content, say by having the employeer say `here, install this on the
server'.  The GPL applies not to the CD, it applies, and let me quote
section 0 for you: This License applies to any program or other work
which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may
be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

Does the CD have a notice of this type? No.  Does the content on the
CD? Yes.

It is the person who has the GPLed software who can accept the
license, not the person who owns the CD.

   There is nothing to accept in a license.  One accepts contracts.

Uhm, no.  Not entierly true.  See section 5.  Either you accept the
license, and get to do what the license grants, or you don't where you
can't do anything.

   And no, the rights granted by either contract or copyright are just
   granted to the owner.  The GPL states:

 0. This License applies to any program or other work which
   contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may
   be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

Thank you for quoting that.  Since the software contained on the CD
contains a copyright holder and since I recived the copy legally from
my employeer to install, or use or whatever, I can distribute it under
the GNU GPL.

   This means that the GPL _only_ grants rights to licensees.  As a
   worker for a company that has licensed the software, you are not a
   licensee, unless the company chooses to give you license for
   personal use.

And since they gave me a legal copy of the CD, section 6 comes into
play, and I have now _automatically_ recived a license to copy,
distribute or modify the program.

For example, I do not own the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org.
According to you, since I am not the owner of those disk drivers,
I'm not allowed to accept the license.

   Right.  But the rightful owner of those copies grants you access to
   it for the sake of creating your own copies of it under the GPL.
   It distributes the stuff.

   Are you claiming that a company distributes software when used
   internally?  If so, it would have to adhere to

[... snip section 3 from the GNU GPL ...]

   If your employer tells you to use company internal software for
   some task, do you really think you are in a position to demand the
   source code?

Ofcourse I am.  The employer cannot simply disregard all licenses and
laws.

According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content
of the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software.

   Wrong.  Because you are granted access for the _purpose_ of
   creating your own copy licensed under the GPL, you are able to do
   so.  The mere access itself (which could have been gained by
   accidental server misconfiguration) is not a license to do so: if I
   leave open the door to my house by mistake, that does not allow you
   to enter and read my books.

Yet another `apple vs. oranges' example.  Your door doesn't have a
license.  The comparison is simply not possible.  You are once again
confusing physical property with intangible works.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The content does not magically jump off the copy.  Accessing the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.

 And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play.

Your access is limited to what the owner of the copy allows you to do
with it.  The GPL grants rights to the owner of the copy, not to you.
Since you have not bought or otherwise acquired ownership of the copy,
you don't get the rights associated with its ownership.

 And I'm allowed to redistribute it, if I so choose;

No.  You just don't understand internal use.  You don't become owner
of the copy just by having to use it in your work.

 and the employeer cannot stop me.

Of course he can.  After all, it is _his_ copy.  He determines its
use.

If you are working in a locksmith shop and take work home with you
with the owner's permission, that does not mean that you are granted
permission to use the owner's tools for breaking into houses.  Even
though that's the purpose that they are sold and licensed for to the
owner.  And even though the tools remain perfectly usable after such a
feat.

 (other than by not giving me a copy,

He did not give you a copy.  The copy is still his own.  He granted
you temporary use in the course of his work.

I don't give my head to a barber.  I just grant him access to it, and
he is not free to do with it as if it were his own.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-11 Thread Graham Murray

David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 What about licensee don't you understand?

The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee. I can see
nothing in the GPL which states that. On contrary the preamble states
that it ensures that the software is free for all users (ie those
using the program) and reads as though anyone who has access to the
program (eg to run it) can accept the licence and become a
licensee. Having become a licensee, you can then copy, modify and/or
distribute the software subject to the conditions in the licence. 
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 What about licensee don't you understand?

 The part which (you claim) states that only the owner of the physical
 media on which the copy is 'fixed' can become a licensee.

Well, that is common law.  You are only allowed to do things with
objects (like reading their content) that are your property, or for
stuff which the owner of the object permitted you to do with them.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
  Yeah, right. The GNU is the best of breed, I know.
 
 Not really.  It's just immortal, 

Oh how charming and pluralistic. Mere mortal GNUtian dak is in mild
disagreemnt with GPL-ober-nazi Herr Dr. Prof. Moglen The Idiologist,
GNU Law Maker, and Admiral in Command of unfree (GPL-incompatible) 
ethnic cleansing operations.

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.

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

2006-02-10 Thread Lasse Reichstein Nielsen

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:



Copying at any level of abstraction as black box without any
modifications or transformations of protected expression in original
literary work (or part thereof) modulo the AFC test, and assembling
multiple works in a whole is compilation, not derivation.


So can you describe a situation where one program is a derivative
of another?

/L
--
Lasse R. Nielsen - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine'



___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
 
 On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:10:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  Copying at any level of abstraction as black box without any
  modifications or transformations of protected expression in original
  literary work (or part thereof) modulo the AFC test, and assembling
  multiple works in a whole is compilation, not derivation.
 
 So can you describe a situation where one program is a derivative
 of another?

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*/);
  }

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

2006-02-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov


Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
 On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Terekhov 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*/);
}
 
  regards,
  alexander.
 
 Interesting. Are you now publicly writing violent aggression threats?
 
 Rui

  void register_computer_game_player(const std::string  email_address ...
if (email_address == [EMAIL PROTECTED])
  throw A_Real_Idiot(Rui);
.
.
.

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

2006-02-10 Thread Bernd Jendrissek

-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*/);
  }

terekhov
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).
/terekhov
-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

   Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
   software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
   _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent
   of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical
   property attached to the software, and not an agreement between
   licensor and licensee.

It depends on the license.  The GPL gives an explicity right for this,
some other licenses may not.  If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed
software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install
that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it.  The
employeer cannot state that I cannot do this, since the GPL gives me
this right.

   I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's
   property, whatever the conditions were under which it was acquired.

Even if the employer sold that property to the employee?

   The same would apply to the files on my computer if you were to
   borrow it.  None of the software on that machine is a copy that
   you rightfully acquired, and hence you have no right to copy it,
   whatever its license.

I borrowed the computer, not the files.  So yes, in this particular
circumstance, this is correct.  One could compare it to borrowing a
car, and then making a claim to the content in the car, like the
fluffy teddy bear.  You were allowed to borrow the car, but not the
teddy bear.


(Note that my example was different, and more akin to person A giving
a gratis copy of a CD to person B; David AFAIK claims that person A
can still dictate what person B is allowed to do with the content.  I
claim that David is wrong)


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

  Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
  software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
  _even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an
  agent of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a
  magical property attached to the software, and not an agreement
  between licensor and licensee.

   It depends on the license.  The GPL gives an explicity right for this,
   some other licenses may not.  If I'm in the legal possession of GPLed
   software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and install
   that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute it. 
^^
The _content_on_it_! not the acutual CD.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread David Kastrup

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Remember that the point Alfred was making is that because the
software is licensed under the GPL, he is allowed to make a copy
_even_ if the CD is not his property and he was acting as an agent
of licensee/owner of the copy. To him, the license is a magical
property attached to the software, and not an agreement between
licensor and licensee.

 It depends on the license.  The GPL gives an explicity right for
 this,

Nonsense.  The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.

 some other licenses may not.  If I'm in the legal possession of
 GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and
 install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute
 it.

Not if you are not owning it.

 The employeer cannot state that I cannot do this, since the GPL
 gives me this right.

The GPL can only give the owner of a copy rights.

I think that employees do not have any rights to their employer's
property, whatever the conditions were under which it was
acquired.

 Even if the employer sold that property to the employee?

Of course not (in that case, owership of the employer ceases).  And
the employer might also _grant_ the employee copying GPLed software
from the company's media.  The GPL gives the _employer_ the right to
do so.

But the employee can't take this right for granted.

 (Note that my example was different, and more akin to person A
 giving a gratis copy of a CD to person B; David AFAIK claims that
 person A can still dictate what person B is allowed to do with the
 content.  I claim that David is wrong)

As long as the copy remains the property of person A and person B acts
only as agent of person A, yes, person A dictates all the terms under
which person B might make use of person A's physical property.

You really don't get internal use.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

   Nonsense.  The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
   copies of software.

Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies.  Got that?  Not the
CD, but the content.

   You really don't get internal use.

And you don't get what the heck is being discussed.


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:35:38 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Nonsense.  The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.
 
 Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies.  Got that?  Not the
 CD, but the content.

The content does not exist without the physical copy. It is the
possession of a copy that gives rights under the copyright statutes
(like the first sale right) or a license. Thus, without the possession
of a copy, there are _no_ rights.

This is what I have been trying to explain by saying that the license
is not attached to software, but to the copy. In other words, the
software is, and remains, the property of the author. The copy, and only
the copy that you lawfully acquire gives you the possibility to accept
the GPL, and thus make copies of your copy and distribute those.

You really don't get internal use.
 
 And you don't get what the heck is being discussed.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are the one who really doesn't
get it. 

When you act as an agent for someone else, you do not become the owner
of your principal's possessions, you merely act on their behalf. This
is why they have to authorise the copying and distribution of their
copy of the GPLed software. You, not being the owner of that specific
copy, do not have the right to do so unless duly authorised by the
owner of the copy, and the license under which the owner acquired the
software is irrelevant to you. For example, you do not know if the
author licensed that particular copy under another license than the
GPL (which is her right). This is further proof that the license is not
attached to the software, but is an agreement between the copyright
owner and the recipient of a particular copy.

This is, I assure you, the way copyright/author's right laws under the
Berne Convention work. 

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

   Alfred, can you please try and maintain proper attributions and
   follow quoting conventions?

I'm already doing that.

   It depends on the license.  The GPL gives an explicity right for
this, some other licenses may not.  If I'm in the legal possession of
GPLed software, maybe because my employer gave me an CD to use and
install that specific program, then I'm also allowed to redistribute
it.
^^
The _content_on_it_! not the acutual CD.

   You do not have the right to copy the CD, so how could gain access
   to the contents?

Because the employeer gave me explicit access to the CD.  See the
above sentence.

   It is only the owner of the CD who can accept the GPL and acquire
   the right to make copies and distribute those.

It is the person who has the GPLed software who can accept the
license, not the person who owns the CD.

For example, I do not own the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org.  According
to you, since I am not the owner of those disk drivers, I'm not
allowed to accept the license.  The FSF surely won't sell their
drivers so that I can get a version of Emacs; and I'm a bit tight on
cash to actually be bothered buying a CD from the FSF.

According to me, since I'm allowed (legally!) to read the content of
the disk, I'm able to acquire a license for the software.


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

2006-02-10 Thread David Kastrup

Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Nonsense.  The GPL can't dictate that people may access my physical
copies of software.

 Sighs, I am not talking about _physical_ copies.  Got that?  Not the
 CD, but the content.

The content does not magically jump off the copy.  Accessing the
content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.

-- 
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: GPL and other licences

   The content does not magically jump off the copy.  Accessing the
   content of the copy is the sole right of the copy's owner.

And since I can leaglly access the content, the GPL jumps into play.
And I'm allowed to redistribute it, if I so choose; and the employeer
cannot stop me (other than by not giving me a copy, just like I can
only stop you from redistributing my hacks from Emacs by simply not
sharing them with you).


___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:11:23 +0100
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm having a hard time following your message, you speak of property
 and ownership of software, neither of which are applicable to
 software.  You cannot own software; since you cannot own software, it
 cannot be property.

Well, this is where you got it wrong - it's called IP (Intellectual
Property) because it is a form of property. Whenever you produce a work
of authorship (and software is considered a work of authorship like a
novel or a poem) you, the author, are the owner of that work. 

 The license is infact attached to the software (i.e. work), and not
 the actual physical entity that it resides on.

It is attached to the copy of the work that resides on the physical
medium. This is why the author can license the same work under two
different licenses, for example the GPL and a license that doesn't
require derivative works to be licensed under the GPL. 

  Anything else would be
 absurd, since if you sell me your harddisk, and you for some odd
 reason forget to remove all data on it, then by your argument, I am
 now the lawful licensee (and even the copyright holder(?)) of all your
 files; no matter what the license is of each particular file is (it
 could for example be `ams is not allowed to look at this file')

No, you would be the owner of my disk, unless I had specifically ceded
the ownership of my copies of the software. The medium can exist
without the copy of the software, but the software cannot exist without
a medium. When you acquire a copy of a program, you are allowed to run
it, which implies copying it to the hard disk, and subsequently copying
it to the RAM, caches, processors etc as required by your computer. All
these operations are considered to be copies of the software, but they
are expressly allowed under the statutes. If I sell the hard disk to
you, the copies of the software I licensed are no longer lawful, and
hence you do not derive any rights from them. They were only lawful as
long as they served the purpose of running the program by the owner of
the copy. Now if I cede you the original copy, then you become the
lawful owner and can continue to use the copies on the hard disk.

I know that at first this can look weird, but that's how it works.

 It seems that you are mixing up two cases (once again), the CD
 (i.e. physical entity that the software resides on), in which you are
 eniterly correct, and I never disagreed there (and I'm getting a bit
 tired saying that).  And the cases of where you actually aquired
 (legally) a program (on what is not relevant!) which is licensed under
 the GPL from your employeer.  Obviously, unless the employer allows me
 to scratch the physical media which the software resides on, I'm not
 allowed to scratch it.  But the employeer is simply incapable to
 dictate what I can do with the program, other than by just refusing to
 give me the software (once again, the physical media is irrelevant);

You got it wrong. By giving you his property (the lawful copy of the
software) for the purposes of your job, you have not lawfully acquired
(become owner) of a copy, and hence you have no rights. The fact that
you have access to the copy (you hold the CD your employer handed you
for the purposes of installing it on one of their computers, which you
are allowed to use but do not own) does not mean that you are the owner
of that copy, and it is the ownership of that copy (on whatever medium)
that gives you certain rights. Now ownership, no rights. 

Do you believe that you enter into a license with Microsoft if you use
your employer's computer that has Windows installed on it? Of course
not, as you did not sign anything. Tomorrow you can be fired, and
someone else will take the place behind that computer, and continue to
use the equipment and software you used. There only is a license
between the employer and Microsoft. 

 at which point I'm not in possession of the software (physical media
 is irrelevant), and I have no rights to the software, since I don't
 have the software.

It's late, and sentences become garbled. 

When I first tried to understand copyright, I considered it totally
unintuitive. What you have to learn is that the law does not have to be
intuitive, or even make sense to you. What matters is what it says, and
how it is applied. And I again assure you that it is not applied like
you interpret it. 

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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-10 Thread John Hasler

Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
 [The license] is attached to the copy of the work that resides on the
 physical medium.

According to US copyright law the physical medium _is_ the copy:

  TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 101. Definitions

  Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is
  fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work
  can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly
  or with the aid of a machine or device. The term copies includes the
  material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first
  fixed.
-- 
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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Bernd Jendrissek

-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

2006-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov


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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-09 Thread Alan Mackenzie

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

2006-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov


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

2006-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov


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

2006-02-09 Thread David Kastrup

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

Re: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Alexander Terekhov


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

2006-02-07 Thread Alexander Terekhov


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: 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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-07 Thread Stefaan A Eeckels

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: 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: GPL and other licences

2006-02-06 Thread Graham Murray

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
 explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
 were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?

No. Because copyright law would not allow the creation of the
additional copies beyond the one installed on the hard disk of the
first computer on which it is installed. It just emphasises the
restriction. 

I suspect that these clauses are a hangup from the days when software
both came on a ran from floppy disk. 
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL and other licences


Uber GNUtian Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: (to GNUtian dak)
[...]
 No wonder why Alexander likes you enough to `unplonk' you.

Erm. I've unplonked you both sometime around last Silvester. Then I've
replonked you, ams. GNUtian dak didn't take my offer of free replonk,
go ask mini-RMS (he volunteered to be a witness).

And now I've unplonked you. I see you had a nice weekend with dak. ;-)

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


Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
 Of course they can. The copyright holder most definitely cannot control
 how the software is used (unless there is a contract stipulating
 such), because copyright law doesn't give such rights - it's the right
 to make and distribute copies that is granted to the copyright holder,

The right to distribute authorized copies is statutory. See 17 USC 109
(it is commonly called first sale, but the actual parameters of the
rule are specified in the statute and not some lay reading of first,
sale, or even first sale). Over here in the EU, that statutory
doctrine is known as copyright exhaustion.

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.

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

2006-02-06 Thread Rui Miguel Silva Seabra

On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
 [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...]

I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone
to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft.

Another of your nice works of fraud, Alex?

 But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't 
 contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc.

You hide behind first sale, copyright misuse, and etc, but you
constantly hide behind the confusion of what you do with _your_copy_ and
what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_.

Rui


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: GPL and other licences


Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
 On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 11:50 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
  Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
 
  [... legal scheme to escape copyleft ...]
 
 I resent the innuendo implicated by this cut, which could lead someone
 to think I wrote a legal scheme to escape copyleft.

Oh c'mon mini-RMS, you're a rightful co-author.

(Future press conference in Boblingen regarding FSF's anti-copyleft 
conspiracy lawsuit)

Q) Who authored that legal scheme to escape copyleft?

A) You know, rms himself co-authored it. 

(Dead silence in the audience)

 
 Another of your nice works of fraud, Alex?

Objection! See above.

 
  But here's a big secret for you, mini-RMS: copyright doesn't
  contemplate copyleft. First sale, copyright misuse, and etc.
 
 You hide behind first sale, copyright misuse, and etc, but you
 constantly hide behind the confusion of what you do with _your_copy_ and
 what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_.

Go talk to your doctor, really. Let him hear your answer to this
rather simple question:

Are those _copies_of_your_copy_ AUTHORIZED copies or how not?

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. 

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/0a794dfd7697e067

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