subject:"Re\: GPL misappropriation"

RJack  writes:

> I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox,
> v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command
> line utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite
> tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of
> infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated
> code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the GPL.

You should try rereading that BSD license.  "Appropriating" and
releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as long
as the original copyright attributions remain intact.

Of course, when doing so, you can only (successfully) claim copyright
violation for those parts which were written/modified by you.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
> >
> > http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
> > (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
> >
> > "... Here are specific points I would make:
> >
> > 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to
> > force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the
> > downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the
> > rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply
> > wrap the BSDL in the GPL.
> 
> That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license.  I
> mean, you can "wrap" it in Microsoft EULAs.

Microsoft EULAs are not copyright licenses you retard.

> 
> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).
> 
> The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.  

The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL
doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. 

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: GPL misappropriation

Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.

http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
(IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)

"... Here are specific points I would make:

1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to
force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the
downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the
rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply
wrap the BSDL in the GPL.

This is particularly relevant to the GPL3 because it introduces
potential license incompatibilities between BSDL-code and GPL3 code (see
section 7 on removing additional permissions *without* asserting
copyright).

2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights
(a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). Some BSD-like
licenses (like the MIT License) explicitly allow sublicensing the code
and in this case, wrapping it in the GPL would be allowed. Otherwise, it
seems difficult to make this case. Whether exclusive licenses are
divisible is not yet a settle matter of law as far as I can tell (you
have the Gardner v. Nike case which suggests that they exclusive
licenses are indivisible, but that is the only case I can find).

BTW, Mr Moglen dismisses the above issue without providing any
substantive argument against it.

3) Some BSD-like licenses seem to be addressed to all downstream users
and do not include the right to sublicense. The ICU licnese, for
example, and the X.Org licenses start out "Permission is hereby granted,
free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and
associated documentation files..." and does not specifically state a
sublicensing right.

Thus I am not sure that the advice that these can be automatically
sublicensed under the GPL is advice that is sound.

For these reasons, I have been suggesting that open source project
leaders should seek unbiased legal advice from people outside the
community. "

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: GPL misappropriation

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)
> >
> > "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
> > is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208
> > USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "
> 
> What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you not
> understand?
> 
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms is NOT a grant of
sublicensing rights, you silly dak.

http://www.eapdlaw.com/files/News/da4720f3-0eec-44ef-b1a6-009cca16da2e/Presentation/NewsAttachment/f773bbc6-a0e6-488c-bd1b-00e9517a6f8e/sublicense.pdf

"A sublicense is a grant by the original licensee to a third party (the
sublicensee) under the patent or other technology rights granted to the
original licensee by the licensor. There are key issues to consider,
such as whether a licensee will have the right to sublicense with or
without the licensors consent, how sublicense income will be shared,
and whether any sublicense will survive a termination of the license
agreement. 

Consent. Licensees who are granted non-exclusive licenses generally do
not receive the right to grant sublicenses, in part because the
potential sublicensee can obtain a direct license from the licensor. In
fact, it is generally held that a non-exclusive patent licensee cannot
grant sublicenses unless it is expressly granted such right. However,
exclusive licenses commonly include a right to sublicense, at least with
the consent of the licensor. "

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)
>> >
>> > "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
>> > is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208
>> > USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "
>> 
>> What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you not
>> understand?
>> 
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms is NOT a grant of
> sublicensing rights, you silly dak.

Redistribution is again covered by a license.  Once we are talking about
modified material, a licensing choice for the resulting work is made by
the redistributor.

Please note that your example regarding patents is utterly irrelevant,
since patents are applicable when the resulting product works using the
patented method, regardless how that came about.  In contrast, copyright
covers an actual chain of derivation.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> RJack  writes:
>>
>>> I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3.
>>> and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line
>>> utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree.
>>> Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of
>>> infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated
>>>  code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the
>>> GPL.
>>
>
>
>> You should try rereading that BSD license.  "Appropriating" and
>> releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as
>> long as the original copyright attributions remain intact.
>
> That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
> licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright.

And the copyright owner licensed them under the BSD license which
permits incorporation into works licensed differently.

> Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to
> steal it.

Read the BSD license, joker.

And/or get a clue.  IIRC, even some Windows bootup screen mentions
"contains code (C) BSD" and so on.  And Windows is not exactly
BSD-licensed.

The whole point of the BSD license is that you can incorporate the code
into differently licensed stuff.  As opposed to copyleft.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> The creator of a derivative work may license his work in any way
> he chooses, and the BSD license does not forbid that.

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron 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: GPL misappropriation

2010-05-04 Thread chrisv

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>Hadron quacked:
>
>> David Kastrup  writes:
>> 
>>> Alexander Terekhov  writes:

 Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
 licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
 binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron
 Hyman.
>>>
>>> Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and
>>> weak permissive licenses.
>> 
>> Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And
>> yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly 

Hey, you stupid asshole.  Fsckhead trolls, like "Alexander Terekhov",
who pretend not to understand something are not evidence that it is
difficult to understand.  *Obviously*

You just made a fscking jackass of yourself *again*, "Hadron"!

>Fighting bitterly? Really?
>
>Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no "fight"
>
>Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as "1+1 = 2"
>
>Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or "RJack" have 
>anything of value to add?
>Do you actually claim that those cretins are not oxygen thieves?

Of course "Hadron" will support the anti-GPL cranks.  They are on
"Hadron's" side of being pro-Micro$oft and anti-FOSS.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

2010-05-04 Thread Moshe

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:22:52 -0500, RJack wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> David Kastrup  writes:
>>> 
 Alexander Terekhov  writes:
 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and
>>> cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a
>>> copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is
>>> simply attempting to steal it.
>> BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative
>>  works without requiring that those derivative works be
>> licensed under the same terms.
> Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
> remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
> imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL
> retards, you moron Hyman.
 Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft
 and weak permissive licenses.
 
>>> Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand?
>>> And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly 
>> 
>> Fighting bitterly? Really?
>> 
>> Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no "fight"
>> 
>> Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as "1+1 =
>> 2"
>> 
>> Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or "RJack"
>> have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those
>> cretins are not oxygen thieves?
> 
> Who pissed in your Cheerios today? Alexander of RJack?
> 
> Sincerely,
> RJack :)

You might want to ask Peter Kohlmann how the music program Finale
is *not* used for music composition.

After he dodges that one, you can ask him about anti-aliasing,
fonts and screen shots.
He has some great theories on that one.

IOW the guy has no clue what he is talking about.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  writes:


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:

That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and
cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright.
Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting
to steal it.
BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative 
works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed 
under the same terms.

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards,
you moron Hyman.


Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and
weak permissive licenses.

BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical 
terms.


That BSD license fans get all green in the face when their works get 
relicensed under copyleft licenses is supposed to be a _moral_ storm

of indignation, not a legal one.



U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize moral rights.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


Peter Köhlmann wrote:

Hadron wrote:


David Kastrup  writes:


Alexander Terekhov  writes:


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:

That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and
cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a
copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is
simply attempting to steal it.

BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative
 works without requiring that those derivative works be
licensed under the same terms.

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL
retards, you moron Hyman.

Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft
and weak permissive licenses.


Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand?
And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly 


Fighting bitterly? Really?

Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no "fight"

Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as "1+1 =
2"

Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or "RJack"
have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those
cretins are not oxygen thieves?


Who pissed in your Cheerios today? Alexander of RJack?

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL


Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks
like this :
Copyright (c) , 
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the  nor the names of its
  contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
  this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the
copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity,
include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution.
Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being
relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of
these conditions.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL misappropriation


On 3/22/2010 4:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman.


Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks
like this :
Copyright (c) , 
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the  nor the names of its
  contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
  this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the
copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity,
include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution.
Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being
relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of
these conditions.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
>> terms.
>
> It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.
>
> http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+explicit+grant&source=bl&ots=JRQwZdnHUl&sig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Q&hl=de&ei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sublicensing%20explicit%20grant&f=false
> (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)
>
> "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
> is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208
> USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "

What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you not
understand?

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

   1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

   2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
  the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
  distribution.

Note that nothing is being said about adding conditions, or distributing
with a more restrictive set of conditions.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

RJack  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
>>> be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing
>>> BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
>>
>> BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works
>> without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the
>> same terms.
>
> Only the *owner* of code licensed under the BSD license may
> change that license. It's an *exclusive* right.

Licenses are not attached to code, but to transactions.  If I receive
code under the BSD license, that gives me permission to pass it on under
a number of other licenses.  That does not change the copyright
ownership.

> "§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
> following:. . ."

Yes, and he authorizes me to distribute code licensed under BSD to me
under different terms and conditions, as long as I _myself_ adhere to
the BSD licensing conditions.

> You can't make up your own copyright law -- the federal courts will
> refuse to enforce it.

I don't need to.  That you pretend not to understand BSD licensing does
not mean that the courts don't.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox,
v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those
command line utilities are substantially similar to the old
BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al.
not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but
BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to
put it illegally under the GPL.


You should try rereading that BSD license.  "Appropriating" and 
releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license

as long as the original copyright attributions remain intact.

That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright.


And the copyright owner licensed them under the BSD license which 
permits incorporation into works licensed differently.


Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to 
steal it.


Read the BSD license, joker.


No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code
remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license.

And/or get a clue.  IIRC, even some Windows bootup screen mentions 
"contains code (C) BSD" and so on.  And Windows is not exactly 
BSD-licensed.


The whole point of the BSD license is that you can incorporate the
code into differently licensed stuff.  As opposed to copyleft.


Incorporate away DAK -- all you want -- still, BSD licensed code remains
under the BSD license and not the GPL license.

Sincerely,
RJack :)



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

Re: GPL misappropriation


Hyman Rosen wrote:

On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL


Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks like this
: Copyright (c)
,  All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 
are met:


* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. *
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 
* Neither the name of the  nor the names of its 
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from 
this software without specific prior written permission.


THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR

 A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
 HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY
WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the 
copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity,
 include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution. 
Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being 
relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of

 these conditions.


Why not write Congress and inform them that OSI has overuled the 1976
Copyright Act (as amended). I'm sure the federal courts will be very
receptive to that idea.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
> >> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
> >> >> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
> >> >>
> >> >> "additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
> >> >> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.
> >> >
> >> > Uh idiot dak.
> >> >
> >> > It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author
> >> > gives consent to sublicense.
> >>
> >> Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would
> >> seem that the authority of the second is better).
> >
> > § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict
> > http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG
> > Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak.
> 
> Your _first_ quote.  Not your next to last one.

Which "_first_ quote" are you talking about, silly? Quote it.

> 
> >> But you are still barking up the wrong tree.  What you claim is that
> >> the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right
> >> to sublicense.
> >
> > That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG,
> > you retard.
> 
> Not at all.  

Go to doctor, dak.

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
>> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
>> >> >
>> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
>> >> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
>> >>
>> >> "additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
>> >> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.
>> >
>> > Uh idiot dak.
>> >
>> > It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author
>> > gives consent to sublicense.
>> 
>> Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would
>> seem that the authority of the second is better).
>
> § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict
> http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG
> Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak.

Your _first_ quote.  Not your next to last one.

>> But you are still barking up the wrong tree.  What you claim is that
>> the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right
>> to sublicense.
>
> That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG,
> you retard.

Not at all.  Again you are confusing _implicit__ grants with the
_possibility_ to _explicitly_ grant rights to sublicense.

It seems like understanding something simple as that does not come to
you as easily as shouting insults.  Though to be fair: it's been a long
time since you came up with variety in that department either.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth.
>
> http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845&cid=20592673
> (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo)
>
> "... Here are specific points I would make:
>
> 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to
> force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the
> downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the
> rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply
> wrap the BSDL in the GPL.

That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license.  I
mean, you can "wrap" it in Microsoft EULAs.

> 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).

The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.  Its conditions
comply with those of the BSDLed parts inside.

It is funny that you then quote an article that _differentiates_ between
various BSDL licenses according to their GPL compatibility.

Yes, it is known that, for example, BSDL with advertising clause is GPL
incompatible.  That was one motivator for them to drop this clause
eventually.

So sure: you can't take any BSDL style licensed stuff and integrate it
into work you distribute under the GPL.  It depends on the license
variant in question.  Some are compatible.  Some not.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3.
and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line
utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree.
Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of 
infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated

 code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the
GPL.





You should try rereading that BSD license.  "Appropriating" and 
releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as

long as the original copyright attributions remain intact.


That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.

"§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
following:. . ."


Of course, when doing so, you can only (successfully) claim copyright
 violation for those parts which were written/modified by you.


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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
> >> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
> >> >
> >> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
> >> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
> >>
> >> "additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
> >> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.
> >
> > Uh idiot dak.
> >
> > It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author
> > gives consent to sublicense.
> 
> Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would
> seem that the authority of the second is better).

§ 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict
http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG
Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak.

> 
> But you are still barking up the wrong tree.  What you claim is that the
> author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to
> sublicense.

That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG,
you retard.

> 
> That's not supported by either of your quotes, and it does not even make
> sense.

Let the German Bundestag know about that, silly dak.

http://www.bundestag.de/service/kontakt/index.html

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
>> 
>> > RJack wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
>> >> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
>> >>
>> >> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
>> >> contractual interest" when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license?
>> >
>> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
>> >
>> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
>> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
>> >
>> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
>> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
>> 
>> "additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
>> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.
>
> Uh idiot dak.
>
> It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author
> gives consent to sublicense.

Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would
seem that the authority of the second is better).

But you are still barking up the wrong tree.  What you claim is that the
author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to
sublicense.

That's not supported by either of your quotes, and it does not even make
sense.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


On 3/22/2010 4:35 PM, RJack wrote:

No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code
remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license.


Derivative works of BSD-licensed code may be otherwise licensed.
Indeed, that's why anti-GPL cranks think it's a superior license.


Incorporate away DAK -- all you want -- still, BSD licensed code remains
under the BSD license and not the GPL license.


The creator of a derivative work may license his work in any way
he chooses, and the BSD license does not forbid that.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL misappropriation


On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:

That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.


BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative
works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed
under the same terms.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
>> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
>> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).
>> 
>> The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.  
>
> The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the
> BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot.

Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
physical copies.  The BSDL grants permission to distribute physical
copies with derived contents, as long as the conditions of the BSDL are
met.  Distributing such a copy under the GPL meets the conditions of
some BSDL style licenses.  There is no sublicensing of the original copy
involved here, since obviously we are not talking about the original
physical copy.  We are talking about the creation and distribution of
copies with derived content, under conditions permitted by the BSDL
style license attached to the original copy.

Do you get it now?

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > RJack wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
> >> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
> >>
> >> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
> >> contractual interest" when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license?
> >
> > Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
> >
> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
> > (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
> >
> > "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
> > Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "
> 
> "additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
> in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.

Uh idiot dak.

It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author
gives consent to sublicense.

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: GPL misappropriation

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem
> Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes

> ausdrücklich vereinbart werden
> 
> Which says that sublicensing has to _either_ explicitly arranged for
> (like the BSDL licenses do, allowing the propagation of copies to third
> parties under given conditions)

The BSDL is NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE.

The BSDL is a non-exclusive license and a non-exclusive license CAN NOT
GRANT SUBLICENSING RIGHTS, that's the German law, you moron.

§ 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG.

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> RJack wrote:
> [...]
>> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
>> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
>> 
>> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
>> contractual interest" when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license?
>
> Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:
>
> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
> (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)
>
> "(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
> Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "

"additional usage rights".  And the "Urheber" (author) has in the case
in question granted his "Zustimmung", given certain conditions.

You are really masterful at digging up quotes contradicting your claims.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

RJack wrote:
[...]
> Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
> so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.
> 
> Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
> contractual interest" when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license?

Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html
(§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte)

"(1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere
Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. "

http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715
(LG Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07)

"Nach § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG bedarf es für die
Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte durch den Inhaber eines
ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts der Zustimmung des Urhebers. "

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
>> > SUBLICENSE.
>> 
>> Wrong.  You still don't get it.  Exclusive licensees _automatically_
>> receive the right to sublicense.  
>
> Not automatically, dummkopf dak.
>
> http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/index.php?id=%2Fview&cid=3278&title=Unterlizenzierung+von+Nutzungsrechten
>
> "Urteil vom LG Leipzig
>
> Aktenzeichen: 05 O 1408/06, 5 O 1408/06
> Entscheidungsdatum: 13. November 2006
>
> Leitsätze
>
> Mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der
> Lizenznehmer gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits
> ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen.

[...]

So you cite conflicting opinions (the second from an actual verdict)
whether or not an exclusive usage right automatically includes the right
to sublicense.

That's nice, or less nice.  But it still does not say anything about the
situation where a licensee is _explicitly_ granted the right to modify
and redistribute under conditions allowing placing the modified whole
under different licenses meeting specified restrictions.

_Both_ of your quotes are talking about an _automatic_ grant.  The
second actually restricts this further:

Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem
Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes
ausdrücklich vereinbart werden

Which says that sublicensing has to _either_ explicitly arranged for
(like the BSDL licenses do, allowing the propagation of copies to third
parties under given conditions)

oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des Vertragsschlusses
eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein solches Recht
dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll.

_or_ the circumstances of the contract formation have to make it
unambiguous that the author intends to give such a right to the
recipient of the usage rights.

So you manage to quote a source that lists _several_ possibilities for
arranging the bestowment of sublicensing rights to an exclusive
licensee.

There is nothing here that would inherently be different with regard to
non-exclusive licensees.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  writes:


David Kastrup wrote: [...]

http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf


"Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten

Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem
Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§
31 Abs. 3 UrhG); einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen
demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten."

So where is the problem?  It says that giving somebody "right to
use" is
Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN 
SUBLICENSE.


Wrong.  You still don't get it.  Exclusive licensees _automatically_ 
receive the right to sublicense.  A non-exclusive licensee does not 
_per_ _se_ have the right to sublicense.  But if the license terms 
_grant_ him sublicensing possibilities, he can certainly make use of 
him.


You can license people to exercise almost any right you have, except
for _personal_ rights, those bound to the originator.  Like the claim
of authorship.


For example, the MIT License

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

"the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, 
sublicense,"


is VOID regarding sublicensing under the German law.


_Exactly_ because non-exclusive licensees do not get the right to 
sublicense automatically, these terms are granting something which

the licensee otherwise could not do.

You are getting it backwards.




Substitute the words "tranfer of contractual interest" for "sub-license"
so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK.

Are you having a problem understanding the concept of "transfer of
contractual interest" when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license?

Sincerely,
RJack :)

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

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
> > SUBLICENSE.
>
> Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_
> receive the right to sublicense.

Not automatically, dummkopf dak.

http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/index.php?id=%2Fview&cid=3278&title=Unterlizenzierung+von+Nutzungsrechten

"Urteil vom LG Leipzig

Aktenzeichen: 05 O 1408/06, 5 O 1408/06
Entscheidungsdatum: 13. November 2006

Leitsätze

Mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der
Lizenznehmer gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits
ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen. Ein
Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem Urheber und
dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes ausdrücklich vereinbart
werden oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des
Vertragsschlusses eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein
solches Recht dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll.

[...]

Auch mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt
der Lizenznehmer aber gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht,
seinerseits ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu
erteilen. Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen
dem Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes
ausdrücklich vereinbart werden oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den
Umständen des Vertragsschlusses eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des
Urhebers ein solches Recht dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt
werden soll. Eine entsprechende Regelung im Kaufvertrag aus dem Jahre
1998 fehlt. Auch wenn man den Vortrag der Beklagten zu den Umständen des
Abschlusses des Kaufvertrages im Jahre 1998 auf Seite 2 der
Klageerwiderung vom 06.06.2006 unterstellt, führt dies nach Auffassung
der Kammer nicht zur Annahme der Einräumung eines zustimmungsfreien
Rechts zur Drittlizenzierung an die Beklagte durch den Abschluss des
Kaufvertrages aus dem Jahre 1998. Vielmehr sprechen die von Seiten der
Beklagten geschilderten Umstände nur dafür, dass der Beklagten
umfassende Rechte zur eigenen Veröffentlichung der Bilder eingeräumt
wurden, nicht aber dafür, dass sie das Recht erhalten sollte, Dritten
eine Unterlizenz zu erteilen."

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
>> >
>> > "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
>> >
>> > Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber
>> > eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG);
>> > einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung
>> > von Unternutzungsrechten."
>> 
>> So where is the problem?  It says that giving somebody "right to use" is
>
> Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN
> SUBLICENSE.

Wrong.  You still don't get it.  Exclusive licensees _automatically_
receive the right to sublicense.  A non-exclusive licensee does not
_per_ _se_ have the right to sublicense.  But if the license terms
_grant_ him sublicensing possibilities, he can certainly make use of
him.

You can license people to exercise almost any right you have, except for
_personal_ rights, those bound to the originator.  Like the claim of
authorship.

> For example, the MIT License
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
>
> "the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
> sublicense,"
>
> is VOID regarding sublicensing under the German law.

_Exactly_ because non-exclusive licensees do not get the right to
sublicense automatically, these terms are granting something which the
licensee otherwise could not do.

You are getting it backwards.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
> >
> > "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
> >
> > Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber
> > eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG);
> > einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung
> > von Unternutzungsrechten."
> 
> So where is the problem?  It says that giving somebody "right to use" is

Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN SUBLICENSE.

Non-exclusive licensees can NOT sublicense no matter what the license
says.

For example, the MIT License

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

"the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
sublicense,"

is VOID regarding sublicensing under the German law.

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: GPL misappropriation

RJack wrote:
[...]
> None of those *six* things involve "authorizing" others to "authorize".
> You're seeing double dear DAK.

Dak is of opinion that the BSDL is a sort of
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Poa/index.shtml (POA with the entire world
named as an attoney in fact LOL) authorizing GNUtains to license BSDL'd
works on behalf of BSDL copyright owners under the GPL!!!

Clearly, dak boy is insane...

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: GPL misappropriation

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
> > licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
> > licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
> 
> BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative
> works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed
> under the same terms.

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron 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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Can you quote the BSDL's arrangement regarding sublicensing, stupid
> dak?

I already quoted the BSDL with regard to the conditions under which is
allows copying and modification.  Those are not in conflict with
licensing the resulting whole work (and it would be pretty pointless if
they were).

> Did you notice (from the other part of my message that you've snipped)
> that under German copyright act such arrangement (that you're
> hallucinating about) would be void (unwirksam) because the BSDL is a
> non-exclusive license and the German copyright act reserves such
> arrangements to exclusive licenses, *not* non-exclusive?
>
> http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf
>
> "Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten
>
> Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber
> eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG);
> einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung
> von Unternutzungsrechten."

So where is the problem?  It says that giving somebody "right to use" is
not tantamount with giving him automatic right to sublicense.  But
nobody said that it was.  The permission to relicense works based on
BSDL has to be given explicitly.  The BSDL spells out what conditions
are sufficient for modification and redistribution.  Those conditions do
not prohibit adding additional conditions for further redistribution and
copying of new portions, even when those cover the resulting whole.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > For silly dak, info in German...
> >
> > http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literatur&page2=aufsatzlizenz1
> >
> > "Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der
> > Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der
> > seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag geschlossen hat
> > und zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen berechtigt ist. Eine nicht exklusive
> > Lizenz berechtigt ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung nicht zur Vergabe von
> > Unterlizenzen.
> 
> [...]
> 
> "ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung".  But such a "Vereinbarung" is spelled
> out in the license in question.

Can you quote the BSDL's arrangement regarding sublicensing, stupid dak?

Did you notice (from the other part of my message that you've snipped)
that under German copyright act such arrangement (that you're
hallucinating about) would be void (unwirksam) because the BSDL is a
non-exclusive license and the German copyright act reserves such
arrangements to exclusive licenses, *not* non-exclusive?

http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf

"Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten

Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber eines
ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG);
einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung
von Unternutzungsrechten."

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: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> You are confused.  If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
>> else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.
>> 
>> The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's
>> behalf.
>
> Uh retard dak.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney
>
> is not
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sublicense

Authorizations can be different in scope and character.  Are you sure
you know what point you are trying to make?

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> For silly dak, info in German...
>
> http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literatur&page2=aufsatzlizenz1
>
> "Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der
> Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der
> seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag geschlossen hat
> und zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen berechtigt ist. Eine nicht exklusive
> Lizenz berechtigt ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung nicht zur Vergabe von
> Unterlizenzen.

[...]

"ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung".  But such a "Vereinbarung" is spelled
out in the license in question.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:

RJack  writes:


David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  writes:


David Kastrup wrote: [...]

BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to
identical terms.
"Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to 
sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers 
Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "

What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do
you not understand?

Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English
language involving the use of the word "exclusive" in:

"§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections
107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the
exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . ."



What about "and to authorize" did you not understand?

understand common concepts your absurd

protestations do not gain any plausibility.


Read it again DAK boy. They have the right to authorize *six* enumerated
things:


(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the
public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to
display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work
publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

None of those *six* things involve "authorizing" others to "authorize".
You're seeing double dear DAK.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You are confused.  If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
> else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.
> 
> The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's
> behalf.

Uh retard dak.

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

is not

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sublicense

Got it now? Go to doctor, dak.

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: GPL misappropriation

For silly dak, info in German...

http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literatur&page2=aufsatzlizenz1

"Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der
Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der
seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag geschlossen hat
und zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen berechtigt ist. Eine nicht exklusive
Lizenz berechtigt ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung nicht zur Vergabe von
Unterlizenzen. Bei einer Exklusivlizenz darf der Lizenznehmer
Unterlizenzen erteilen, sofern dies nicht vertraglich ausgeschlossen
ist. Für den US-amerikanischen Raum gelten diesbezüglich Besonderheiten,
es sollten daher immer klarstellende Regelungen zur berechtigten Vergabe
von Unterlizenzen im Vertrag zu finden sein. "

And specifically regarding copyright (UrhG): 

http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf

"Anders als Urheberrechte sind Nutzungsrechte an urheberrechtlich
geschützten Inhalten grundsätzlich übertragbar. Abhängig davon, über
welche Rechte man selbst verfügt, und welche Nutzungsrechte man selbst
weiterhin benötigt, gibt es die Möglichkeit, die eigenen Rechte entweder
vollständig beziehungsweise teilweise weiter zu übertragen oder einer
anderen Person Unternutzungsrechte (Sublizenzen) einzuräumen.

[...] 

Webdesigner-Fall

Webdesigner W hat für die Homepage der Berufsschule B das Design
entworfen und der B einfache Nutzungsrechte an den Designelementen
eingeräumt. Einige Zeit später wird die Schulleitung der B von der
Schuldirektorin des Gymnasiums G auf das tolle Design der Schulhomepage
angesprochen und angefragt, ob die dort von W erstellten Logos, Buttons
et cetera auch auf der Homepage des G verwendet werden dürfen. Die
Schulleitung der B hat keine Einwände. Als W die Verwendung seiner
Designelemente auf der Schulhomepage des G später per Zufall bemerkt,
ist er sehr erbost und fordert die sofortige Entfernung sämtlicher von
ihm entworfener Designelemente von der Homepage des G. Erfolgt die
Forderung des W zu Recht?

Alternative: Wäre der Fall anders zu beurteilen, wenn der B von W ein
ausschließliches Nut-zungsrecht eingeräumt worden ist?

Kurzantwort: Da der B lediglich einfache Nutzungsrechte eingeräumt
waren, konnte sie dem G nicht wirksam (Unter-)Nutzungsrechte
(Sublizenzen) an den Werken einräumen; die "Zustimmung" der B war daher
unwirksam. Da es einen "gutgläubigen Erwerb" von Nutzungsrechten nicht
gibt, hat das G keine Nutzungsrechte erworben. W kann daher die
sofortige Entfernung der Designelemente verlangen.

Alternative: Hätte die B dagegen die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte an
den Designelementen erhalten, könnte sie dem G grundsätzlich einfache
Nutzungsrechte einräumen; aller-dings bedürfte sie dafür der Zustimmung
des W.

Vertiefung

Soweit man selbst Nutzungsrechte an urheberrechtlich geschützten
Inhalten (wie zum Bei-spiel Werken) eingeräumt bekommen hat, stellt sich
später häufig die Frage, ob und inwie-weit man auch dritten Personen die
Verwendung der Inhalte gestatten kann und darf. Dies kann entweder durch
die Weiterübertragung der eigenen Nutzungsrechte auf die andere Person
geschehen, oder - wenn man selbst über ausschließliche Nutzungsrechte
verfügt - über die Einräumung von so genannten Unternutzungsrechten
(Sublizenzen).

[...]

Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten

Von der Weiterübertragung von Nutzungsrechten ist, wie bereits erwähnt,
die Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten weiterer Stufe (auch
Unternutzungsrechte, Unterlizenzen oder Subli-zenzen genannt) zu
unterscheiden.

Während der Inhaber des Nutzungsrechts bei der Weiterübertragung keine
eigenen Rechte zurückbehält, behält sich der Inhaber bei der Einräumung
eines Unternutzungsrechts seine Nutzungsrechte teilweise zurück und kann
so (je nach Umfang der eingeräumten Unternut-zungsrechte) zum Beispiel
das Werk weiterhin selbst nutzen oder auch Anderen noch Nut-zungsrechte
einräumen.

Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten

Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber eines
ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG);
einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung
von Unternutzungsrechten.

Da der B im Webdesigner-Fall (Ausgangsvariante) von W nur ein einfaches
Nutzungsrecht an den Designelementen eingeräumt worden war, konnte sie
dem G insoweit auch selbst nicht wirksam (Unter-)nutzungsrechte
einräumen. Die abgegebene Zustimmung war insoweit unwirksam.
Dementsprechend kann sich das G auch gegenüber W nicht auf die
Zustimmung der B berufen. Wären der B dagegen die ausschließlichen
Nutzungsrechte an den Design-elementen eingeräumt worden
(Alternativvariante), hätte sie dem G prinzipiell Nutzungsrech-te
einräumen können (vergleiche dazu jedoch das sogleich erörterte
Zustimmungserfordernis).

Einfache und ausschließliche Unternutzungsrechte

Als Unternutzungsrechte können insoweit wiederum sowohl ausschließliche
als auch einfa-che Untern

Re: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> RJack wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
>
> Best of dak's moronity this week thus far:
>
> "as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
> physical copies.  "

Perhaps you should make yourself acquainted with the concept of
"cleanroom reimplementation".  The whole purpose of which is avoiding to
get in contact with original code.  If a cleanroom implementation
"incidentally" creates identical code, it is not subject to the original
copyright.  That's different from patents.

That might help your confusion.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

RJack  writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote: [...]
 BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
 terms.
>>>
>>> "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to
>>> sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers
>>> Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "
>>
>> What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you
>> not understand?
>
> Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
> involving the use of the word "exclusive" in:
>
> "§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
> following:. . ."

What about "and to authorize" did you not understand?

> leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law
> the term 'sublicense" can mean "transfer of ownership" or "transfer of
> contractual interest". There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to
> authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to "license" a
> work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?)

You are confused.  If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone
else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right.

The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's
behalf.

> It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!!

Just because you pretend not to understand common concepts your absurd
protestations do not gain any plausibility.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

RJack wrote:

[...]

> Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language

Best of dak's moronity this week thus far:

"as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
physical copies.  "

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: GPL misappropriation

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
> terms.

It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.

http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+explicit+grant&source=bl&ots=JRQwZdnHUl&sig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Q&hl=de&ei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sublicensing%20explicit%20grant&f=false
(Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)

"Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense
is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208
USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "

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: GPL misappropriation

To clarify: I meant intangible (misspelled it as "intagable") silly dak.

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

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> >
> > > David Kastrup wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> > >> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> > >> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).
> > >>
> > >> The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.
> > >
> > > The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the
> > > BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot.
> >
> > Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
> > physical copies.
> 
> Copyright licenses apply to *intagable* "works" just like patent

intangible

> licenses apply to *intagable* 

intangible

> "inventions" you moron.
> 
> http://web.mit.edu/osp/www/IP_NDA%20Roundtable%20Handout_10_4_07.pdf
> 
> "Definitions:
> 
> IP is a category of intangible rights protecting the products of human
> intellect that is unique and/or non-obvious with some value in the
> marketplace, including ideas, inventions, literary creations, unique
> names, business models, industrial processes, computer program code,
> etc. patent, trademark, copyright, mask work, and trade secret are
> wellknown examples of Intellectual Property.
> 
> Patent is a governmental grant of right, privilege and authority for any
> useful, novel, and nonobvious inventions. A patent gives the holder the
> exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering
> to sell, and importing any patented invention. Note, however, that a
> patent does not provide the holder any affirmative right to practice a
> technology, since it may fall under a broader patent owned by others;
> instead, your patent only provides the right to exclude others from
> practicing it.
> 
> Copyright is a property right in original works of authorship which have
> been fixed in any tangible medium of expression in the particular
> literary work, musical work, computer program, video or motion picture
> or sound recording, photograph, sculpture, etc. A copyright owner has
> the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works,
> distribute by sale or otherwise, and display or perform the work
> publicly. In contrast to a patent which protects the idea, copyright
> covers the artistic expression."
> 
> Hth, uh retard dak.

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: GPL misappropriation

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses
> >> > are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense
> >> > rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee).
> >>
> >> The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole.
> >
> > The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the
> > BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot.
> 
> Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with
> physical copies.  

Copyright licenses apply to *intagable* "works" just like patent
licenses apply to *intagable* "inventions" you moron.

http://web.mit.edu/osp/www/IP_NDA%20Roundtable%20Handout_10_4_07.pdf

"Definitions:

IP is a category of intangible rights protecting the products of human
intellect that is unique and/or non-obvious with some value in the
marketplace, including ideas, inventions, literary creations, unique
names, business models, industrial processes, computer program code,
etc. patent, trademark, copyright, mask work, and trade secret are
wellknown examples of Intellectual Property.

Patent is a governmental grant of right, privilege and authority for any
useful, novel, and nonobvious inventions. A patent gives the holder the
exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering
to sell, and importing any patented invention. Note, however, that a
patent does not provide the holder any affirmative right to practice a
technology, since it may fall under a broader patent owned by others;
instead, your patent only provides the right to exclude others from
practicing it.

Copyright is a property right in original works of authorship which have
been fixed in any tangible medium of expression in the particular
literary work, musical work, computer program, video or motion picture
or sound recording, photograph, sculpture, etc. A copyright owner has
the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works,
distribute by sale or otherwise, and display or perform the work
publicly. In contrast to a patent which protects the idea, copyright
covers the artistic expression."

Hth, uh retard dak.

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: GPL misappropriation


chrisv wrote:

Peter Köhlmann wrote:


Hadron quacked:


David Kastrup  writes:


Alexander Terekhov  writes:

Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must
remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions
imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL
retards, you moron Hyman.

Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft
and weak permissive licenses.

Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand?
And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly 


Hey, you stupid asshole.  Fsckhead trolls, like "Alexander Terekhov",
 who pretend not to understand something are not evidence that it is 
difficult to understand.  *Obviously*


You just made a fscking jackass of yourself *again*, "Hadron"!


Fighting bitterly? Really?

Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no "fight"

Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as "1+1 =
2"

Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or "RJack"
have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those
cretins are not oxygen thieves?


Of course "Hadron" will support the anti-GPL cranks.  They are on 
"Hadron's" side of being pro-Micro$oft and anti-FOSS.




My dog can whup your dog! (Mine's bigger 'un yours too.)

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

Re: GPL misappropriation


On 3/22/2010 7:20 PM, RJack wrote:

U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize moral rights.


Exactly. That's the point.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL misappropriation


David Kastrup wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  writes:


David Kastrup wrote: [...]
BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to 
identical terms.

It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak.

http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPIC&pg=SA4-PA42&lpg=SA4-PA42&dq=sublicensing+explicit+grant&source=bl&ots=JRQwZdnHUl&sig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Q&hl=de&ei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sublicensing%20explicit%20grant&f=false
 (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis)

"Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to 
sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers 
Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). "


What about "Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights" do you 
not understand?


Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions 
are met:


1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright 
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.


2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


Note that nothing is being said about adding conditions, or 
distributing with a more restrictive set of conditions.




Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language
involving the use of the word "exclusive" in:

"§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
following:. . ."

leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law
the term 'sublicense" can mean "transfer of ownership" or "transfer of
contractual interest". There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to
authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to "license" a
work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?)


It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!!

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

Alexander Terekhov  writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> 
>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
>> > licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
>> > licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
>> 
>> BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative
>> works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed
>> under the same terms.
>
> Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
> licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
> binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron
> Hyman.

Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak
permissive licenses.

BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical
terms.

That BSD license fans get all green in the face when their works get
relicensed under copyleft licenses is supposed to be a _moral_ storm of
indignation, not a legal one.

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

Re: GPL misappropriation

2010-05-04 Thread Hadron

David Kastrup  writes:

> Alexander Terekhov  writes:
>
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote:
>>> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be
>>> > licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD
>>> > licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it.
>>> 
>>> BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative
>>> works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed
>>> under the same terms.
>>
>> Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain
>> licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on
>> binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron
>> Hyman.
>
> Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak
> permissive licenses.
>

Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And
yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly 

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

Re: GPL misappropriation