Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:
> 
> > If creators can prove they have authored some original code and
> > properly register their that original code with the Copyright Office
> > 
> 
> This is the bit I don't get yet.  What's the purpose of having to
> register copyright, other than keeping an army of clerks in work?  In
> many countries, possibly most, works are copyright by default and
> registration of them is unnecessary.
> 
> >  and can prove they released their own code under a legally
> > enforceable copyright license and can demonstrate substantial
> > similarity in copying protectable code without permission, it is their
> > right to sue for copyright infringement of their own code. That sounds
> > like great copyright law to me.
> 
> What's so great about the registration bit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration

"The purpose of copyright registration is to place on record a
verifiable account of the date and content of the work in question, so
that in the event of a legal claim, or case of infringement or
plagiarism, the copyright owner can produce a copy of the work from an
official government source.

[...]

United States of America United States Copyright Office Not required to
obtain copyright protection, but required for domestic copyright owners
to bring a suit for copyright infringement in federal court.
Registration establishes prima facie evidence of facts contained in
registration certificate if made within five years of first publication.
Copyright owners are precluded from collecting statutory damages and/or
attorney's fees for any infringement occurring before registration.[28]
Foreign copyright owners are not required to register before suing for
copyright infringement, but at least one court has held that they are
subject to the same preclusion of statutory damages as domestic
authors.[29] "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/24/2010 10:12 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

"Court Rejects Copyright Protection for Computer Program Found Lacking
Originality


OK. Everything minus two it is.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/24/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Yes, and?
> 
> 
>  Because the district court initially looked at these issues and
>  this evidence through the wrong frame of reference, its conclusion
>  that the Toner Loading Program had sufficient originality to obtain
>  copyright protection does not support the preliminary injunction.
>  At the permanent injunction stage of this dispute, we leave it to
>  the district court in the first instance to decide whether the Toner
>  Loading Program has sufficient originality to warrant copyright
>  protection.

http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/e9bc6a89-03dc-4e37-9dba-d3d324d6a94c.cfm

"Court Rejects Copyright Protection for Computer Program Found Lacking
Originality

By Paul E. Poirot

A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky provides important guidance about the amount of
creativity required to support copyright in a computer program and the
nature of fair use in the context of interoperability.  The court held
that certain Lexmark software programs were not protected by copyright
and that the use of those programs to achieve interoperability between
devices was a protected “fair use.”  Static Control Components, Inc. et
al v. Lexmark International Inc., Case No. 5:04-cv-00084-GFVT (E. D.
Ky., Apr. 18, 2007) (Van Tatenhove, J.).

Lexmark obtained copyrights on small programs that were used to measure
toner in certain Lexmark printer cartridges. The binary code of these
programs served as a lock-out code for the intended printers (i.e., if
the printer could not read the specific combination of binary numbers
from the inserted printer cartridge, the printer would not function).

When Static Control reverse-engineered the binary code to achieve
interoperability between remanufactured cartridges and Lexmark printers,
it unwittingly copied verbatim the executable aspects of the programs. 
Lexmark sued claiming copyright infringement.  Static Control maintained
that the programs embodied no creative expression and therefore, could
not be protected by copyright.

Lexmark argued that its programs were sufficiently creative because it
had made a series of design choices when writing the programs.  Static
Control contended, however, that the mere existence of alternatives
cannot endow the Lexmark code with originality it otherwise did not
possess.

The court determined that the programs did not have sufficient
originality to warrant copyright protection.  The district court
observed that whether functional alternatives exist in the abstract is
not the issue; rather, the issue is whether the programmers actually
expressed sufficient originality when creating the programs.  The court
held that the Lexmark programmers did not. "

http://www.internetlibrary.com/pdf/static-control-lexmark-d-ken.pdf
(Case 5:04-cv-00084-GFVT Document 975)

"Analysis

SCC makes two chief arguments regarding its assertion that it cannot be
liable for copyright infringement regarding the TLP’s. First, SCC avers
that the TLP’s lack the requisite originality necessary to be
copyrightable. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion combined with the Court’s
consideration of Lexmark’s current arguments lead the Court to find that
Lexmark’s TLP’s are not copyrightable. In the alternative, if the TLP’s
are copyrightable, then SCC argues that copying those programs as part
of SCC’s SMARTEK chip is “fair use” pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107. Guided
by the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, the Court agrees that SCC’s copying of
Lexmark’s TLP’s in this case was fair use, assuming arguendo the TLP’s’
copyrightability.

[...]

Both parties’ current positions are based on evidence known to and
appraised by the Sixth Circuit in 2004. The Court finds no new evidence
that would tend to materially undermine the Sixth Circuit’s application
of facts to the law, and accordingly that appellate decision controls.
As such, the originality—originality being a term-of-art under copyright
law—of Lexmark’s TLP’s is insufficient for the programs to be
copyrightable. "

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/24/2010 9:31 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Yes, and?



Because the district court initially looked at these issues and
this evidence through the wrong frame of reference, its conclusion
that the Toner Loading Program had sufficient originality to obtain
copyright protection does not support the preliminary injunction.
At the permanent injunction stage of this dispute, we leave it to
the district court in the first instance to decide whether the Toner
Loading Program has sufficient originality to warrant copyright
protection.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/24/2010 8:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Read http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/2009copyright/materials/lexmark.htm
>  
>  The Toner Loading Program for the T520/522 printers comprises 33 program
>  instructions and occupies 37 bytes of memory, while the Toner Loading
>  Program for the T620/622 printers comprises 45 program commands and uses
>  55 bytes of memory.

Yes, and? Didn't you moronically claim that EVERY computer program in
the world exceeds the originality standards required by copyright
law, stupid Hyman?

So now it's "every minus two" right?

Uh silly Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/24/2010 8:51 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Read http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/2009copyright/materials/lexmark.htm


The Toner Loading Program for the T520/522 printers comprises 33 program
instructions and occupies 37 bytes of memory, while the Toner Loading
Program for the T620/622 printers comprises 45 program commands and uses
55 bytes of memory.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/23/2010 5:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > “if the [program’s unprotected underlying] process is embodied
>  > inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of the computer
>  > program, then the process merges with the expression and precludes
>  > copyright protection.”
> 
> Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included,
> exceeds the originality standards required by copyright
> law.

Read
http://gozips.uakron.edu/~dratler/2009copyright/materials/lexmark.htm
silly Hyman.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=49278

"United States: Court Rejects Copyright Protection For Computer Program
Found Lacking Originality"

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 5:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/mar10/03-03iodatapr.mspx


Jury awards VirnetX $106M in Microsoft patent case

Microsoft legal spokesman Kevin Kutz gave the following statement:

We are disappointed by the jury's verdict. We respect others'
intellectual property, and we believe the evidence demonstrated
that we do not infringe and the patents are invalid. We believe
the award of damages is legally and factually unsupported, so
we will ask the court to overturn the verdict.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 5:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

“if the [program’s unprotected underlying] process is embodied

> inextricably in the line-by-line instructions of the computer
> program, then the process merges with the expression and precludes
> copyright protection.”

Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included,
exceeds the originality standards required by copyright
law.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/23/2010 6:08 PM, RJack wrote:
> > List all the patents nullified by the GPLv3 as of 3/23/2010:
> 
> There probably will never be any. The point was to
> prevent the release of ostensibly free software whose
> freedom would subsequently be restricted by the releaser
> through the assertion of patent claims.
> 
> > Microsoft released this statement in order to take the
>  > heat off Novell's co-operating with them in July 2007.
> 
> Yes. Causing that heat was part of the motivation for
> creating GPLv3.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/mar10/03-03iodatapr.mspx

"REDMOND, Wash., and KANAZAWA, Japan — March 3, 2010 — Microsoft Corp.
and I-O Data Device Inc. have entered into an agreement that will
provide I-O Data’s customers with patent coverage for their use of I-O
Data’s products running Linux and other related open source software.

Specifically, the patent covenants apply to I-O Data’s network-attached
storage devices and its routers, which run Linux. Although the details
of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicated that
Microsoft is being compensated by I-O Data.

“We’re pleased to reach this agreement with I-O Data,” said David
Kaefer, general manager of Intellectual Property Licensing at Microsoft.
“Microsoft has a strong track record of collaboration with companies
running Linux-based offerings, and this agreement is a reflection of our
commitment to partner with industry leaders around the world.”

This patent agreement is an extension of the strong relationship between
Microsoft and I-O Data in both the consumer and enterprise markets. The
companies recently worked together on a Windows 7 marketing campaign,
and I-O Data released one of the industry’s first Windows 7 API-based
sensors, which automatically detects when a person enters or leaves an
office or room.

Microsoft’s Commitment to IP Collaboration

This patent agreement is another example of the important role that
intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT
ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December
2003, the company has entered into more than 600 agreements and
continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers,
partners and competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was
developed to open access to Microsoft’s significant research and
development investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio.
In recent years, Microsoft has entered into patent agreements with other
leading companies that use Linux for their embedded devices, including
Brother International Corp., Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd., Kyocera Mita Corp., LG
Electronics, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and TomTom International BV.

More information about Microsoft’s licensing programs is available at .

About I-O Data Device Inc.

Founded in 1976, I-O Data Device Inc., based in Kanazawa, Japan, is a
leading provider of peripheral devices for personal computers and
digital consumer electronics. For more information about I-O Data Device
and its products, please visit www.iodata.com.

About Microsoft

Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”) is the worldwide leader in
software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize
their full potential.

Note to editors: For more information, news and perspectives from
Microsoft, please visit the Microsoft News Center at
http://www.microsoft.com/news. Web links, telephone numbers and titles
were correct at time of publication, but may have changed. For
additional assistance, journalists and analysts may contact Microsoft’s
Rapid Response Team or other appropriate contacts listed at
http://www.microsoft.com/news/contactpr.mspx. "

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/microsoft-amazon-patent-deal-covers-kindle-linux.ars

"Microsoft-Amazon patent deal covers Kindle, Linux
By Emil Protalinski | Last updated February 22, 2010 8:47 PM
Microsoft and Amazon.com have signed a wide-ranging patent
cross-licensing agreement that provides each company with access to the
other's patent portfolio. Specific terms of the agreement were not
disclosed, but it was made clear that Amazon will be paying Microsoft an
undisclosed amount of money as part of the arrangement. While Microsoft
wouldn't say which of its products and technologies Amazon is interested
in, Microsoft did mention that Amazon's Kindle, which employs open
source and proprietary software components, as well as Amazon's use of
Linux-based servers are covered. 

Neither company would officially disclose why the deal was struck today.
"We are pleased to have entered into this patent license agreement with
Amazon.com," Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's corporate vice president and
deputy general counsel for Intellectual Property and Licensing, said in
a statement. "Microsoft's patent portfolio is the largest and strongest
in the software industry, and this agreement demonstrates our mutual
respect for intellectual property as well as ou

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/23/2010 5:44 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> Any change to the functionality of a computer program, no matter how
> >> slight, satisfies the requirements of originality. Pretending
> >> otherwise might be good for pontificating to your fellow cranks on the
> >> internet, but not for anything more.
> >
> > Functionality isn't even eligible for copyright protection
> 
> Changes to functionality are effected through changes
> to program text. Any such change in functionality is
> sufficient to satisfy the minimal requirements of
> originality.

Uh moron Hyman. 

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html

"While the originality standard is low, it does exist. In particular,
the laws stress that it is a programmer’s expression of some
functionality that may be protected by copyright, and not the
functionality itself. If code embodies the only way (or one of very few
ways) to express its underlying functionality, that code will be
considered unoriginal because the expression is inseparable from the
functionality. Similarly, if a program’s expression is dictated entirely
by practical or technical considerations, or other external constraints,
it will also be considered unoriginal. The originality of a program’s
functionality is irrelevant to its eligibility for copyright. Code
implementing a completely novel algorithm may not be copyrightable due
to a dearth of expressive alternatives. 

[...]

Minimum standard for copyright in literal elements (Lexmark)

The Lexmark court identified two doctrines—the merger doctrine discussed
supra, and the scenes a faire doctrine—as the appropriate tools for
determining how little expression was too little. Applying the merger
doctrine to source code, the court stated that “if the [program’s
unprotected underlying] process is embodied inextricably in the
line-by-line instructions of the computer program, then the process
merges with the expression and precludes copyright protection.”39 If a
work represents one of only a few possible means of accomplishing a
task, it is not copyrightable. The scenes a faire doctrine has its
origins in narrative works, and means that expressions which are
“standard, stock, or that necessarily follow from a common theme or
setting” cannot be protected.40 “In the computer-software context, the
doctrine means that the elements of a program dictated by practical
realities—e.g., by hardware standards and mechanical specifications,
software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer
design standards, target industry practices, and standard computer
programming practices—may not obtain protection.”41 

If a portion of a program’s expression merges with its underlying idea
or is dictated by external technical considerations, that portion is not
copyrightable under Lexmark. In applying this rule to code, the Lexmark
decision directs courts to “ask whether the ideas, methods of operation
and facts of the program could have been expressed in any form other
than that chosen by the programmer, taking into consideration the
functionality, compatibility and efficiency demanded of the program.”42
The court clearly implies that the capacity for originality in a
computer program is to some degree a function of the program’s size,
stating that for a very large and complex program, “it would have been
exceedingly difficult to say that practical alternative means of
expression did not exist,”43 and that a small program’s “size…[may]
dictate the content of the…[p]rogram.”44 

Lexmark provides some specific guidance as to what sorts of available
variations are insufficient to demonstrate a program’s originality: that
there exist “different ideas or methods of operation altogether” for
achieving comparable functionality, because these are not
“copyright-protectable expression;”45 representing a formula with a
look-up table;46 and re-ordering constituent formulae in a manner
analogous to paraphrasing.47 More generally, the court exhibited
disregard for conceivable variations that would be “trivial,” and would
not constitute “material changes” or “make any ‘substantial difference’
to the nature of the program.”48 "

Interestingly enough
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html
lacks attribution/authorship acknowledgement for that document which is
of atypically good quality v. typical SFLC's nonsensical bullshit.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 6:08 PM, RJack wrote:

List all the patents nullified by the GPLv3 as of 3/23/2010:


There probably will never be any. The point was to
prevent the release of ostensibly free software whose
freedom would subsequently be restricted by the releaser
through the assertion of patent claims.


Microsoft released this statement in order to take the

> heat off Novell's co-operating with them in July 2007.

Yes. Causing that heat was part of the motivation for
creating GPLv3.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 5:37 PM, RJack wrote:
RMS's GNUtian acolytes may believe this tripe about patents but 
that doesn't make it true in the world of real people.


Microsoft believed it well enough: 
 
Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions
 are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party 
of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license.


While there have been some claims that Microsoft’s distribution of 
certificates for Novell support services, under our interoperability 
collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3 
license, we do not believe that such claims have a valid legal basis 
under contract, intellectual property, or any other law. In fact, we 
do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL to carry out 
any aspect of its collaboration with Novell, including its 
distribution of support certificates, even if Novell chooses to 
distribute GPLv3 code in the future.


Composed by the best copyright lawyers that $50 billion dollars
can buy. List all the patents nullified by the GPLv3 as of 3/23/2010:

1)
2)
3)
4)
ROFL.

Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express patent 
rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3 licensors have no 
authority to represent or bind Microsoft in any way.


At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal debate on
 this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell support 
certificates that we distribute to customers will not entitle the 
recipient to receive from Novell, or any other party, any 
subscription for support and updates relating to any code licensed 
under GPLv3. We will closely study the situation and decide whether 
to expand the scope of the certificates in the future.


Microsoft released this statement in order to take the heat off Novell's
co-operating with them in July 2007.
LMAO.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 5:44 PM, RJack wrote:

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Any change to the functionality of a computer program, no matter how
slight, satisfies the requirements of originality. Pretending
otherwise might be good for pontificating to your fellow cranks on the
internet, but not for anything more.


Functionality isn't even eligible for copyright protection


Changes to functionality are effected through changes
to program text. Any such change in functionality is
sufficient to satisfy the minimal requirements of
originality.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 5:37 PM, RJack wrote:

RMS's GNUtian acolytes may believe this tripe about patents
but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people.


Microsoft believed it well enough:

Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license and none of
its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status
as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal
obligations under such license.

While there have been some claims that Microsoft’s
distribution of certificates for Novell support services,
under our interoperability collaboration with Novell,
constitutes acceptance of the GPLv3 license, we do not
believe that such claims have a valid legal basis under
contract, intellectual property, or any other law. In fact,
we do not believe that Microsoft needs a license under GPL
to carry out any aspect of its collaboration with Novell,
including its distribution of support certificates, even if
Novell chooses to distribute GPLv3 code in the future.
Furthermore, Microsoft does not grant any implied or express
patent rights under or as a result of GPLv3, and GPLv3
licensors have no authority to represent or bind Microsoft
in any way.

At this point in time, in order to avoid any doubt or legal
debate on this issue, Microsoft has decided that the Novell
support certificates that we distribute to customers will not
entitle the recipient to receive from Novell, or any other
party, any subscription for support and updates relating to
any code licensed under GPLv3. We will closely study the
situation and decide whether to expand the scope of the
certificates in the future.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote:

Originality


Any change to the functionality of a computer program, no matter how 
slight, satisfies the requirements of originality. Pretending 
otherwise might be good for pontificating to your fellow cranks on 
the internet, but not for anything more.


You are utterly full of crap Hyman. Functionality isn't even eligible
for copyright protection:

"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Are you making this crap up all by yourself or is someone really, really
dumb helping you?

Sincerely,
RJack :)


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

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 4:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Do you have any evidence that GPLv3 makes it more difficult to 
prevent installation of modified versions on dedicated equipment?


That is its intent. I don't know whether it has had any practical 
effect, and I'm insufficiently motivated to go hunting around for 
evidence one way or the other. Both the Linux kernel and BusyBox are 
still under GPLv2, so it hasn't mattered to those projects.



That could happen only in Stallman's insane mind.


Decades ago, Stallman presciently realized what the lack of freedom 
for software would mean, and we are seeing it come to life now, with 
"app stores" and whatnot restricting the freedom of users.



The GPL can't undo anti-circumvention laws. If the code falls under
 anti-circumvention laws then the code falls under 
anti-circumvention laws, with all the consequences spelled out in 
anti-circumvention laws, irrespective whether it is GPL'd or not.


Part of distributing code under GPLv3 is declaring 
 No covered work shall be 
deemed part of an effective technological measure under any 
applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO 
copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws 
prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. You may be

 right that such a declaration will not help in all circumstances,
but it surely cannot hurt.


The GPLv3 can't undo patent laws either.
GPLv3 does not undo patent laws. As part of distributing a work 
covered by GPLv3, you voluntarily give up certain rights under patent

 law that you may have.


Only in your copyright misused delusional mind. Just because some
moron who believes a copyright license is not a contract says so doesn't
make it so. RMS's GNUtian acolytes may believe this tripe about patents
but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


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

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 5:30 PM, RJack wrote:

Originality


Any change to the functionality of a computer program,
no matter how slight, satisfies the requirements of
originality. Pretending otherwise might be good for
pontificating to your fellow cranks on the internet,
but not for anything more.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/23/2010 3:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > BTW, to expand your horizons, see "joint" in
> > http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_(Republic_of_China,_2006)
> 
> 
>  Joint economic rights in a work shall not be exercised except with
>  the consent of all the joint economic rights holders;

With the caveat that "A joint economic rights holder shall not refuse
consent without a legitimate reason."

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 4:56 PM, RJack wrote:

Why not read Feist (supra).


Sure. : To qualify
for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See:
Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549, 105 S.Ct., at 2223-2224. Original,
as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was
independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other
works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of
creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright ss 2.01[A], [B] (1990)
(hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure, the requisite level of creativity
is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast
majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some
creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.
Id., s 1.08[C] [1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may
be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as
the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.

More than stupid. Willfully, obtusely stupid. Don't you get tired of
it?


Sigh... I'll leave it to you and the SFLC to explain to a federal court
that originality is not a requirement for copyrights and that the
Copyright Act doesn't say:

"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression
..."

And that Justice Conner didn't hold that:

"Originality is a constitutional requirement. The source of Congress'
power to enact copyright laws is Article I, s 8, cl. 8, of the
Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "secur[e] for limited Times
to Authors ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings." In two
decisions from the late 19th century-- The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S.
82, 25 L.Ed. 550 (1879); and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,
111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct. 279, 28 L.Ed. 349 (1884)--this Court defined the
crucial terms "authors" and "writings." In so doing, the Court made it
unmistakably clear that these terms presuppose a degree of originality."
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
(1991).

Once you slip into your cozy little world of denial there's nothing
further to be said. Solipsism cannot be refuted through rational discourse.

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 4:16 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Do you have any evidence that GPLv3 makes it more difficult to prevent
installation of modified versions on dedicated equipment?


That is its intent. I don't know whether it has had
any practical effect, and I'm insufficiently motivated
to go hunting around for evidence one way or the other.
Both the Linux kernel and BusyBox are still under GPLv2,
so it hasn't mattered to those projects.


That could happen only in Stallman's insane mind.


Decades ago, Stallman presciently realized what the lack of
freedom for software would mean, and we are seeing it come
to life now, with "app stores" and whatnot restricting the
freedom of users.


The GPL can't undo anti-circumvention laws. If the code falls under
anti-circumvention laws then the code falls under anti-circumvention
laws, with all the consequences spelled out in anti-circumvention laws,
irrespective whether it is GPL'd or not.


Part of distributing code under GPLv3 is declaring

No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective
technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling
obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty
adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting
or restricting circumvention of such measures.
You may be right that such a declaration will
not help in all circumstances, but it surely cannot hurt.

> The GPLv3 can't undo patent laws either.
GPLv3 does not undo patent laws. As part of distributing a
work covered by GPLv3, you voluntarily give up certain rights
under patent law that you may have.



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

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/23/2010 3:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/058360.html
> > GPLv2 is not going away.  There's no reason for it to.
>  > So what exactly is the purpose of GPLv3?
> 
> 
> 
> The improvements to freedom that come with GPLv3 include
> making it more difficult to prevent installation of modified
> versions on dedicated equipment, 

Do you have any evidence that GPLv3 makes it more difficult to prevent
installation of modified versions on dedicated equipment? That could
happen only in Stallman's insane mind.


> allowing people to remove
> digital restrictions management from GPLed code which might
> otherwise fall under anti-circumvention laws, 

The GPL can't undo anti-circumvention laws. If the code falls under
anti-circumvention laws then the code falls under anti-circumvention
laws, with all the consequences spelled out in anti-circumvention laws,
irrespective whether it is GPL'd or not.

> and preventing
> the use of patents from limiting redistribution to only
> certain parties.

LMAO! The GPLv3 can't undo patent laws either.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 4:56 PM, RJack wrote:

Why not read Feist (supra).


Sure. :
To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original
to the author. See: Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549, 105 S.Ct.,
at 2223-2224. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means
only that the work was independently created by the author (as
opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at
least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer,
Copyright ss 2.01[A], [B] (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure,
the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight
amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade
quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter
how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Id., s 1.08[C] [1].
Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original
even though it closely resembles other works so long as the
similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.

More than stupid. Willfully, obtusely stupid.
Don't you get tired of it?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 2:40 PM, RJack wrote:

Originality is a *requirement* before copyright is granted.


They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But I guess 
stupidity explains a lot.


It certainly explains your predicament.

"Originality is a Requirement

Originality is a constitutional requirement. (Feist Publications, Inc.,
v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991))

The only part of a work that is protected by copyright is that which is
original to the author.

In two late 19th century decisions, the Supreme Court defined the terms
“authors” and “writings.” In doing so, the Court made it absolutely
clear that both terms presumed a degree of originality. In one case, the
Court determined that for a work to be classified “under the head of
writings of authors, originality is required” and that “the writings
which are to be protected are the fruits of intellectual labor, embodied
in the form of books, prints, engravings, and the like.”(Feist) In
another case, the Court defined the term “author,” as far as
constitutional requirements, to mean “he to whom anything owes its
origin; originator; maker.”(Feist) The court further described copyright
as being limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,”
(Feist) and stressed that an author accusing another of infringement is
required to prove "the existence of those facts of originality, of
intellectual production, of thought, and conception.(Feist)."
http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/originality.htm

You can always take a quotation out of context and make a complete fool
of yourself Hyman. Keep up the good work!



SimplexGrinnell v. Integerated Systems & Power United Staes District 
Court Southern District of New York 

 Although the parties presented this issue in terms of 
SimplexGrinnell's copyright in the various revisions of the 
Programmer, each new version constitutes a separate derivative work


Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch United States 
Court of Appeals Second Circuit  We
 have explained that "`[o]riginality' in [the copyright] context 
`means only that the work was independently created by the author (as
 opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least 
some minimal degree of creativity.'"


You will never be able to separate ownership claims to establish 
what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox.


Why not read Feist (supra). 'Nuff said.

Sincerely,
RJack :)







There is nothing joint in BusyBox because there is no stated intent 
by all of its authors to create a joint work.

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

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 3:55 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

BTW, to expand your horizons, see "joint" in
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_(Republic_of_China,_2006)



Joint economic rights in a work shall not be exercised except with
the consent of all the joint economic rights holders;

Notice that this is the exact opposite of the meaning of joint work
in US copyright law, where each joint holder may exercise rights
without consent of the other authors.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 3:41 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/058360.html
GPLv2 is not going away.  There's no reason for it to.

> So what exactly is the purpose of GPLv3?



The improvements to freedom that come with GPLv3 include
making it more difficult to prevent installation of modified
versions on dedicated equipment, allowing people to remove
digital restrictions management from GPLed code which might
otherwise fall under anti-circumvention laws, and preventing
the use of patents from limiting redistribution to only
certain parties.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss RJack  wrote:

> If creators can prove they have authored some original code and
> properly register their that original code with the Copyright Office
> 

This is the bit I don't get yet.  What's the purpose of having to
register copyright, other than keeping an army of clerks in work?  In
many countries, possibly most, works are copyright by default and
registration of them is unnecessary.

>  and can prove they released their own code under a legally
> enforceable copyright license and can demonstrate substantial
> similarity in copying protectable code without permission, it is their
> right to sue for copyright infringement of their own code. That sounds
> like great copyright law to me.

What's so great about the registration bit?

> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> are not knowledgeable in copyright law know what the
> meaning of a joint work is, so the writer is most likely
> using that word in its English, not legal, meaning.

Stop being utter moron Hyman.

BTW, to expand your horizons, see "joint" in 

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_(Republic_of_China,_2006)

Hth.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

This is hilarious as well:

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/058360.html

"Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun...
Rob Landley rob at landley.net 
Sat Sep 9 23:49:58 UTC 2006 

Previous message: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun... 
Next message: Move GPLv2 vs v3 fun... 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 



On Friday 08 September 2006 7:04 pm, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > or should we just admit that the BusyBox license is GPLv2 only?
> 
> I don't understand very well your reflexion about GPL.
>  - You dislike GPLv3 because it reduce some liberties
>  - You propose to remove the "or latter", IOW to remove a liberty
> Isn't there a contradiction ? Or did I misunderstood your position ?

Don't invent a straw man argument please.  I consider licensing BusyBox under 
GPLv3 to be useless, unnecessary, overcomplicated, and confusing, and in 
addition to that it has actual downsides.

1) Useless: We're never dropping GPLv2.  Therefore, nobody can enforce any of 
the new clauses of the GPLv3 on busybox code because people can continue to 
use it under the terms of GPLv2 which don't require them.  So the new license 
is unenforceable on BusyBox code anyway, all it could possibly do to BusyBox 
is relax the terms, not tighten them.

2) Unnecessary: There's nothing wrong with GPLv2 that I'm aware of, and if 
something did crop up the Linux kernel would be screwed and that's big enough 
business for some large corporate entities to lobby to change the law to 
unscrew it.  GPLv2 is 15 years old and it's been scrutinized by everybody 
from Microsoft to SCO.  What reason is there for replacing it other than a 
cry for attention on the part of Richard Stallman?  What exactly was wrong 
with GPLv2?

3) Overcomplicated: I'm not talking about the text of GPLv3, I'm talking about 
why would BusyBox need two licenses?  We've been under GPLv2 all this time, 
that's the ONLY license we've ever had, and I'd like it to _stay_ the only 
license.  I dowanna add unnecessary complexity to the project's licensing any 
more than I want to add unnecessary complexity to the project's code.

4) Unmotivated:   Our current dual license was at first an afterthought, and 
is now an inconvenience.  The GPLv3 did not _exist_ when BusyBox first 
shipped (and technically still doesn't), we just used the standard GPLv2 
boilerplate which had the "or later" in it.  This is not something we ever 
put any effort into, or placed any value on.  It was a purely theoretical 
issue up until the FSF decided it had to do something to regain relevance.  
The "or later" clause is something I am now having to put effort into 
preserving and policing, and I really don't see any benefit from doing so.

5) Confusing: I hate having to point out the need for an "or later" clause to 
people when it's absent.  Right now they can license code GPLv2 or "GPLv2 or 
later", and it's a subtle enough distinction that I keep having to point it 
out and ask "can we get an 'or later'" and it annoys me.  GPLv2 and GPLv3 are 
clearly two different licenses, GPLv2 or later is a vague implicit dual 
license that's way too easily overlooked, and probably has been in the past.  
We didn't track this closely back when it was a purely theoretical issue, 
it's quite possible we sucked code from GPLv2-only projects, since at the 
time we just checked that it _was_ GPLv2.  (We know we took some code from 
the Linux kernel, for example.  The question is how much and where.  You 
wanna do the audit?)

I really like having the same license as the Linux kernel, and being able to 
take code from the Linux kernel without asking questions.  I hate having to 
ask questions BEYOND "Is this code licensed under GPLv2?", and I really hate 
having to explain to people why GPLv2 isn't good enough to merge a patch.

6) Costly: To preserve the "or later" we can't use GPLv2 only code, which 
exists today.  We had to pass on the diethotplug patch already.  We're 
bending things a bit to continue to use the kernel's menuconfig.  (Is it, or 
is it not part of the BusyBox source code?  It's GPLv2 only.)  Or how about 
the section of the kernel header files we sucked into libbb/loop.c?  (That 
might or might not be scenes a' faire.)  This is not going to improve with 
time.

7) Divisive: GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible, and BusyBox's current dual 
license is quite compatible with either of them.  Although we can' donate 
code to projects under either license, we can't TAKE code from projects under 
any of those licenses.  This means that the only people who might possibly 
benefit from our code being dual licensed those who want to suck BusyBox code 
into other GPLv3-only projects.  (Not use us as a package, but use code 
snippets, or bolt our applets onto other things.)

Except that if they do that, we can't take patches back from them.  If they 
glue a GPLv3-only applet onto BusyBox, they can only distri

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 3:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

I mean
"if we go to enforce copyrights on a joint work it would SUCK for the
other side to be able to point out examples showing that who owns what
is unclear."


But since the copyrights on a joint work are held by
all the copyright holders jointly, the fact that the
writer said "Please use your own copyright notice"?
shows that he does not mean to create a joint work as
defined by copyright law. I doubt that many people who
are not knowledgeable in copyright law know what the
meaning of a joint work is, so the writer is most likely
using that word in its English, not legal, meaning.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

[...
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/058295.html
...]

> You mean where they say "we use the GPL boilerplate now"?
> And where they say "Please use your own copyright notice"?
> I don't think so.

I mean

"if we go to enforce copyrights on a joint work it would SUCK for the 
other side to be able to point out examples showing that who owns what
is unclear."

ROFL!

Go to doctor, stupid Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 3:08 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

The intent is stated clear, 100% clear, by their

> collaborative actions via busybox.net

You mean where they say "we use the GPL boilerplate now"?
And where they say "Please use your own copyright notice"?
I don't think so.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> There is nothing joint in BusyBox because there is no
> stated intent by all of its authors to create a joint

The intent is stated clear, 100% clear, by their collaborative actions
via busybox.net you moron Hyman.

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2006-September/058295.html

"start-stop-daemon incorrect pid
Rob Landley rob at landley.net 
Thu Sep 7 01:02:36 UTC 2006 

Previous message: start-stop-daemon incorrect pid 
Next message: start-stop-daemon incorrect pid 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 



On Wednesday 06 September 2006 3:46 pm, Stephane Billiart wrote:
> On 06/09/06 ? ? 11:11, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > Creating pids in several applets sounds like bloat.
> 
> I've already posted this patch I've been using for months on my system
> to create pidfiles for monitoring purposes but it never made it to the
> SVN tree.
> 
> I split the patch in two parts, the first adds writepidfile/removepidfile
> to libbb and the second modifies inetd, syslogd and crond to use it.
> fakeidentd is another daemon that could use this but it also does a
> fchown on the pidfile so I did not modify it here (I don't use it anyway)

Looks reasonable, except:

1) Please use your own copyright notice.  We're not the FSF, you don't
assign 
copyright to us.  And legally assigning copyright isn't trivial, which
is one 
of the issues in the SCO vs Novell lawsuit.  A decent summary is here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040326223857634

Putting Erik's copyright notice on it is not an "instrument of
conveyance", 
and if we go to enforce copyrights on a joint work it would SUCK for the 
other side to be able to point out examples showing that who owns what
is 
unclear.

(Note that we don't always list every copyright in the files, especially
when 
we add a small chunk to a large existing file. Instead we mention the 
contributor in the SVN checkin comment for that commit.  I just don't
want 
there to be _false_ information in there.)"

LMAO!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system 
so that I can do the builds."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen  The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 2:40 PM, RJack wrote:

Originality is a *requirement* before copyright is granted.


They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But I guess stupidity explains a lot.

SimplexGrinnell v. Integerated Systems & Power
United Staes District Court
Southern District of New York

Although the parties presented this issue in terms of
SimplexGrinnell's copyright in the various revisions
of the Programmer, each new version constitutes a
separate derivative work

Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch
United States Court of Appeals
Second Circuit

We have explained that "`[o]riginality' in [the copyright] context
`means only that the work was independently created by the author
(as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at
least some minimal degree of creativity.'"


You will never be able to separate ownership
claims to establish what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox.


There is nothing joint in BusyBox because there is no
stated intent by all of its authors to create a joint
work.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 1:15 PM, RJack wrote:

An utterly false staement. The elements of the AFC test are
applicable to any computer program.


What's that they say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Mitel Inc. v. Iqtel Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit 
September 22, 1997 124 F.3d 1366, 44 USPQ2d 1172 
 Notwithstanding

our endorsement of abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis, we
emphasize that the approach is valuable only insofar as it aids the
court in distinguishing protectable elements of a work from those
that are unprotectable. Not every case requires an extensive 
abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis. Rather, “the appropriate 
test to be applied and the order in which its various components are
to be applied . . . may vary depending upon the claims involved, the 
procedural posture of the suit, and the nature of the [works] at 
issue.” Gates Rubber Co.,  9 F.3d at 834 n.12. <124 F.3d 1373>


Where, as here, the alleged infringement constitutes the admitted 
literal copying of a discrete, easily-conceptualized portion of a

work, we need not perform complete abstraction-filtration-comparison
analysis.


BusyBox is not a large complex program owned by someone. It is a
virtually untraceable amalgam of patches to source code modules by
a hundred or more authors that stretches over a span of more than
ten years and millions of source code bytes under different
licenses.


It's origins are irrelevant,


You may fervently wish so Hyman but that don't make it so. Originality
is a *requirement* before copyright is granted.

"§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship. . ."


as long as some antecedent version permitted the creation of
derivative works and of combined works without restricting the
license under which such derivative and combined works could be
distributed.


Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat
this fact. Let me repeat this fact:

Erik Andersen is not the "owner" of any version of BusyBox as you
imply.


Erik Andersen is the owner of a derivative and combined work starting
with the version of BusyBox which contains his changes.


I'll leave to you to tell the judge about combined derivative joint
works. I'm sure he'll listen eagerly to your ramblings.

That's a fantasy Hyman. You will never be able to separate ownership
claims to establish what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox.
You could count the grains of sand on Coney Island easier. A defendant
has every legal right to challenge the validity of a plaintiff's
copyright ownership and require him to identify the exact work. The
defendants in Best Buy have already done so in their Answers.

I truly hope Erik Andersen attempts to claim he has combined copyright
in a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a
derivative of a derivate of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative
of a derivative of a derivative of a derivativeof a derivative of a
derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a
derivative (repeat several thousand times) of a joint work. The Judge
will toss him out on his ass and let him pay the defendants' attorney fees.


That is the nature of copyright law with respect to the creation of
derivative and combined works.

This is the nature of derivative works:

"A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”."


You are free to dislike that law, but you are not free to ignore it.


I'm not ignoring it Hyman *you* are.



17 USC 103 


 The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends ... to the
material contributed by the author of such work ... The copyright in
such work is independent

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 1:15 PM, RJack wrote:

An utterly false staement. The elements of the AFC test are applicable
to any computer program.


What's that they say? Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Mitel Inc. v. Iqtel Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
September 22, 1997
124 F.3d 1366, 44 USPQ2d 1172

Notwithstanding our endorsement of abstraction-filtration-comparison
analysis, we emphasize that the approach is valuable only insofar as
it aids the court in distinguishing protectable elements of a work
from those that are unprotectable. Not every case requires an extensive
abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis. Rather, “the appropriate
test to be applied and the order in which its various components are to
be applied . . . may vary depending upon the claims involved, the
procedural posture of the suit, and the nature of the [works] at issue.”
Gates Rubber Co.,  9 F.3d at 834 n.12. <124 F.3d 1373>

Where, as here, the alleged infringement constitutes the admitted literal
copying of a discrete, easily-conceptualized portion of a work, we need
not perform complete abstraction-filtration-comparison analysis.


BusyBox is not
a large complex program owned by someone. It is a virtually untraceable
amalgam of patches to source code modules by a hundred or more authors
that stretches over a span of more than ten years and millions of source
code bytes under different licenses.


It's origins are irrelevant, as long as some antecedent version
permitted the creation of derivative works and of combined works
without restricting the license under which such derivative and
combined works could be distributed.


Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this
fact. Let me repeat this fact:

Erik Andersen is not the "owner" of any version of BusyBox as you imply.


Erik Andersen is the owner of a derivative and combined work
starting with the version of BusyBox which contains his changes.
That is the nature of copyright law with respect to the creation
of derivative and combined works. You are free to dislike that
law, but you are not free to ignore it.

17 USC 103

The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends
... to the material contributed by the author of such work
...
The copyright in such work is independent of ... any copyright
protection in the preexisting material.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 12:29 PM, RJack wrote:

Copyrighting isn't enough to protect a computer program. The source
 code must be "protectable" e.g. pass the AFC test. This is a 
matter settled by expert witness testimony. 
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html


Did you read that article? For most alleged copyright infringements, 
this filtering makes little difference. It is important to recognize 
that, with today’s large, complex programs, most copyright 
infringement consists of the verbatim copying or unauthorized 
distribution of a computer program, and no question over whether any 
similarities are protected expression or unprotected function need be

 considered.

The AFC test comes into play when one party argues infringement and 
the other argues independent creation, with similarities forced by 
the nature of the implementation.


An utterly false staement. The elements of the AFC test are applicable
to any computer program.


Copyright is enough to protect a computer program when it's copied!


You forgot the qualifier "verbatim".


Once again, you demonstrate how little you know.


There you go again Hyman. Off into the land of GNU. BusyBox is not
a large complex program owned by someone. It is a virtually untraceable
amalgam of patches to source code modules by a hundred or more authors
that stretches over a span of more than ten years and millions of source
code bytes under different licenses.

Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this fact. Let me repeat this
fact. Let me repeat this fact:

Erik Andersen is not the "owner" of any version of BusyBox as you imply.

"20. Mr. Andersen is the author and developer of the BusyBox computer
program, and the owner of copyrights in that computer program. BusyBox
is a single computer program that comprises a set of computing tools and
optimizes them for computers with limited resources, such as cell
phones, PDAs, and other small, specialized electronic devices."

is a false statement.

Sincerely,
RJack :)


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

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 12:29 PM, RJack wrote:

Copyrighting isn't enough to protect a computer program. The source
code must be "protectable" e.g. pass the AFC test. This is a matter
settled by expert witness testimony.
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html


Did you read that article?
For most alleged copyright infringements, this filtering makes
little difference. It is important to recognize that, with today’s
large, complex programs, most copyright infringement consists of
the verbatim copying or unauthorized distribution of a computer
program, and no question over whether any similarities are
protected expression or unprotected function need be considered.

The AFC test comes into play when one party argues infringement
and the other argues independent creation, with similarities
forced by the nature of the implementation. Copyright is enough
to protect a computer program when it's copied! Once again, you
demonstrate how little you know.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 11:29 AM, RJack wrote:

If creators can prove they have authored some original code and
properly register their that original code with the Copyright
Office and can prove they released their own code under a legally
enforceable copyright license


So far, so good.


and can demonstrate substantial similarity in copying protectable
code without permission


I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that they can show that
someone has copied and distributed copyrighted code without 
permission?




Verbatim copying is not required to prove infringement. Only
"substantial similarity" is required. This is a matter for the triar
of fact (jury) to determine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

Copyrighting isn't enough to protect a computer program. The source
code must be "protectable" e.g. pass the AFC test. This is a matter
settled by expert witness testimony.
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html


it is their right to sue for copyright infringement of their own
code. That sounds like great copyright law to me.


That is copyright law as currently constituted. What's your point?


Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 11:29 AM, RJack wrote:

If creators can prove they have authored some original code and properly
register their that original code with the Copyright Office and can
prove they released their own code under a legally enforceable copyright
license


So far, so good.


and can demonstrate substantial similarity in copying
protectable code without permission


I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that they can show
that someone has copied and distributed copyrighted code without
permission?


it is their right to sue for copyright infringement of their

> own code. That sounds like great copyright law to me.

That is copyright law as currently constituted.
What's your point?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/23/2010 10:49 AM, RJack wrote:
Before anyone starts filing copyright infringement claims 
concerning the vast quntity of unix and posix-like source code 
modules out there in cyberspace they should run a utility like Eric
 Raymond's code comparator against the CSRG code. It may open some 
eyes concerning the true original creators of source modules in 
things unix-like. BusyBox code included.


If the original creators licensed the code such that others could 
make derivative works and did not restrict the license under which 
those derivative works could be distributed then it does not matter 
how those works got their start.

True.
Creators of derivative works may file copyright infringement claims 
if their license is not being honored


If creators can prove they have authored some original code and properly
register their that original code with the Copyright Office and can
prove they released their own code under a legally enforceable copyright
license and can demonstrate substantial similarity in copying
protectable code without permission, it is their right to sue for
copyright infringement of their own code. That sounds like great
copyright law to me.

Sincerely,
RJack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: CSRG archives

[Hyman Rosen]

On 3/23/2010 10:49 AM, RJack wrote:

Before anyone starts filing copyright infringement claims concerning
the vast quntity of unix and posix-like source code modules out there
in cyberspace they should run a utility like Eric Raymond's code
comparator against the CSRG code. It may open some eyes concerning
the true original creators of source modules in things unix-like.
BusyBox code included.


If the original creators licensed the code such that others
could make derivative works and did not restrict the license
under which those derivative works could be distributed then
it does not matter how those works got their start. Creators
of derivative works may file copyright infringement claims if
their license is not being honored.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss