Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were lawfully made. If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine? Because there is no duty for people to catch bricks? Poor analogy. Letting go of a brick above my head, with the intention to catch it (and even if you in fact did catch it, so I come to no harm), would still be assault. Then every driver who puts his foot on the accelerator is assaulting a lot of people since it requires him to take the foot off again (or even brake!), an active action, to stop the car. Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies from lawful to unlawful? You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights. Simple as that. But if the copy was lawful, I don't *need* any GPL rights in order to distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it depend on later events? It can be _decided_ by later events. Like loading a gun may or may not be preparation to murder. Further actions decide what it has been. Sort of a quantum dilemma. It is like the I have never loved you realization in a relationship. Once you realize it, it has always been that way. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers. I want to install some GPL software on them Monday. Over the weekend, I download the software at home, and make 20 copies, on 20 CDs. I happen to be out of CD-RW discs, so I burn to CD-R. Monday, I take the 20 CDs to the office, and install on all 20 machines, feeling pretty impressed about how I saved a lot of time by having 20 CDs so I could install on all 20 machines in parallel. I have no more use for the 20 CDs, and since they are CD-R, not CD-RW, I can't erase them. So I put them up for sale on eBay, like I do with all surplus equipment. The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers. I want to install some GPL software on them Monday. Over the weekend, I download the software at home, and make 20 copies, on 20 CDs. I happen to be out of CD-RW discs, so I burn to CD-R. [...] The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because to make them lawfully, you had to have permission and this was given only conditionally. The conditions don't cease to exist once you get your 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: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. It is the people you distribute the copies to who get the benefit of first sale. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) Anyway, how does a breach of that promise/obligation could possibly violate copyright law given 17 USC 109? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. You confuse conditions precedent with covenants. In the former case, failure to fullfill condition precedent means that I had no permission to copy in the first place. But restrictions on distribution of a copy that I make (under authorization) just can't be conditions precedent because a copy must be made first. Got it now? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Tim Smith wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. You confuse conditions precedent with covenants. In the former case, failure to fullfill condition precedent means that I had no permission to copy in the first place. But restrictions on distribution of a copy that I make (under authorization) just can't be conditions precedent because a copy must be made first. Got it now? Agreement is precedent to making copies. You can't drop it later. It is similar to buying things by bank draft. If I later decide that I don't relish paying, I can't just dissolve the bank account and let my vendor sort out the mess by himself. Even if I claim that at the time of purchase I was perfectly intending to hold up my part of the deal. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Agreement is precedent to making copies. No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online distributor without I agree manifestation of assent prior to getting copies, fair use, etc.) makes me subject to contractual obligations (let's assume enforceable contract) spelled out in the license. You can't drop it later. That's called breach of contract. Nothing unusual. The contract laws recognize a concept called efficient breach which encourages breach of a contract if it's economically efficient to do so. Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy interest (pay contract damages). And that has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Tell that to the people serving jail time for copying and distributing music. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Agreement is precedent to making copies. ^ No. The act of making copies (other than by downloading from online distributor without I agree manifestation of assent prior to getting copies, fair use, etc.) makes me subject to contractual obligations (let's assume enforceable contract) spelled out in the license. ^^ You can't drop it later. That's called breach of contract. Nothing unusual. The contract laws recognize a concept called efficient breach which encourages breach of a contract if it's economically efficient to do so. Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy interest (pay contract damages). And that has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Tell that to the people serving jail time for copying and distributing music. Strawman. What copyright license (agreement -- see above) did they violated? I want to see the exact TC of that copyright license. Post it here. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were lawfully made. It was only later, when they were now just physical junk to me, that I decide to dispose of them the same way I do with other excess physical junk. Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies from lawful to unlawful? If so, how retroactive can it be? What if I make a copy for my own use. Ten years pass, and I'm cleaning out my old junk, and find the CD. I had the source once, but have lost it. Can I distribute that physical CD? I think that if I were making the copies with intent to distribute, then a good argument could be made that the copies are unlawful. The court would see this as trying to cheat on the license, and find some way in equity to bitch slap me. But that's not my hypothetical--in my hypothetical there was never any intent to cheat. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copies were pretty clearly made lawfully under GPL. I am clearly the owner of the copies. So, why can't I take advantage of first sale and sell them, without the need of copyright permission? Because you agreed not to sell them without source when you accepted the GPL which you did when you made the copies. Ahhh. But don't you know that the GPL is not a contract (agreement) in the GNU Republic, uncle Hasler? :-) You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were lawfully made. If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine? Because there is no duty for people to catch bricks? It was only later, when they were now just physical junk to me, that I decide to dispose of them the same way I do with other excess physical junk. You don't have that choice. Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies from lawful to unlawful? You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights. Simple as that. I think that if I were making the copies with intent to distribute, then a good argument could be made that the copies are unlawful. The court would see this as trying to cheat on the license, and find some way in equity to bitch slap me. But that's not my hypothetical--in my hypothetical there was never any intent to cheat. It doesn't matter. The law does not require judges to read minds, it relies on facts. If I decide to kill you and later change my mind before I do anything, no law in the world can pursue me for it. Intent is not actionable. Preparations and attempts are. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can claim either agreement or non-agreement with the conditions. Your choice. In the latter case, you had no permission to copy in the first place. Ah, but note that in my hypothetical, when I made the copies, I had no intention of distributing them. I was making them for my own use, and did use all of them. Thus, at the time they were made, they were lawfully made. If I let go of a brick above your head with the firm intention to catch it again, and then I decide otherwise, that's fine? Because there is no duty for people to catch bricks? Poor analogy. Letting go of a brick above my head, with the intention to catch it (and even if you in fact did catch it, so I come to no harm), would still be assault. ... Can that later act retroactively change the creation of the copies from lawful to unlawful? You stop heeding your part of the deal and you stop having your rights. Simple as that. But if the copy was lawful, I don't *need* any GPL rights in order to distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it depend on later events? -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: When I'm done watching, can I sell the recording? The copy was lawfully made. I own the copy. Seems like first sale says I can. You won't be able to. The Supreme Court decision which affirmed the legality of time-shifting refers to earlier similar laws about audio recordings for personal use, and the copyright code itself is full of detailed specifications about certain groups being allowed to make copies only for their own use. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman writes: Authors can give up some exclusive rights. Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has done so. In the scenario I propose, the author has completely honored the GPL - with every copy he sells, he includes the source, and has no further obligation. He has also sold his right to distribute source to the buyer of the copies. Quite legal. There may be a deal he has entered into not to distribute the program in particular ways, but that's fine - he's the author, he's not obligated to distribute if he doesn't want to. He no longer can distribute source: he sold that right. The person who has purchased the copy... ...Has also purchased the exclusive right to distribute the source and is therefor one of the copyright owners. The person who has purchased the copy is then free to sell it without getting permission from the copyright holder, the author. Because that sale does not require a license, the recipient has not received it under the terms of the GPL, and has no one from whom he can demand the source code. The owners of the work that your author based his work on can sue both parties (both of whom now own an interest in the copyright in the work under discussion) for copyright infringement when they attempt to distribute the work without complying with the terms of the GPL. The purchaser's claim of first sale will be disallowed because of his ownership of the exclusive right to distribute source, which makes him a part-owner of the copyright. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: Yes, copyright owners can give up some rights: the one in your example has done so. He has not. He has also sold his right to distribute source to the buyer of the copies. He has not. He no longer can distribute source: he sold that right. He did not. The person who has purchased the copy... ...Has also purchased the exclusive right to distribute the source and is therefor one of the copyright owners. He has not and he is not. I don't know where you're getting this stuff. The manufacturer sells copies of software to a reseller, in full compliance with the GPL, shipping binaries and source. He has not sold any rights. The reseller has not bought any rights. He may do only what copyright law allows - he may choose to distribute under the GPL, or he may choose to distribute under first sale. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. 3. Sell or give away those copies. They are lawfully made copies, and the person owns those particular copies, so this seems to fall under first sale. Nope. GPL3p2 says You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. Ah, but what about GPLv3 section 0, which includes this: To ³propagate² a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. If you are distributing your copies under the protection of first sale, then that is not propagation, as defined in the first sentence of that paragraph. The second paragraph says propagation includes distribution, but the question then arises is that meant to be independent of the first sentence, or is it illustrative? That is, does it only include distribution that would make you liable under copyright law? I believe the FSF's position is that GPL (all versions) does not take away any rights--it only gives you additional rights above what copyright law allows. Based on that, I'd assume that GPL does not try to punish you for exercising first sale rights. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman writes: The manufacturer sells copies of software to a reseller, in full compliance with the GPL, shipping binaries and source. He has not sold any rights. The reseller has not bought any rights. You wrote that the manufacturer had been paid by the reseller for agreeing not to make source available to anyone but the reseller, leaving the reseller, who has a license (the GPL), the only one free to distribute source. That is the sale of a right by the manufacturer to the reseller. He may do only what copyright law allows - he may choose to distribute under the GPL, or he may choose to distribute under first sale. He owns part of the copyright (the right to distribute source). -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Smith wrote: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. 3. Sell or give away those copies. They are lawfully made copies, and the person owns those particular copies, so this seems to fall under first sale. Nope. GPL3p2 says You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. Ah, but what about GPLv3 section 0, which includes this: To ³propagate² a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well. If you are distributing your copies under the protection of first sale, then that is not propagation, as defined in the first sentence of that paragraph. The second paragraph says propagation includes distribution, but the question then arises is that meant to be independent of the first sentence, or is it illustrative? That is, does it only include distribution that would make you liable under copyright law? Professor Lee Hollaar*** (who worked on Internet, copyright, and patent issues as a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Fellow) has commented regarding GPLv3 wording (and apparently his comments were simply dismissed from consideration by RMS Eben Co.) on http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system: - comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to propagate or modify the Program or any covered works. In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3 Submitted by: hollaar comments: This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the United States. With respect to propagate, it is likely a tautology because of the defintion of propagate covering only things that require permission under applicable copyright law. But for modify, 17 U.S.C. 117 permits the owner of a copy of a computer program to make an adaptation in particular circumstances, and makes it clear that making that adaptation does not infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. It also does not seem to recognize the first sale doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of a lawfully-made copy without the authority of the copyright owner. Perhaps the interplay between the definition of propagate and this section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact, misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful copy is to accept the License. noted by hollaar comment 389: Not a correct statement Regarding the text: You may not propagate, modify or sublicense the Program except as expressly provided under this License. In section: gpl3.termination.p0.s1 Submitted by: hollaar comments: As I noted in more detail in my comments on Paragraph 9 [read: 0 as in gpl3.notacontract.p0], this is not an accurate statement. In the United States, 17 U.S.C. 109 (first sale) and 117 (computer programs) allow the owner of a lawfully-made copy to modify it in certain circumstances and to redistribute it without permission of the copyright owner. noted by hollaar - ***) http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: If you are distributing your copies What gave you the right to make copies? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: That is the sale of a right by the manufacturer to the reseller. ... He owns part of the copyright (the right to distribute source). I do not believe that either of these statements is correct. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: and apparently his comments were simply dismissed http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system: With respect to propagate, it is likely a tautology because of the defintion of propagate covering only things that require permission under applicable copyright law. But for modify, 17 U.S.C. 117 permits GPLv3 extends the tautology to 'modify' by similarly qualifying it to actions which would not otherwise be legal under copyright. So apparently his comments were not dismissed at all. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: You don't need to become the owner. It is enough if you become _responsible_. Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license. It has no notion of responsibility. But the courts have. I can't drop a brick on someone's head and then claim that I am not responsible for gravity's actions. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish. What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright on songs and movies. And violations flourish. Don't know about US but here in Germany sharing is really dangerous endeavour as of late. The net is monitored by authorities and the chances that you'll end up with criminal investigation are pretty high. Once that happens (the logs are then made available to interested parties) it's 100% guaranteed that you'll get a nice looking invoice or two from copyright holder's lawyers to pay compensation and contractually pledge to not share anymore (with horrendous contractual damages in the case of a breach). Or go to court and lose even more. Most caught sharers pay compensation, sign the pledge, and stop sharing. I have yet to hear about such cases going to civil courts. (The criminal investigation is usually dropped once copyright holders inform authorities about signed Unterlassungserklärung.) What does that have to do with the GPL Hyman? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: But the courts have. What the courts have done is to uphold first sale, despite the vehement objections of the software developers who argued that EULAs disallowed it. This was recently decided in Softman v. Adobe. See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5628. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: What does that have to do with the GPL Hyman? You seemed to claim that violations of the GPL flourish because courts have not enforced it. I pointed out that violations of copyright in songs and movies flourish even though courts do enforce it, thereby throwing doubt on your claim. And I pointed out that at least in Germany of late violations of copyright in songs and movies by sharers are on decline without any court enforcement. There are thousands and thousands caught sharers who had to pay a pretty penny in compensation and who is now instead of sharing (they all had to pledge not to share under draconian contractual penalty) are telling others not-caught-yet sharers don't do that or you'll end up like me. Many listen and stop sharing. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see you have [...] What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories: if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that would have certain consequences. I pointed out that the observed consequences in the real world do not match the consequences that would be seen if your theory was right. What is controversial or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright Act? Read for instance Jacobsen v. Katzer. Free software advocates have long been in total denial concerning *historically well established* principles concerning licensing such as the fact that a copyright license is a contract. The case law is replete with decisions that demonstrate the principles applied to copyright licensing. Crackpots like Eben Moglen are responsible for the denial of these facts. If you chant the mantra that a license is not a contract long enough, it takes on a truth of its own in many gullible folks minds. Instead of productively using Google to find and read these case law decisions, Free Softies simply spend their ink issuing wishful denials. That makes your idea look wrong. Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would their business model resemble? Microsoft is an obvious example. Making problems for GPL'd software is a big priority for them. This is clear from the millions they pumped into SCO and the press statements that Bill and his replacement have made about the GPL. Microsoft *loves* the GPL. The GPL intimidates many small companies (witness the BusyBox cases) and keeps them from competing in the marketplace. Linux under a BSD license is Microsoft's worst nightmare. Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: And I pointed out that at least in Germany of late violations of copyright in songs and movies by sharers are on decline without any court enforcement. Alexander Terekhov wrote: Or go to court and lose even more. Umm, right. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is controversial or unproven about 17 USC sec. 301 of the Copyright
Act?
Exactly. It exists, and no one in a position to act is claiming that it
makes the GPL invalid or not work like FSF claims it works.
The SFLC is in a position to act -- all they have to to do is refrain from
voluntarily dismissing one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their
claims on the merits.
If that law impacted the GPL, there would be controversy. There's none, so
it doesn't.
No controversy eh?
Googling { GPL preempted }, I get 10,100 hits.
Free Softies certainly wear efficient blinders.
Sincerely,
Rjack
In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable
principle that 'uses' that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any license
agreement at all.; Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit 2005).
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
rjack wrote: all they have to to do is refrain from voluntarily dismissing one of their silly lawsuits and let a judge review their claims on the merits. Judges are not in the business of reviewing claims. If the parties to a dispute have agreed on a settlement then there is no case to decide. After each of these voluntary dismissals, the source code for the GPLed product is available from the distributor. There is no need for continuing a case when they have what they wanted. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] After each of these voluntary dismissals, the source code for the GPLed product is available from the distributor. That's verifiably not true. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: That's verifiably not true. It's certainly verifiable. Go to each SFLC filing, find the website of the company they sued, and see if there is a place from which to obtain sources (substituting ActionTec for Verizon, before you say anything). I don't have a burning need to do this, so I'll keep on saying that they got what they wanted, you can keep saying that they didn't, and maybe some enterprising person will be inspired to do the work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote: [... substituting ...] a = pi*r^2 let's substitute pi with c a = c*r^2 now e = m*c^2 let's subsitute c for m and r for c e = c*r^2 it follows a = e it follows pi = c it follows 3.14159 = 299792458 Hyman science. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [... substituting ...] 3.14159 = 299792458 Hyman science. For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped with GPLed software and without complying with the GPL. After the lawsuit ended, Actiontec FIOS routers are being shipped with GPLed software and the source code is available from Actiontec. I consider that a successful outcome, and clearly so do SFLC's clients, since they dropped the suit. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote: Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [... substituting ...] 3.14159 = 299792458 Hyman science. For most of 2007, Actiontec FIOS routers were being shipped Verizon's FiOS router firmware download page says (in BOLD red text): Verizon FiOS router and displays a note: Note: This firmware update is applicable to both Actiontec and Verizon branded FiOS Routers. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. Not just the US. Pretty much every place with copyright law has an equivalent of the first sale doctrine. It often goes by the name of copyright exhaustion. Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A. For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks, one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a license to resell the software. The customers of Company B have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the GPL is circumvented. Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? I mean, it's like circumventing robbery laws by withdrawing money from your own bank account pointing your gun on an ATM all the while. I think when this happens, it is not going to be intentional (in the sense of trying to get around GPL). Instead of two discs, it will be one disc of source, and one device with embedded GPL code. Company A includes the disc in order to satisfy their GPL obligation. Company B discards the source disc because they don't need it themselves, and the device works fine for their customers without it, so discarding it means one less item they have to put in the box. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to. It leverages available GPLed software so that the software it needs can be developed faster, and it prevents the source of the modified software from becoming visible to anyone else other than itself and the developers, so that it can gain competitive advantage and withhold secrets. I don't think that will work. After all, company B doesn't have to throw away the source. B could ship it. So, A can't rationally count on it not getting out. A could try to make a contractual arrangement requiring B to throw out the source, but then I think A would be violating GPL, so that won't fly. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a A sale is not required, though. All that's required is that the person distributing own the copy they are distributing, and that it was legally acquired. In particular, it applies to copies that were given away for free. There was an important case about that recently, where a record company gave away promo CDs to radio stations and others, clearly marked as for promotional use only and not for resale. Some of the stations disposed of the CDs, where they ended up in second hand stores, and defendant bought them and sold them on eBay. The record company said this was a no-no. They court said that once the record company gave them away, first sale applied. It doesn't matter that they were gifts. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A. For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks, one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a license to resell the software. The customers of Company B have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the GPL is circumvented. I'm glad to see people are finally taking some interest in this area. I've been expecting it to show up since at least as far back as 2005: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1569a83d255fb3be?hl=endmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1569a83d255fb3 be?hl=endmode=source -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Now imagine that Actiontec ships Verizon's FiOS router boxes to Verizon and only Verizon (fully fulfilling the GPL obligations by providing the source code to its customer Verizon)... not end users. Who is supposed to provide the source code to you? No one. This is the First Sale thing I've been talking about. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: [... first sale ...] I'm glad to see people are finally taking some interest in this area. I've been expecting it to show up since at least as far back as 2005: 2005? http://groups.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Here's the ruling) 2004! :-) regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/ - Exhaustion and the GPL Some years ago I came across a guy Alexander Terekhov who worked then for IBM and had outspoken views about the viability of the GPL. If I understood it, his opinion was that the license terms of the GPL would not survive resale, due to the well established first sale doctrine and its EU equivalent exhaustion. It basically means that the copyright holder cannot stop you reselling your software, and that the license terms will not apply to the guy receiving it. I tried to understand this further, but Alexander was not always easy for me to comprehend and had then a habit of linking to his own posts elsewhere to bolster his position, leading to a kind of echo chamber of Terekhovs all nodding vigorously at each other. He also back then and evidently more recently too explained legal decisions that did not fit his understanding by calling the Judges in question morons, etc. Well the forum I met him at had a very high trolling quotient so it just joined the rest of the anti-GPL sentiment there for me in the end and I ignored it. GPL is a license too But I was reminded of this last night when I read about a recent decision against Autodesk which is being widely seen as a victory for Joe Softwarebuyer. From the Patry blog post link above: ...many software companies have taken the position that they can convey the copy to the customer in an over-the-counter transaction for a one-time payment, but describe that transaction as a license; as a license, the first sale doctrine doesnt apply, meaning copyright owners can prevent further distribution of the copy... Doesnt this vindicate Alexanders position? How can GPL terms stick past resale if Autodesk EULA ones dont? Nothing stops built-in or automated resale to clense software of any licensing restriction. A lot of people seem to be happy about the paid-for world being freed from license conditions, are they going to be happy if it turns out that everyone is also freed from GPL conditions? Civil infringement and Punishment What effect would this have on contribution I wonder. It seems to me the real-world advantages from being active in a project by contributing will still apply. But it will enable private proprietary forking for products, the kind of thing that Harald Weltes gp-violations.org has had success attacking and punishing to date. Contributors will see their work used in commercial products without the changes being open. But the BSD folks seem to survive this outrage without it removing their motivation. And from time spent looking at music licensing over the years, I kind of recognize an element of proprietary vindictiveness in gpl-violations of course the member companies hiding behind the RIAA attacks are also perfectly within their rights to embark on much worse vindictive destruction, but they are not entirely dissimilar and that always bothered me. Playing ball or going home? Well, this decision is subject to appeal, will only apply to the jurisdiction of that court, etc, so the sky didnt fall in already. But there is quite a bit of harmonization of copyright law thanks to the insistence of rich rightholder companies mainly from the US side. But if this is upheld, it may come to contaminate most Western countries and turn GPL terms in unenforcable noise the choices would be in effect public domain or closed. I guess some people will go closed rather than have their work exploited, but I expect most people will just continue on, and contributions will continue to come perfectly fine. The advantages from being a visible contributor and taking upstream directly are still going to apply, so will the bitrot that happens to any additional code put on top and maintained privately. Too mature to care? Maybe now we reached a point that the social, financial, engineering and public advantages from cooperation are ingrained enough that we dont need a license to protect them anyway? But I read this and I feel a sinking feeling about the naivity of such a proposal. Tags: autodesk, exhaustion, first sale doctrone, gpl This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am and is filed under Licenses. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave a Reply - chuckles regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://warmcat.com/_wp/2008/05/23/exhaustion-and-the-gpl/ - Exhaustion and the GPL That reminds me of a question my professor asked us in copyright law class when I was in law school, when we were discussing the Betamax case. I use my VCR to record a movie off of TV so I can watch it later. Fair use, according the the Supreme Court. When I'm done watching, can I sell the recording? The copy was lawfully made. I own the copy. Seems like first sale says I can. What if I set up a bank of 1000 VCRs, to record 1000 copies? Can I sell those? That case is tricker, I think. I'm not making the copies for my personal time shifting now, so maybe that will change the balance in the fair use analysis. If that makes my copies unlawful, then first sale does not apply. In the GPL hypothetical I've discussed before, and that Hyman is now discussing, there isn't necessarily any intention to circumvent the GPL. The most likely way it would arise, in my opinion, is simply that company A ships with source because they want to satisfy GPL, and find that a more convenient way than making the source available for three years via a written offer. Company B discards the source simply because they don't find it useful, and it is cheaper and more efficient to not have to bother dropping the CD in the box. (Even if it takes no effort at all to include the CD, it is still going to generate support costs--its presence *will* confuse some customers). Note: this hypothetical applies to pretty much all licenses, not just GPL. But suppose someone actively wanted to circumvent GPL, using first sale? What if they simply took this approach: 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever. 2. Make copies of the binary. GPL says this is OK. 3. Sell or give away those copies. They are lawfully made copies, and the person owns those particular copies, so this seems to fall under first sale. Note that this differs from my 1000 VCR hypothetical, because there the copying was not authorized. But GPL authorizes the copying. Oops. Also note: this is not a problem for a free software license that is enforced as a contract. With such a license, they have agreed to distribute source with copies they make, so there will be an action for breach of contract. And if the contract is written right, that will terminate their permission to make copies, and stop them dead in their tracks. It's *only* the GPL that is susceptible to this blatant circumvention, due to its perverse insistence on not being a contract, but merely a bare copyright license only adding to what copyright already allows you to do. (I believe I read somewhere...Larry Rosen's book, perhaps...that many jurisdictions do not recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as a contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving throw--if someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies and distributing under first sale, you sue them in a jurisdiction that would treat GPL as a contract). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Tim Smith wrote: (I believe I read somewhere...Larry Rosen's book, perhaps...that many jurisdictions do not recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as a contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving throw--if someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies and distributing under first sale, you sue them in a jurisdiction that would treat GPL as a contract). A bare license *is* a contract. Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by ordinary principles of state contract law.'; McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1995) Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101- 1332, grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the relevant state law to interpret them.; Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F.3d 749, (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006) See Professor Micheal Davis explain this fact to Richard Stallman in 1999. http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00131.html Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen wrote: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. You assume the GPL is enforceable and then scheme to circumvent it, but the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301. You can't circumvent a copyright license that is intrinsically unenforceable. Scheme no more my lad. Take up crochet or needlepoint. Sincerely, Rjack --- [I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim. Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 (United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) --- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. I don't see anything in the GPL that would imply that when one company hires another to create GPLed software, the two companies become united into a single entity. The GPL does not talk about agents. It's also perfectly legal for one company to pay another to develop modified works derived from GPLed code, and to pay that company more money in exchange for not distributing the software to anyone else. The software developer delivers the multiple copies of sources and binaries to the hiring company, gets money to not deliver it to anyone else, and is done. The hiring company uses the first sale doctrine to resell only the binaries. It never has to accept the GPL. The end users have a license from the the original developers under the GPL, but no one from whom they can demand the modified sources. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It occurs to me that in the U.S. there is a relatively easy way to circumvent the requirement of giving away source code for GPLed software. Company A prepares a work derived from GPL-licensed code. Company B purchases copies of this work from Company A. For each copy purchased, Company A sends Company B two disks, one with the binaries and one with the sources. Company A has thus completely discharged its duties under the GPL. Then Company B turns around resells only the binary disks to its customers, but not the source. Company B is allowed to do this under the First Sale Doctrine, and therefore does not need a license to resell the software. The customers of Company B have no one from whom they can demand source code, and thus the GPL is circumvented. Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? I mean, it's like circumventing robbery laws by withdrawing money from your own bank account pointing your gun on an ATM all the while. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. An agent relationship is established by authorization to act on behalf (in the name) of authorizing person. The consequence of such relationship is that contracts entered by the agent (within the scope of agent contract) are enforceable against the authorizing person. What does that have to do with the GPL and A + B scenario, exactly? Please explain in details, uncle Hasler (including the pesky detail that someone has to prove existence of agent contract... and giving attention to the GPL concession that Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies). TIA. chuckles regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler wrote: Sure, you could buy Debian CD sets from CheapBytes, throw away the source CDs, and sell the binary ones. So what? Are suggesting that company B contract with company A to do this? If so company A is company B's agent and the GPL is violated, not circumvented. I don't see anything in the GPL that would imply that when one company hires another to create GPLed software, the two companies become united into a single entity. The GPL does not talk about agents. You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder? It's also perfectly legal for one company to pay another to develop modified works derived from GPLed code, and to pay that company more money in exchange for not distributing the software to anyone else. The software developer delivers the multiple copies of sources and binaries to the hiring company, gets money to not deliver it to anyone else, and is done. The hiring company uses the first sale doctrine to resell only the binaries. You'll have a hard time explaining to the judge that this first company was not acting on your behalf and is an independent seller of prepackaged software. A really hard time. The difference between computers and judges are that neither considers it funny if you try meeting the letter of the law while violating its intent. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to. It leverages available GPLed software so that the software it needs can be developed faster, and it prevents the source of the modified software from becoming visible to anyone else other than itself and the developers, so that it can gain competitive advantage and withhold secrets. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder? If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification, they deliver the software to me, and that's that. If I hire a tailor to make me a suit, he and I do not become one entity. You'll have a hard time explaining to the judge that this first company was not acting on your behalf and is an independent seller of prepackaged software. That's not hard at all. Let's say I'm a phone compnay, just for example, and I've developed a new fiber optic system for which I need routers. I contract with a company who knows how to build routers, give them specs, and they build hardware and software for it. Then when my customers want the routers, I buy a bunch from the router company and sell them to my customers. Unless I've arranged otherwise, the router company is going to keep the copyright to the software they've developed, which is just as I want it. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: You mean if I pay somebody to drop a brick from a window when I signal him, I am not accountable for murder? If I hire a company to develop a program for me, that company is not me. I pay money, I provide a specification, they deliver the software to me, and that's that. That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Where is the point in throwing away valuable material? Where is the point in paying A for copying source and binaries _AND_ then make you unable to do copies yourself? That way Company A gets to have its cake and eat it to. I was asking where the point was for B. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: I was asking where the point was for B. B gets handsomely paid by A. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: That's the same if I pay somebody to drop a brick when I signal him. It's not illegal to hire a company to develop software to your specifications, allow them to retain all rights to that software, and just buy copies from them. Any software vendor who accepts suggestions from customers is doing the same. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: B gets _paid_ by A and yet receives the disks by first _sale_ rather than acting as an agent of A? You'll have a _really_ hard time selling that to a judge. A gives specifications to B. B develops the software. A buys a bunch of copies of the software from B and resells the copies to its own customers. I don't know why you find this concept so strange. This kind of arrangement must be ubiquitous in the industry. Note, by the way, that this is similar to a model that's often proposed for how people can make money from free software. A company pays a developer to develop customized free software, but the developer retains rights to it and can further develop it for other customers. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things. Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone to develop software, even if I tell them the details of what I want, that I become the owner of the developed software. You don't need to become the owner. It is enough if you become _responsible_. If I pay somebody to drop a brick when I tell him, I don't become legally untouchable if he happens to be the owner of the brick. There is no law that prevents me from buying individual copies of the software. And there is a law in the U.S. that says I may resell those copies without any license. Again: we have judges and not robots for interpreting the law. The law is just words. The words carry literal meaning and intent. Sidestepping the intent is not something that will make life easy for you in the court. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: I recommend that you reread the thread and decide on who you call A and who B. It will make it easier for the judge to figure out things. Oops, I did mix them up. But in any case, there is no law of copyright that says that if I ask someone to develop software, even if I tell them the details of what I want, that I become the owner of the developed software. There is no law that prevents me from buying individual copies of the software. And there is a law in the U.S. that says I may resell those copies without any license. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
David Kastrup wrote: You don't need to become the owner. It is enough if you become _responsible_. Enough for what? I just don't understand what you're saying. Remember, the GPL is just a copyright license. It has no notion of responsibility. It states only whether and how covered software may be conveyed when copyright law would otherwise forbid it. The software developers retain the copyright of the works they create, regardless of who specified the behavior of the software. Do you disagree with that? They may sell copies of this software, as long as they keep to the provisions of the GPL, which they do by sending a copy of the source with each copy of the binary. Do you disagree with that? The buyers of this software may in turn sell the copy they received, without requiring any license at all, at least in the U.S., because of the first sale doctrine. They may sell the binary part without the source part. Do you disagree with that? Now these secondary buyers have no one from whom to demand source code. The developers have discharged their GPL obligations by shipping source to the first buyers. The first buyers who resold the software don't have any obligations at all - they may as well have sold a book to a used-book store. Do you disagree with that? ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Alexander Terekhov wrote: The courts should simply not enforce invalid contracts. LAW 101. To date, the courts did NOT enforce the GPL. And violations flourish. What a strange notion! The courts vigorously enforce copyright on songs and movies. And violations flourish. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...]the license is preempted by 17 USC sec 301.[...] And since invalidating the GPL would be worth billions to some companies, how do you explain that your discovery (and that of Alexander Terekhov) are ignored by everyone in a position to act? I see you have shifted the topic from the specific legal enforceability question under U.S. law to that of a speculative question of motivations based upon dubious assumptions. Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would their business model resemble? Sincerely, Rjack -- [I]f an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display in order to constitute a state-created cause of action, there is no preemption, provided that the extra element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim. Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 (United States Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004) -- ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source and all, to anyone, including A's customers. But A and B can enter into an arrangement where B will agree not to do this, perhaps with A paying B for this. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see you have [...] What I've done is I've applied Richard Feynman's simple rule about theories: if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. You proposed a controversial, completely unproven idea of copyright law that would have certain consequences. I pointed out that the observed consequences in the real world do not match the consequences that would be seen if your theory was right. That makes your idea look wrong. Who, pray tell, are these mysterious billion dollar companies and what would their business model resemble? Microsoft is an obvious example. Making problems for GPL'd software is a big priority for them. This is clear from the millions they pumped into SCO and the press statements that Bill and his replacement have made about the GPL. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org Recent blog entries: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_latex_to_make_pdf_documents_with_japanese_characters http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_sean_daly_kde_swpat_chessboxing http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_india_pats_clipperz_freegis_rms_emacs http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_and_writing_emacs_22_input_methods ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
John Hasler wrote: The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a distributor. Why does it have to be arms-length? Where is the subterfuge? A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement whereby he agrees *not* to distribute software. If the software is GPLed, he cannot require recipients not to distribute, but he is free to choose not to distribute his own software, and to accept payment for doing so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL
I wrote: The sale is then no longer an arms-length transaction. A US Federal judge will see right through the subterfuge and tell A that it is a distributor. Hyman writes: Why does it have to be arms-length? In order to be a first sale under the intent of the law. First sale clearly contemplates a transaction such as walking into a bookstore, grabbing a book, plunking down $20, and walking out. You propose a contract wherein the seller gives up some of his exclusive rights as author. Surely you don't expect the court to let A get away with not providing source when A has acquired the exclusive right to do so. Where is the subterfuge? In the attempt to evade the intent of the GPL. A software developer is perfectly free to enter an arrangement whereby he agrees *not* to distribute software. If the software is GPLed, he cannot require recipients not to distribute, but he is free to choose not to distribute his own software, and to accept payment for doing so. Yes, of course he is. There is nothing illegal about what you propose. It just won't work as a GPL evasion. Do you think no one has ever tried to use a similar scheme to evade his obligations before? The courts have seen it all. -- 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
Circumventing the GPL ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/ Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license. The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror. Which is KDE, which is GPL. So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license, or so it would appear. Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks for their use of the code in Safari. Did those terms include permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms? If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on this particular software. -- Nick Kew ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
The copyright holder(s) can always relicense a work under whatever license they want. One doesn't circumventing anything by doing so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Nick Kew writes: The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror. First I've heard that. Are you sure you don't mean that it uses QT? Which is KDE, which is GPL. khtml is LGPL. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nick Kew wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/ Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license. The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror. Which is KDE, which is GPL. So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license, or so it would appear. Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks for their use of the code in Safari. Did those terms include permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms? If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on this particular software. chuckles Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your GNUish/SCOish based on derivative theories in the meantime. Well, this is _gnu_.misc.discuss as well as uk.comp.os.linux, and actual inclusion of lines of code is not a derivative theory particular to the GNU project. It's the standard for copyright pretty much worldwide. Now SCO is a different matter: they try pulling some sort of contractual violation theory based on lines they don't even specify. Now that's walking on thin air. What code lines Nokia's browser is actually using will remain to be seen. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL ...
You too, dak, please kindly piss off. With your idiotic communication through non-standardized interface derivative theory, to begin with. And read up something on software compilations (see 17 USC 101; software is protected as literary works) vs software derivatives (modified protected expression per AFC test), which has really nothing to do with linking/communicating. Except in the GNU Republic, that is. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You too, dak, please kindly piss off. Why should a GNU maintainer not discuss miscellaneous things on gnu.misc.discuss? Just because you are a spoilt brat craving undivided attention for your wild theories (isn't he adorable when he mimics a lawyer?), does not mean that one needs to accommodate your desires in a forum intended for discussion among adults. -- 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: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nick Kew wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/ Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license. The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari. Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror. Which is KDE, which is GPL. So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license, or so it would appear. Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks for their use of the code in Safari. Did those terms include permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms? If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on this particular software. chuckles Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test) apply here? GNUish/SCOish based on derivative theories in the meantime. You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws? Derived work is a term used there. Whether or not Nokia's browser is a derived work of Konqueror is of course something that would have to be determined, but the causal relationship at least makes a prima facia case for the possibility. Note that if the claims are correct, then the GPL suffered way back when when Apple made the closed source. And note that GPL is a license from teh originator, and the originator has the right to license under whatever terms he/she/they desires. That K licenses to A and then to N has no impact whatsoever on K licensing to G under different terms. N's actions with respect to G's license are irrelevant. The owner of the copyright is allowed to make any end runs they desire around the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Unruh wrote: [...] And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test) Yes. apply here? It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged derivative computer program work. GNUish/SCOish based on derivative theories in the meantime. You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws? Derived work is a term used there. Derived work? Where? Chapter and verse, please. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: [...] And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test) Yes. apply here? It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged derivative computer program work. Yes, and you have made the comparison? If not, why is it relevant here? GNUish/SCOish based on derivative theories in the meantime. You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws? Derived work is a term used there. Derived work? Where? Chapter and verse, please. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: [...] Yes, and you have made the comparison? Am I claiming that that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome. ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright protected material contained withing the package. Have you made the comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC? I have no idea what syndrome you think I am suffering from. http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html (SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us) quote GPL GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX], according to Sontag... /quote And this quote is supposed to say what? What is its relevance to the discussion. The question was, is Nokia allowed to release its version with BSD license given that the original was released under the GPL. So two questions-- does the Nokia version contain protected parts of the original, and did the Nokia version derive from that GPL original. (Eg, as the OP said, Nokia's version could contain code which is copyright protected from the original, but the original authors could have licensed the code to Nokia under a separate license from the GPL. Thus even if the code contains protected code from the GPL release, that is irrelevant, since it did not derive from that GPL licensed version but from another licensed version.) regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Circumventing the GPL ...
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unruh wrote: [...] Yes, and you have made the comparison? Am I claiming that that's a derivative of GPL software appearing under a BSD license? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome. ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright protected material contained withing the package. No. It's about infringing the right on making a derivative work. IOW, ??? Is there some gramatical problem with that sentence. RMS' own typical Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire [blah blah] are permitted provided this notice is preserved covers compilations (packages), but not derivatives of his (kinda literary) idiotic work(s). My, what a proprietor! (It's akin to GNUish mere aggregation vs GNUish derived (derived falls under the GPL... or else... GNUish mere aggregation of GNUish derived stuff with something else aside for a moment). Your passions are overriding your English. Have you made the comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC? Because *you* have to make a (an initial) comparixon, not me. Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright code could be in the Nokia software. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
