Re: GPL and other licences
In fact, the entries I quoted refute all the assertions made by Alfred and yourself: You have serious reading problems. 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). Since they users of web-based programs do not have access to the program they can't get access to the source code; direct access to the program is a prequist to be able to accept the license at all. 2. An organisation making copies for internal use does not distribute the software and can forbid its employees from distributing it outside the company It cannot forbid its employess, it is explicitly prohibited by the license. Go read it. 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 If I have legally obtained a copy of the program, I can demand this from the copyright holder (copyright holders are not owners, please stop confusing property with copyright). If the copyright holder states that a program is GPLed, and refuses to give the source code to people who have legally obtained the binary, then the copyright holder can be sued for false advertisment or whatever. 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 should read the FAQ, the GPL, and copyright law. (And that citation is actually from Frank Zappa, not Confucius, parachutes didn't exist in 500BC, and the proper citation is `A mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it is not open'.) 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
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > (And that citation is actually from Frank Zappa, not Confucius, > parachutes didn't exist in 500BC, and the proper citation is `A mind > is like a parachute, it doesn't work if it is not open'.) :-) Great Confucius also said: Man with an unchecked parachute will jump to conclusion. 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
What about "permission to read my letters" don't you understand? You are being singularly disingenuous. What part of `permission to access the CD' do _you_ not understand? ___ 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: >>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. What about "permission to read my letters" don't you understand? You are being singularly disingenuous. > If I take your book, you loose the book. Who is talking about the book? We are talking about access to the apartment, and perusal of letter contents. -- 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
>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
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
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
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
"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
"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
On the other hand, the GPL also says that the act of "running the program" is outside its scope... Person A gives CD to person B to access the content. There is no `running' involved. You are once again inventing things that are simply outsied the discussion. Once you have obtained a legal copy of the program, doesn't matter from who, be it your employer, your dog, or a dragon, you are able to accept the license. It is cleary stated in the GNU GPL. I think you're not going to be followed in this interpretation, because the GPL is pretty clear about the fact that it is concerned with making copies and preparing derivative works, not about giving all who come in contact with the program the right to obtain or request copies for themselves. Nobody claimed this. Stop inventing things. The person has legally obtained a copy of the program. No running is involved. Taking the law in your own hands and copying software because you happen to have access to it (like my example of a technician copying presumed GPLed software off a disk that's being recovered, or you copying from your employer's system without permission) is illegal. No, it is not. The license explcitly allows this if you have been able to legally obtain the software. 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? You, as a third party, have no reliable way to determine the license status, and hence any unilateral decision on your part can never be warranted. No democratic jurisprudence supports taking the law in your own hands, and software licenses are no exception. The copyright notice and license blurb are legally binding, and are a reliable way to determine the license status. Nobody here has claimed that anyone is taking the law into their own hands, this simply something you have once again invented to distract everyone from the main issues: Employer gives CD to employee with the intent to access the content. The employee can accept the license since he has a legally obtained copy of the software. That you then go about inventing things that are simply not relevant is beyond me. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
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
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:09:08 + Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of > modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of > any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation > it is saying that by licensing the work under the GPL (which is > required when an original work is modified) the licensee (for the > moment take that to be the owner of the physical copy) must permit > users of the work to obtain copies (and thus become licensees > themselves) which they are then free to distribute and/or modify under > the terms of the GPL. 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. >From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html : |--- | * If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand | he give me a copy? | |No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of | the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to | redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses. | | * What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does | that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed | program no matter what? | | "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is | entitled to take you up on it. | |If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source | code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the | source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the | binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this | written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries | directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along | with the written offer. | | The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is | so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can | order the source code from you. The GPL says that modified versions, | if released, must be "licensed ... to all third parties." Who are | these third parties? Section 2 says that modified versions you | distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All | third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require | you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a | license from you, under the GPL, for your version. |--- | * A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web | site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources? | | The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without | ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a | special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release | the modified sources. | | 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. | | * Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or | company "distribution"? | | No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for | itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop | a modified version and install that version through its own | facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that | modified version to outsiders. | | However, when the organization transfers copies to other | organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, | providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. | | * If someone steals a CD containing a version of a GPL-covered | program, does the GPL give him the right to redistribute that | version? | | If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably | does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the | GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait | until his release before doing so. | | If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a | company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation | of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does | not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still | treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the | company hasn't released this version, no
Re: GPL and other licences
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> > Moglen's underlings don't count. >> >> He needs not "underlings" as he is paid for teaching the law at a >> university. > > An interesting article about Eben Moglen: > http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 > > "Meet the DotCommunist" Well the author does not have the best grasp on history: "But after Stallman combined his GNU system with Finnish developer Linus Torvalds' Linux software in 1992, completing the first free operating system, free software -- under the apolitical name "open source" -- started getting some serious capitalist attention." This sentence alone manages to pack so many mistakes into few lines that it can be called nothing but impressive. Apart from a certain level of cluelessness and some minor things that look like a lacklustre attempt at a smear, the article actually is more or less informative. Of course, it does nothing whatsoever to support your point of view, but that's not untypical for your random quotes. -- 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > Moglen's underlings don't count. > > He needs not "underlings" as he is paid for teaching the law at a > university. An interesting article about Eben Moglen: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139911511108 "Meet the DotCommunist" 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only in the very specific case of programs that normally read commands
> interactively, and if they have been modified ("If the _modified_
> program _normally reads commands interactively_"). The beginning of the
> clause is very specific, so you're straining it by claiming that it
> applies to all GPLed works. It's not even all interactive programs, it's
> programs that read commands interactively.
Agreed. However it must not be forgotten that when the GPL was written
(and this same clause is also in version 1) most interactive computing
was done on multi-user systems via terminals. Therefore it was very
likely that the user (to whom the notice has to be displayed) was not
the owner of the copy of the software which they were running. This
clause requires that users (of a modified program which reads commands
interactively) be told that they *do* have the right to redistribute
the program under the conditions of the GPL. This implies that the GPL
requires that licensee of such programs must either permit users to
make copies themselves or provide copies to users on request.
I doubt that the intention was to provide more rights to users of
modified programs which read commands interactively than to users of
any other software licensed under the GPL. Therefore by extrapolation
it is saying that by licensing the work under the GPL (which is
required when an original work is modified) the licensee (for the
moment take that to be the owner of the physical copy) must permit
users of the work to obtain copies (and thus become licensees
themselves) which they are then free to distribute and/or modify under
the terms of the GPL.
___
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: > [...] >> > The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for >> > copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit >> > informal but that doesn't change anything). >> >> Of course. Those can be met while relicensing under the GPL. > > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow > relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply. There is nothing to indicate "Only" in the BSD license. You can obviously add your own terms. Why do you think that Windows comes with the complete BSD network utilities? Stuff like pin and traceroute and so? Why do you think that the BSD license is more popular for proprietary vendors? -- 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
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> 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. > > Stop spouting pure crapola, dak. Don't worry, I would not want to compete with you. You just did not get it. > The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for > copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit > informal but that doesn't change anything). Of course. Those can be met while relicensing under the GPL. > For example, "source code must retain the above copyright notice, > this list of conditions and the following disclaimer" is a condition > for authorized copying of source code and preparation of derivative > works (when it falls outside the scope of 17 USC 117). Well, yes. So what? You can fulfill that condition when relicensing under the GPL. > As for covenants, one is the obligation to "reproduce the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following > disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with > the distribution" regarding distribution of copies (including > derivative works) in binary form made pursuant to the BSD. It > doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. I don't see why you can't meet that condition while relicensing under the GPL. -- 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
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow >> >> > relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply. >> >> >> >> There is nothing to indicate "Only" in the BSD license. You can >> >> obviously add your own terms. >> > >> > It is "obvious" only to GNU brainwashed population. >> >> Well, the decisive difference of the GPL is the "no additional >> restrictions" clause of the GPL. > > Which is nothing but decisively meaningless drivel by an amateur > IP license drafter Richard Stallman. The GPL is full of decisively > meaningless drivel. Go ask any real IP licensing lawyer. Like yourself? Excuse me while I clean my keyboard. Like your personal hero Wallace? Or preferably somebody with an actual legal background, like the legal departments of IBM and Novell? > Moglen's underlings don't count. He needs not "underlings" as he is paid for teaching the law at a university. People would hardly do that if he botched up his facts, interpretations and predictions as badly as you do. There are some people who could earn money with their hobby. You are not among 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
David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow > >> > relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply. > >> > >> There is nothing to indicate "Only" in the BSD license. You can > >> obviously add your own terms. > > > > It is "obvious" only to GNU brainwashed population. > > Well, the decisive difference of the GPL is the "no additional > restrictions" clause of the GPL. Which is nothing but decisively meaningless drivel by an amateur IP license drafter Richard Stallman. The GPL is full of decisively meaningless drivel. Go ask any real IP licensing lawyer. Moglen's underlings don't count. 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for > > copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit > > informal but that doesn't change anything). > > Of course. Those can be met while relicensing under the GPL. The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply. 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: > [...] >> > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow >> > relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply. >> >> There is nothing to indicate "Only" in the BSD license. You can >> obviously add your own terms. > > It is "obvious" only to GNU brainwashed population. Well, the decisive difference of the GPL is the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL. I mean, this is Licensing 101. >> Why do you think that the BSD license is more popular for >> proprietary vendors? > > I've told you already that EULAs have really nothing to do with > (non-exclusive) copyright licenses that contractually convey rights > reserved to the copyright owners. You tell a lot of nonsense when the days are long. It is just hard to see what that is supposed to have to do with the topic at hand. -- 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > The GPL is entirely different T&C, stupid. The BSD doesn't allow > > relicensing under the GPL T&C. Only the BSD T&C apply. > > There is nothing to indicate "Only" in the BSD license. You can > obviously add your own terms. It is "obvious" only to GNU brainwashed population. > > Why do you think that Windows comes with the complete BSD network > utilities? Stuff like pin and traceroute and so? And what make you think that those utilities are (derivative) works licensed to Microsoft under the BSD license to begin with? > > Why do you think that the BSD license is more popular for proprietary > vendors? I've told you already that EULAs have really nothing to do with (non-exclusive) copyright licenses that contractually convey rights reserved to the copyright owners. 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
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > 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. Stop spouting pure crapola, dak. The BSD is a contract that contains conditions and covenants for copying and preparation of derivative works (the language is a bit informal but that doesn't change anything). For example, "source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer" is a condition for authorized copying of source code and preparation of derivative works (when it falls outside the scope of 17 USC 117). As for covenants, one is the obligation to "reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution" regarding distribution of copies (including derivative works) in binary form made pursuant to the BSD. It doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. 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 Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:51:23 +
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the
> > license.
>
> I agree. Section 2, in the part about the notice to be displayed on
> interactive programs, further reinforces this.
>
> "c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
> notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
> a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
> these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
> License.
>
> This explicitly states, what the preamble hinted at, that *ALL USERS*
> (that is anyone running the program not just the owner of the physical
> media on which the program resides) of the GPL'd program have the
> right to accept the licence and become a licensee. This clause is
> basically telling owners of a copy who have modified it that they must
> inform users of the modified program (not just people to whom they
> distribute copies) the rights that the GPL provides them.
Only in the very specific case of programs that normally read commands
interactively, and if they have been modified ("If the _modified_
program _normally reads commands interactively_"). The beginning of the
clause is very specific, so you're straining it by claiming that it
applies to all GPLed works. It's not even all interactive programs, it's
programs that read commands interactively.
On the other hand, the GPL also says that the act of "running the
program" is outside its scope...
I think you're not going to be followed in this interpretation, because
the GPL is pretty clear about the fact that it is concerned with making
copies and preparing derivative works, not about giving all who come in
contact with the program the right to obtain or request copies for
themselves.
> 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).
This clause only applies when you distribute the binary program with an
offer to supply the source code. The preferred method for distribution
is with the source code included. Letting someone use a program does
not constitute distribution (as a matter of fact, a while ago the FSF
expressed concern at the fact that providing a Web front-end to a GPLed
program allowed a circumvention of the spirit of the GPL).
Of course, one of the most important arguments against your reading is
that the FSF is not interpreting the GPL in this fashion. The only
person who can sue for copyright violation is the copyright owner. You,
as someone desiring to obtain a copy, cannot sue the party that refuses
to hand you a copy. The best you can do is signal a violation to the
copyright owner.
Taking the law in your own hands and copying software because you
happen to have access to it (like my example of a technician copying
presumed GPLed software off a disk that's being recovered, or you
copying from your employer's system without permission) is illegal.
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 essence of property is that the owner decides how it
should be used, not anyone else. This is why copyright law is
structured as it is - the copyright owner owns the work, and controls
the making of copies. The owners of a copy can do with that copy what
can be done with property: determine how it's used, destroy it, sell
it, run it (or not) on their machines, etc. The work only exists as a
number of copies, there is no such thing as an ethereal essence that
you can grab and that is no-one's property. And when these copies are
the property of someone else, you cannot take them and make a copy
because you feel/know/hope the copyright holder is prepared to license
them to you under the GPL.
Second, the GPL indicates quite clearly that making copies or preparing
derivative works is the proof that you accept the GPL. Accepting
it "in pectore" or shouting "I accept the GPL" does not suffice. There
needs to be reasonable proof of the acceptance of the license, and in
the absence of a signed agreement, doing what is normally forbidden by
copyright but allowed by the license is reasonable proof of the
acceptance (it certainly is a better indication of the state of mind of
the prospective licensee than tearing a shrink-wrap).
To illustrate this point, remember that the same work can be licensed
under different licenses to different people. Tak
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. > 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. > 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. -- 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
"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
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
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the > license. I agree. Section 2, in the part about the notice to be displayed on interactive programs, further reinforces this. "c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. This explicitly states, what the preamble hinted at, that *ALL USERS* (that is anyone running the program not just the owner of the physical media on which the program resides) of the GPL'd program have the right to accept the licence and become a licensee. This clause is basically telling owners of a copy who have modified it that they must inform users of the modified program (not just people to whom they distribute copies) the rights that the GPL provides them. 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). ___ 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 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. Section 0, section 1 (since you are to lazy to read the GPL) also applies. 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. Nothing of what I have written is wrong. It is stated _explcitly_ in the license. 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. 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 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). 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. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
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. > 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. 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. When you relicense a work, you can _remove_ the original license. This is not allowed with the modified-BSD 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
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'%20&Order=DESC&OrderBy=id&Rows= 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
Re: GPL and other licences
Bernd Jendrissek wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Bernd Jendrissek wrote: > >> employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma > >> redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the > >> employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir > > > >Hey GnuPGP junkie, > > Hey Armenian Thanksgiving Turkey, Respect, respect. Oh, you know, my GNU undercover handle is "alt". > > >"redistribution (into RAM)" is covered by 17 USC 117 (and equivalent > >"Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs" copyright > >provisions in all WIPO nations). It doesn't need a license. > > I didn't say it did. > > Do you need a licence for any copies you may make subsequent to putting > one into RAM for running? It depends. > Would I need a licence to make a legal copy > of 'cp' if 'cp /proc/self/mem /tmp/newcp' actually did something useful? Nope. You can now use "newcp" instead of you old "cp". Falls under 17 USC 117. 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
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
"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. With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under the GPL is within the scope of the original license. 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. And _of_ _course_ this does not mean that the receiver of such software is allowed to use the software under anything but EULA. > 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. In case of the GPL v2, the only sublicense allowed without renogatiation is the GPL v2. In the case of the new BSDL or the MIT license, possible sublicenses include GPL and EULA. The one handing you the physical media with the software on it gets to decide what license he picks among those that are options to 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: 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
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> by giving me a CD to install on the local server, the license >> comes into play; > >Nope. The license is given to the licensee, and you are not the >licensee, as you don't get to own the CD. You are only acting on >behalf of the company. > > I do not have to own the CD, I only have to be in lawful posession > of the content. Section 0 of the GPL. Wrong. Section 0 of the GPL deals how to _announce_ the license. The end of Section 0 makes clear whom the GPL is talking about when it says "you": Each licensee is addressed as "you". 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". >But the license doesn't. The license allows the owner of the CD to >redistribute. > > The license allows the person in legal posession of the software to > redistribute, section 0 of the GNU GPL. 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 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". Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. This defines what is covered by the GPL: namely the program. It does not define _who_ is a licensee: that is decided by normal civil law. Without ownership of a physical copy, there is no licensee. >> The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since >> that would violate the license. > >No, it wouldn't, as he is not distributing the software to you by >letting you install it on his server. You are not a third party, >but acting as the employer's agent. > > By giving me an copy, I get a license. Section 0 of the GNU GPL. There is nothing in section 0 that declares anybody coming across code a licensee, and indeed that would be frivolous. > 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," > > Since I have legally obtained The Program, the terms of the GNU > General Public License apply. The terms of the license apply to the licensee, not every bystander. You are not a licensee. -- 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 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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bernd Jendrissek wrote: >> employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma >> redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the >> employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir > >Hey GnuPGP junkie, Hey Armenian Thanksgiving Turkey, >"redistribution (into RAM)" is covered by 17 USC 117 (and equivalent >"Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs" copyright >provisions in all WIPO nations). It doesn't need a license. I didn't say it did. Do you need a licence for any copies you may make subsequent to putting one into RAM for running? Would I need a licence to make a legal copy of 'cp' if 'cp /proc/self/mem /tmp/newcp' actually did something useful? - -- Problems experienced downstream are symptoms of neglect upstream. Upstream problems can only be solved upstream. - someone -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8fmzwyMv24BBd/gRAtINAJ9GUBGBDOUibiCOjuQoD2yzwB40eACfdUpU labY4IVzbUDotZ/mGASaWw4= =M+bk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
OK, you are clueless. The only person who is clueless is you. You have obviously not read anything. You obviously have such a twisted understanding of copyright law that even Terekhov seems intelligent beside you. If a file has a GPL copyright notice then I am allowed to redistribute the work if I so choose. If the file does not have a copyright notice, then I am not even allowed to look at it. That you then invent and twist the disucssion into absuridites is hilarious. The specific files on the CD are coverted by the GPL, that you simply do not comprehend this is astounding, specifically after explanations that they are infact covered by the GPL. If you cannot figure out if a file is infact GPLed by reading the copyright notice, then contact the relevant parties. You have resorted to name calling on several occasions, absurdities, and lies about what was actually written or even discussed. One can only deduce that the clueless party is you, not me. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
> by giving me a CD to install on the local server, the license > comes into play; Nope. The license is given to the licensee, and you are not the licensee, as you don't get to own the CD. You are only acting on behalf of the company. I do not have to own the CD, I only have to be in lawful posession of the content. Section 0 of the GPL. > and if I so wish, I can redistribute the content if the license > of that content allows me to do so. But the license doesn't. The license allows the owner of the CD to redistribute. The license allows the person in legal posession of the software to redistribute, section 0 of the GNU GPL. > The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since > that would violate the license. No, it wouldn't, as he is not distributing the software to you by letting you install it on his server. You are not a third party, but acting as the employer's agent. By giving me an copy, I get a license. Section 0 of the GNU 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. The "Program," Since I have legally obtained The Program, the terms of the GNU General Public License apply. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
There is no automatic "everything becomes public" mechanism associated with the GPL. Nobody has ever claimed that. Why do you imply that people have claimed 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
Bernd Jendrissek wrote: [...] > employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma > redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the > employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir Hey GnuPGP junkie, "redistribution (into RAM)" is covered by 17 USC 117 (and equivalent "Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs" copyright provisions in all WIPO nations). It doesn't need a license. 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 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. Hey Commando, BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have LGPL like clause that allows it. And reading up "on licenses that are compatible with the GPL" (typical FSF's bullshiting) doesn't really change that fact. 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 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
As I read GPL section 5, you don't need to accept the license. It either
applies to you or it doesn't, and you either satisfy the requirements for
distributing or you don't. If both, you may legally distribute the work.
Hmm, that had me wondering. Except for section 6 ("Each time you
redistribute
the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license ..."), I would have read the GPL as a unilateral grant
of (conditional) rights that applies to everybody.
Section 6 seems to suggest that you have to receive the license personally.
Would the GPL be simpler without section 6, or is there something that
wouldn't work without it?
/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
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:14:27 -0600 > Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > 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 >> >> While I agree with your result, your result does not require that you >> can only become a licensee by possessing a lawful copy. Even if the >> the copyright holder were to provide you a written license allowying >> you to copy his software at any time, you would still not have the >> right to come into my house unbidden to copy from my hard drive. > > Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead. Can you > please give another way to become a licensee of a GPLed work than by > > a) getting a license from the author without first getting a lawful copy > > b) accepting the GPL through copying and/or preparing a derivative work. Item a sounds good to me as a method other than receiveing a copy. As I suggested, I'm basically quibbling with your logic rather than your result. 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
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. Probably depends on whether the computer is company property. > 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). No, this is not the case. Even if the employer (or even a distributor) clearly says "install this on your computer, but never distribute this", you are bound by your agreement to the employer, even though the employer might be in violation of the license. But if he is so, you are not in a legal position to complain: only the copyright holder can do that. There is no automatic "everything becomes public" mechanism associated with the GPL. The recipients of illegitimately restricted copies of GPLed software have no legal standing to demand being able to make use of the GPL in its full extent. Only the copyright holder can do that, and even then the remedy for the offender is to _either_ heed the GPL _or_ stop distribution. -- 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
-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
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
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 i
Re: GPL and other licences
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:14:27 -0600 Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > While I agree with your result, your result does not require that you > can only become a licensee by possessing a lawful copy. Even if the > the copyright holder were to provide you a written license allowying > you to copy his software at any time, you would still not have the > right to come into my house unbidden to copy from my hard drive. Surely we're discussing how many angles can dance on a pinhead. Can you please give another way to become a licensee of a GPLed work than by a) getting a license from the author without first getting a lawful copy b) accepting the GPL through copying and/or preparing a derivative work. In the first case, you are a licensee without having a copy. In order to obtain one, you cannot break the law. Probably, you would be entitled to make a copy of CD loaned from a friend or a library. You would not be allowed to steal, or go against instructions of your employer, or determine for yourself what is the work you licensed. In the second, by far the most prevalent case, you need to possess a lawful copy, because you're not yet a licensee, and hence you cannot copy anything. Now please tell me how else this could work instead of merely suggesting it might be possible. One Alfred suffices. 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
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 While I agree with your result, your result does not require that you can only become a licensee by possessing a lawful copy. Even if the the copyright holder were to provide you a written license allowying you to copy his software at any time, you would still not have the right to come into my house unbidden to copy from my hard drive. 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: >* 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. > >* 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. > >* 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. > >* 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. I quote from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#notice> What is a copyright notice? How do I put a copyright notice on my work? [...] While use of a copyright notice was once required as a condition of copyright protection, it is now optional. This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had understood copyright law to participate in this discussion. >* 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? > > It is a requirement by law to state this, otherwise: no rights. And you say it is "namecalling" if Stefan calls you clueless? Please read the copyright FAQ from the U.S. government and/or the Berne convention. And then try again. >* Do the copyright statutes mandate a copyright notice? (Hint: No). > > No, they don't. But if you have no copyright notice: no rights. The > copyright notices states what you can and cannot do, in extention to > copyright law. Since the file does not contain a copyright notice, > then default copyright comes into place, i.e.: no rights. No, that's not a copyright notice. I quote again: A copyright notice is an identifier placed on copies of the work to inform the world of copyright ownership that generally consists of the symbol or word “copyright (or copr.),” the name of the copyright owner, and the year of first publication, e.g., ©2003 John Doe. You really are so clueless, and parading it to boot. It's not like the Berne convention has been kept a secret, or copyright law. -- 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
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I don't have physical access to most, if not all, places where I >> get free software. > >You can't get anything without access to the physical media, and >you need the owner's permission to access the media. > > And since my employer gave me such access Access, but not ownership. > by giving me a CD to install on the local server, the license comes > into play; Nope. The license is given to the licensee, and you are not the licensee, as you don't get to own the CD. You are only acting on behalf of the company. > and if I so wish, I can redistribute the content if the license of > that content allows me to do so. But the license doesn't. The license allows the owner of the CD to redistribute. > The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that > would violate the license. No, it wouldn't, as he is not distributing the software to you by letting you install it on his server. You are not a third party, but acting as the employer's agent. You don't understand 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
> 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. This is a GNU list, GNU Emacs is the defacto editor for the GNU system and project, rmail is the default mail reader in emacs. My quoting style, and reply methods use the defaults from rmail. If anything, it is you who are not following the style used in this group, project, and by the founder of the GNU project. Will you bitch at Richard for using the exact same style as I and many GNU users happen to use? Seriously, if you have so little to do that you have to complain about something like this then you really ought to find something to hack on. Now I'll simply ignore any and all requests from you about this particular issue of `style'. It is just that, style, and not a law, or rule. That you are so childish about this is really not my problem. > _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. 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. 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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 license that the copyright notice states is what the license of that particular file is. * What happens if the texts of the GPL, BSDL, MPL, Artistic License and the Microsoft and Adobe EULA all appear on the medium. Nothing. * Is it a condition of the GPL that all
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
> I don't have physical access to most, if not all, places where I > get free software. You can't get anything without access to the physical media, and you need the owner's permission to access the media. And since my employer gave me such access by giving me a CD to install on the local server, the license comes into play; and if I so wish, I can redistribute the content if the license of that content allows me to do so. The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that would violate the 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
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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. But you have the permission of the FSF to access the disk drives on ftp.gnu.org via anonymous ftp. You would not have the permission to hack into their machines and get arbitrary software and files from their machines, even though the access (which most certainly is physical, since data does not travel except by physical signals) is of the same kind. > I don't have physical access to most, if not all, places where I get > free software. You can't get anything without access to the physical media, and you need the owner's permission to access the media. -- 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
Attributions yet again fixed. Please do not send me email copies of your posts. Learn Netiquette, please. This is netiquette. Group reply is common. 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. Do you really think that *I* can give someone else permission to copy files from *your* computer? _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. 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 Dubya would not fall for that reasoning. Can you quit the name calling? It doesn't serve anything, if you have nothing to nice to say, shut up. I haven't called you names. ___ 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 21:18:53 +0100 "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Attributions yet again fixed. Please do not send me email copies of your posts. Learn Netiquette, please. > > AMS wrote: > > > > > You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise > > > the rights given in the GPL. > > SAE wrote: > > > 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 The software does not exist unless recorded on a physical medium. It does not exist in the ether, to materialise on a CD or paper through some kind of Harry Potteresque incantation. Do you really think that *I* can give someone else permission to copy files from *your* computer? 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"? That repair person might have the right to access your computer, and be allowed to copy your disk for the purposes of recovering it, but she can most certainly not decide all by herself to make personal copies just because she believes some files are a work "usually" licensed under the GPL, or apparently licensed under the GPL. Even Dubya would not fall for that reasoning. -- 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 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
> 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
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
But you did not receive a copy. You received the instruction to do something with your principal's property. And since the license applies to the _software_, and the license explicitly grants the rights to redistribute, I am allowed to do so. But you are not the lawful owner (or have lawful possession) of the CD. You're merely using it to execute your job. You don't need to be the lawful owner of the CD, the license applies to the softrawre, not the CD. Please see section 0 of the GPL. > 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. No, he doesn't need to transfer the ownership of the copy. He can simply give me access to the content. Again, Alfred, the license is an agreement between you and the owner of the software. And once again, software cannot be owned. It is an agreement between me and the _copyright_holder_. The license is not part of the software. It is infact part of the software. I suggest you read the following: 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." Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. 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
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
-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
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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You seem to misunderstand. The resulting overall program containing >independent works for all its components is indeed "still just a >compilation". But it now contains a derivative program (among other >computer program works) -- a derivative set of instructions to >eliminate FSF. So all compilations of independent works are also derivative works in their own right? Is that what you are saying? - -- "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Please fetch my new key 804177F8 from hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net/ iD8DBQFD8JV2wyMv24BBd/gRAkP4AJ0cg/WwaZ2etc9BF/hj8NFnp+8hVACfZasC vOGgolaXm7judcCWnUCC1po= =ubyp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"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
-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
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
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
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
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. In order to make further copies, or to prepare a derivative work, you need to have a lawful copy of the GPLed work. In the case of widely available GPLed works, in practice it doesn't matter how you obtained a copy (as you can only be sued for breach of copyright by the copyright holder, the fact that the original copy wasn't lawful doesn't really matter). There is also no reason for an employee to make copies as the original is widely available. 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 fact that were it to be released, it would have to be under the GPL, doesn't give employees the right to appropriate a copy because they using a copy of that software on their company computer. 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. -- 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
Graham Murray writes: > GPL or otherwise, is the copyright holder not the only person who *can* > give permission to make copies? What do you think the term "copyright" _means_? -- 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
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? ___ 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 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
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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? Not quite. The copyright holder is the person who can create physical copies owned by himself without restriction. If he decides to transfer ownership of such copies, the subsequent owner of the received copies has both rights and restrictions making use of the content of his physical copy. Both rights and restrictions are determined by copyright law. The copyright holder can negotiate different conditions or unilaterally grant more rights. -- 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
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". -- 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 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. For copying software you need something more than sufficient legal access. You also need a license because fair use does not provide sufficient rights to copy the software. I'm not sure whether I agree that you have to own a copy of GPL software to be a licensee, but I don't think the library analogy goes very far to resolve the issue. I don't believe you have the right to copy your employers CDs just because you have access to them no matter what happens to be on them. 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
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:12:51 -0600 John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...you don't hold the mineral rights of your land... > > I most certainly do. In the jurisdiction where I live you don't. But it is unlikely that you can make totally unfettered use of the land you own - that was the point. -- 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
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
David Kastrup writes: > Because a library is a special agency, with special rules fixed in > special laws. In the US there are no special laws for libraries that would apply to this situation. -- 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
Stefaan A Eeckels writes: > ...you don't hold the mineral rights of your land... I most certainly do. -- 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
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:36:29 +0100 "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | "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. 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. >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. > OK, it is quite clear that you question the fact that society considers software and other forms of intangible, creative expression as forms of property. This is a valid debate, but it has no effect on what the law means. We can also debate whether land should be considered property, or whether property should be inheritable. That, however, doesn't change the current laws one jot. My previous post quite clearly indicated how the current legal situation with regard to "ownership" of software and other intangible works is. I shall not repeat it, but it is quite clear that you let your understanding of the current reality be clouded by your convictions. But you should refrain from answering questions that concern the current legal situation based on those convictions. I might be interested in a debate on the best way to enable people to benefit from their intangible creations. Certainly, the current excesses in the film and music business shows that the current system is no longer giving society a reasonable return for the benefits granted to the copyright owners, and that it is now actively stifling innovation instead of promoting it. Still, the law as it currently stands doesn't equate "having access to" with "being the owner of" and hence doesn't grant someone with mere access to a GPLed work the right to make copies. 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
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
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 ha
Re: GPL and other licences
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
> 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
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
| "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
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:25:13 +0100 "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. Actually, they are related - all three are intangible expressions of creative activity that society (through the legislative process) has equated with tangible property. In other words, people can own a trademark, a copyright, and a patent, and this in turn gives them specific, though limited, rights. This is quite comparable to, for example, property rights which are also limited in scope (you don't hold the mineral rights of your land, for example, and you can't build whatever you like on it). > Neither of these things are a form of property, property laws are a > totally different thing. Of course they are property. You can sell a copyright, trademark or patent. And like land rights, the fact that they are your property severely limits what others can do on/with your property. In the case of trademarks, others cannot use it to label their products or services. In the case of patents, others cannot manufacture objects (or apply business methods) that are covered by the patent. In the case of copyright, it means that others cannot make copies, or prepare derivative works without your consent. Don't forget that to many cultures, ownership of land or resources as we practice it, is totally foreign. We evolved this concept because it facilitated the creation of large societies, with people bound to their property instead of to the tribe (which in Bantu tradition decides how the land should be used, for example). We literally "buy into" a community. Thus, what can be debated is whether software (or novels, or poems, etc.) *should* be considered property by our society. What cannot be debated is whether our current society *does* consider them a form of property - it does so beyond a shadow of doubt. > 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. Of course it is a form of property in our society. If you continue to pretend it is not, you're merely trolling. > 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'. 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. If "give" means "instruct you, as my agent, to install this software on my machine", then you are - for the purposes of this action - not an independent person, you no not become the lawful owner of the copy, and hence copyright law does *not* apply. This goes both ways, thus if I did not have the right to install this software on my machine, the only person who can be prosecuted is me, not you. Your confusion (assuming you're not a troll) might come from the fact that the verb "to give", like most words in our language(s), has several meanings. I already gave the example "I gave the mail carrier the letter", where "to give" means "handed the letter to the mail carrier for delivery to the recipient", and "I gave you the book", where "to give" means "transferring ownership of the copy". You simply do not get the same rights and duties when acting on behalf of someone else as when you're acting on your own behalf. Unless you acknowledge that you have grasped this fundamental difference, I will no longer answer your posts, and consider you a troll. 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
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. But the copyright owner does not have the authority to grant anybody physical access to the physical copy owned by somebody else. > The copyright owner has, by licensing under the GPL, given > permission for copies and modifications to be made For the owner of a physical copy. > and for the these (possibly modified) copies to be distributed > subject to certain conditions specified in the GPL. For the owner of a physical copy. > 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. > 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? 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. -- 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
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. You do not have to be the owner of the copy in order to exercise the rights given in the GPL. 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. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
