Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the source code for any released product that included your library. As a result, most people working on commercial published software, or who contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries altogether. Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of GPLed software allowed? It is quite clear that using GPLed software by a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is allowed. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him the whole software under GPL. Nicolas P.S.: Sorry about Cross-posting to gnu.misc.discuss, but there should be the experts. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes: Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the source code for any released product that included your library. As a result, most people working on commercial published software, or who contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries altogether. Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of GPLed software allowed? It is quite clear that using GPLed software by a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is allowed. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him the whole software under GPL. In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no distribution would occur. A more interesting question would be what happens with respect to holdings, and the daughter companies. In this case, I would argue distribution occurs (invoicing would have to occur legally AFAIK), and therefore GPL would apply. Which doesn't mean that YOU would get access to the code of course, only that the daughter company who buys it from another daughter company would get it (and be able to hire YOU instead of the sister company if them need a patch and the sister is unable or unwilling to provide it). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no distribution would occur. This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as distribution in the GPL sense. OK, this might indeed be the most reasonable point of view. Nicolas ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes: p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no distribution would occur. This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as distribution in the GPL sense. OK, this might indeed be the most reasonable point of view. Yes, definitely. First, the most efficient companies won't have any distribution. The new software would be instealled on the file server, and everybody could use it from here. And even in the less efficient companies, employees don't install softwarem (it's the job of the IT jockeys). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-21 11:22:57 -0400, John Hasler said: They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone to whom you sell binaries you are done. In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would only take one customer excercising this right to make the source publicly available. -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said: They might, but there are cases where they did not. One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly unlikely the more sales are made. The point is that _you_ are not required to publish anything. It hardly matters who does the publishing. The point is that the source still becomes publicly available. Offering source to everyone who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations. You can ignore requests for source from anyone else. Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've come full circle. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said: Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've come full circle. Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In article 878w9k1k8l@thumper.dhh.gt.org, John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com wrote: Ralph writes: I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. Indeed, if maximal adoption were the goal the best way to achieve that would be to simply renounce the copyright and release the code into the public domain. rg ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In article ho7v0o$rf...@news.eternal-september.org, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) and eat it too (paid commercial licensing). My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives. That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation. In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. ... I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. Here is where you are imposing your choices on others. Not everyone shares this quality metric of yours. Some people have goals other than insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for example. Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up prices. One can argue whether or not this strategy will be effective. One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons. But neither the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori. rg ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 10:52:58 -0400, John Hasler said: You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. I assume that the author's goal is maximizing the amount of open source - and in fact, it is Pascal's stated goal - that others who use his library will open their source code for him to see and use - a perfectly reasonable desire. I just don't think anyone whose source is closed is going to open that source code simply to use a library - if they are constrained not to open their source, they simply won't use GPL libraries. In order to accomplish this primary goal - greater amounts of open source - you need users and contributors. Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL. The GPL drives potential users away, and potential users are potential contributors, bug fixers, etc. Instead, these potential users will become users of some other library which is LGPL, or BSD, etc. licensed, and they will become open source contributors to those other libraries, not to the GPL licensed project. Again, recognition of this dynamic is what drove the creation of the Library GPL (now the Lesser GPL) in the first place. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
RG rnospa...@flownet.com writes: In article ho7v0o$rf...@news.eternal-september.org, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Not only am I not imposing anything on you, I've already offered to pay you for a commercial license. So you can have your cake (GPL licensing) and eat it too (paid commercial licensing). My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives. That's a much better way of putting it than your original formulation. In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. ... I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. Here is where you are imposing your choices on others. Not everyone shares this quality metric of yours. Some people have goals other than insuring maximal adoption, like, oh, I don't know, making money for example. Such people might want to use the copyright laws not to force others to create open-source software but to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up prices. One can argue whether or not this strategy will be effective. One can argue (as Stallman does) that one ought not choose this quality metric for moral or political reasons. But neither the quality metric nor the strategy are unreasonable a priori. Indeed these are the questions. I will have to think more about it, and may be change the licence in the future (perhaps this year). I also would like to contribute some of my code to some common library and this would certainly require a change of license anyway. But I need more time to think about it and work on it. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your user base away from you. This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft use my code. However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which license to choose[*]. A commercial license did not make much sense, because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable. However, I wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value (in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting. A GPL license would make this business model impossible for everyone - _including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL. Therefore, I decided in favor of the (modified) BSD license. Nicolas [*] More precisely, I asked my university for permission to use either GPL or BSD, and then had the choice. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 16:51:46 -0400, John Hasler said: I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD. 1. Linux isn't a *library*, it's an operating system. A GPL operating system doesn't force GPL licensing for any application that runs on it. A GPL library *does* force GPL licensing for any program that links with it. Again, the LLGPL was created for precisely this purpose. 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 20:28:25 -0400, John Hasler said: No it isn't. The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ: http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/brand3581.htm http://www.opengroup.org/homepage-items/c399.html It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back. http://www.apple.com/opensource/ lists scores of open source components that form part of Mac OS X and to which Apple contributes its enhancements. The market reality is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In article 871vfbzrb8@thumper.dhh.gt.org, jhas...@newsguy.com says... The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some programmers use the GPL. While I respect Pascal's decision to use whatever license he wants to use, it might be worth noticing that a good majority of Common Lisp libraries(besides Pascal's and a handful of others) are licensed under BSD, LLGPL, MIT or public domain. GPL seems to be an unpopular choice for Common Lisp code, especially libraries. This means that in practice, people will pick a license which grants them more effective rights, and doesn't force them to release the code to their entire application just because they used a handful of functions from another library which is licensed under GPL. In most of the cases, even if other people don't have the intention of going commercial, they like to have the option, which is why GPLed libraries are usually unpopular with Common Lisp developers. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-22 22:48:27 -0400, John Hasler said: Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX does not make it a BSD. Being a derivative of 4.4 BSD makes it a BSD; Being certified by the Open Group makes it a UNIX. Mac OS X is a BSD UNIX. The market reality... ...is irrelevant to many of us. Many may wish it weren't relevant, but it is. The FSF recognized that the GPL was a poor match for the market realities of library use nearly 20 years ago when the FSF created the GNU Library Public License, now the Lesser GPL, for precisely this reason. ...is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some programmers use the GPL. People and organizations who want to keep code secret are going to do so. It is naive to think that they will change their whole business model just to use a library. Instead, they will use libraries with licenses that allow them to keep some code private while still open sourcing other code thus contributing to the sum total of open source code. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use of the GPL CLISP). As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your commercial applications compiled and dumped with it. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-23 04:53:04 -0400, Lieven Marchand said: As far as I can tell, GPL CLISP would allow you to distribute your commercial applications compiled and dumped with it. My understanding is that if your published application (commercial or otherwise) uses facilities of CLISP not generally available in other lisps (i.e., CLISP specific extensions to common lisp) then you would be required to release the source of your application under the GPL. IOW, an application that could just as easily be distributed using sbcl or ccl, etc. does not need to open its source, but one that is clisp specific does. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. Mac OS X *is* a UNIX by the only legal definition of UNIX and for normal definitions of is. The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX certification. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On Mar 23, 9:11 am, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS. It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Look at http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-105/. The mix of licenses is broad, but many of Apple's own OS components are licensed under the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE, found at http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/. If Raffael had said that OS X is a BSD-licensed Unix, your argument would be on point (and Raffael's would be very, very silly). However, he said nothing of the sort. Whether it's a BSD Unix or not has nothing to do with its licensing, and never has. The BSD Unix codebase was intentionally licensed in such a way as to allow people to make and sell partially or wholly closed-source, commercial derivatives. Over the years, a lot of vendors have taken advantage of this opportunity, including Sun, NeXT, Apple and, IIRC, Digital. Cheers, Pillsy ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On Mar 21, 10:14 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: [...] Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've come full circle. Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? He shouldn't, and AFAICT isn't trying to. Upthread, you said that you allow people to use your libraries at the price of abiding by the GPL. Pointing out that the price you charge is too high for a given market is not remotely the same thing as forcing you to choose a different price. Indeed, people attempt to negotiate, better prices with vendors all the time. Of course, vendors refuse to lower their prices in response to such requests with a good deal of frequency as well. When the consideration being exchanged is just a pile of currency, this is all regarded as so mundane that people hardly notice it. The only thing that's different here is that the negotiation is over source code instead of money. Cheers, Pillsy ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. Not really. Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it is rather descended (or written new) from older MacOS code not based on BSD. Well, actually, a fair bit of the graphical code on OS X comes from the NeXT operating system and graphics library. The older MacOS code has slowly been dropped from the Mac OS over the years. (The classic Mac OS actually used a Pascal interface. The current Mac OS uses Objective C.) -- Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-23 09:41:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X is BSD needlessly confuses that issue. Saying that Mac OS X is BSD is: 1. true 2. a counterexample to the claim that linux is trouncing BSD UNIX. The original claim was that linux was dominating BSD UNIX because of the GPL. The 5x web client numbers for Mac OS X show that non-GPL licensed UNIX (here, BSD, APSL) in fact has much greater numbers than GPL linux. Finally, the APSL requires that modifications to *covered code* (i.e., the APSL library or code you are using in your larger work) be open sourced if your larger work is distributed. You are not required to open source the whole larger work, something that the GPL *does* require, and the LGPL, like the APSL, does not. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-24 15:23:28 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: Actually, MacOSX is just NeXTSTEP, and is older than Linux, so it's not surprizing it has more web clients than Linux. After all, NeXTSTEP was the system where the web was INVENTED, and where the first web browser was ever IMPLEMENTED! And the laser printer was first connected to the Xerox Alto, but you don't see many of those at graphic design firms. NeXTSTEP never had a significant web client share once numbers of internet users grew into the tens of millions. The numbers matched OS usage - 95% of these new users were on Windows, and the overwhelming majority of the remainder were on Mac OS. That's why NeXT had to sell the company to Apple, itself a minority player. Mac OS X has 5x as many web clients as Linux because of what Apple did with NeXT, not because NeXT was ever a popular client platform. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In gnu.misc.discuss Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives. The choose non-GPL alternatives because they want their software not to be free, unlike the libraries they use. In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. But history says otherwise. For example, there's a lot of code in gcc that is there because the customer was told that if they wanted their gcc extension (custom back-end, front-end changes, etc) they'd have to release it under the GPL. I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. Ironically, the FSF understood this dynamic which is why they created the Library GPL, now known as the Lesser GPL. There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have different needs from applications. Andrew. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-25 06:06:09 -0400, Andrew Haley said: There's nothing ironic about it. The FSF seeks to maximize freedom, so licenses code whichever way works best. Libraries sometimes have different needs from applications. Which is why I suggest that Pascal's lisp libraries would be more useful licensed under the LLGPL than the GPL. It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) GPL. -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Renaming it to the Lesser GPL isn't likely to convince anyone old enough to remember, or intelligent enough to do a little research. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In comp.lang.lisp Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes mere aggregation a really good defense. This is completely wrong. The GPL applies to work as a whole only when the GPL-covered work is made part of a combined work and that combined work is copied and distributed. Your statement sounds as if you continue to believe incorrectly that a program which uses a dynamically linked library covered by the GPL is subject to the GPL even when it is copied and distributed without that library. That is not so. Copyright law is about copying, and when a GPL-covered work is not being copied and distributed, the GPL cannot come into play. What the program does when it runs is not relevant for falling under the GPL because the GPL does not restrict running covered works. Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components. Mere aggregation refers to including a covered work on a medium of distribution along with other works. Not that I really care, and I probably won't post in this thread again, but the GPL V2 has to say: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. So, that covers one not having to ship the glibc sources with your project just because you linked with it. However, if you have a modified version of the glibc in your package, then you'd have to make the modified sources available. Then it goes on to say: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. It is that permit linking proprietary applications phrase which is the rub. It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. Hence, the LGPL. If you're still curious, then read the faq: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html It has a few different scenarios about what it means to link with a GPL library. Later, -pete ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 2010-03-25 09:59:52 -0400, Tamas K Papp said: I disagree -- I don't think that the FSF considers the GPL a poor fit for libraries. Quite the opposite (see [1]). They just recognized that in certain situations, some people would prefer something like the LGPL, and I guess that they wanted to give them the choice. But the GPL is still the option they recommend, even for libraries. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html I don't put much stock in such rationalizations. IOW, having released the Library GPL, they realized that it was in many ways superior to the GPL from both the user and the open source perspective. They've been backpedaling ever since, and the frankly silly renaming of the Library GPL to the Lesser GPL is a clear sign of this ongoing attempt at damage control. I.e., when I say they recognize that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries, I'm saying that their actions (release of the LGPL and subsequent renaming) speak louder and more convincingly than their words (the link you provide). Regarding the broader issue (of how people license their libraries): I think this is an optimization problem where people have heterogeneous objective functions, and thus trying to convince people to pick another license is not always a worthwhile. It is possible that someone using a GPL/LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/... license is perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages, it is just that they decided to make a different choice. In which case, threads like these are unlikely to be fruitful. I don't think their objective functions differ much from mine. I think they don't appreciate how the license plays out in the real world. Those who support the GPL for libraries think that by doing so they maximize the promotion of open source. I contend that the LGPL or Apache or APSL license lead to greater amounts of open source because a GPL library excludes one of the largest pools of possible contributors - professional developers who work on closed source projects. These potential contributors will instead either 1. reinvent that particular wheel in a closed source fashion (loss to free software) 2. use a library with a license that doesn't require any publication such as the bsd, or mit. (possible loss to free software) 3. use a library with a license that requires publication only of covered code such as the LGPL, APSL, Apache, etc. Only this last case inevitably results in more open source. So by releasing a library under the GPL one provides as many ways for open source to lose as to win. Choosing the winning path in the first place by releasing the library under the LGPL/LLGPL/Apache etc. license leads to the biggest gains for open source. Again, the recognition of this reality is what led to the Library GPL in the first place. So people who support the GPL for libraries are unwittingly advocating for freedom in a way that actually results in less open source. Even if I don't convince my correspondents here, I do hope that some of those reading this thread will develop a more nuanced view of open source licenses. I've said what I have to say, so (undoubtedly much to your relief), I'll stop. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In comp.lang.lisp Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/29/2010 3:07 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: fix(f) != f ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/22/2010 8:01 PM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: 2. Mac OS X is BSD Unix. It has existed for half the time that linux has, and has more than 5 times the web client share of linux, so yes, BSD is on its way to eclipsing linux as a client OS. It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Look at http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-105/. The mix of licenses is broad, but many of Apple's own OS components are licensed under the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE, found at http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/. It has these key provisions: If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site). ... In consideration of, and as a condition to, the licenses granted to You under this License, You hereby grant to any person or entity receiving or distributing Covered Code under this License a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, display, perform, modify, sublicense, distribute and Externally Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Apple's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/23/2010 9:33 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: The license under which Apple releases its open source doesn't change Mac OS X's BSD heritage, and it doesn't invalidate Mac OS X's UNIX certification. However, the license under which Apple releases its OS components does affect how those components may be used by others. BSD-licensed code does not require publication of changes, for example, while the Apple license does. Since much of the discussion in this newsgroup focuses on license features and requirements, saying that Mac OS X is BSD needlessly confuses that issue. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. Not really. Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it is rather descended (or written new) from older MacOS code not based on BSD. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. That depends on what the definition of 'is' is. --- William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/23/2010 11:40 AM, RJack wrote: On 2010-03-23 09:11:03 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: It is not correct to say that Mac OS X is BSD Unix for normal definitions of is. That depends on what the definition of 'is' is. --- William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. Well, duh. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
In gnu.misc.discuss Thomas A. Russ t...@sevak.isi.edu wrote: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: Mac OS X *is* descended from 4.4 BSD for normal definitions of is. Not really. Darwin may be, but all the graphical folderol running on it is rather descended (or written new) from older MacOS code not based on BSD. Well, actually, a fair bit of the graphical code on OS X comes from the NeXT operating system and graphics library. The older MacOS code has slowly been dropped from the Mac OS over the years. (The classic Mac OS actually used a Pascal interface. The current Mac OS uses Objective C.) Objective-C shows the advantages of the GPL. Since the writers of the compiler, NeXT, wanted to use GCC's backend, they had to make their frontend GPL'd too. As a result, there exists a public Objective-C compiler, and that has done neither NeXT nor Apple any disfavours. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro writes: They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone to whom you sell binaries you are done. In practice this amounts to publication. Every customer would receive the source; every customer has the right to make it public; it would only take one customer excercising this right to make the source publicly available. They might, but there are cases where they did not. The point is that _you_ are not required to publish anything. Offering source to everyone who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations. You can ignore requests for source from anyone else. Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Ralph writes: The Open Group which does the official UNIX certification would beg to differ: Purchasing a certificate granting the right to label one's product UNIX does not make it a BSD. The market reality... ...is irrelevant to many of us. ...is that many programmers work on projects that are, at least in part, closed source. Open source licenses other than the GPL allow these programmers to use and contribute to open source projects. The Berkeley license as well as _some_ other Open Source licenses permit them to keep some of their changes secret. This is the very reason some programmers use the GPL. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) GPL. The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. They believe that when there are good non-free alternatives to free libraries, they should use the LGPL for the free libraries so that users will have at least some freedom. When there are no good non-free versions available, they will use the GPL to maximize freedom for users. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 9:44 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: It's ironic because the FSF is the creator of the GPL, and even they recognized that the GPL was a poor fit for libraries which is why they created the Library (now Lesser) GPL. The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. They believe that when there are good non-free alternatives to free libraries, they should use the LGPL for the free libraries so that users will have at least some freedom. When there are no good non-free versions available, they will use the GPL to maximize freedom for users. More pragmatically: they want their licenses to be taken seriously. That involves being able to go after violations in court and/or settlements with good chances of success. Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes mere aggregation a really good defense. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes mere aggregation a really good defense. This is completely wrong. The GPL applies to work as a whole only when the GPL-covered work is made part of a combined work and that combined work is copied and distributed. Your statement sounds as if you continue to believe incorrectly that a program which uses a dynamically linked library covered by the GPL is subject to the GPL even when it is copied and distributed without that library. That is not so. Copyright law is about copying, and when a GPL-covered work is not being copied and distributed, the GPL cannot come into play. What the program does when it runs is not relevant for falling under the GPL because the GPL does not restrict running covered works. Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components. Mere aggregation refers to including a covered work on a medium of distribution along with other works. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote: Licenses covering a work as a whole are hard to press when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes mere aggregation a really good defense. This is completely wrong. The legal council of the FSF is, as far as I can concern, of different opinion than you are, and this opinion influences what kind of work they decide to release under what kind of license. So whether or not you agree with their reasoning, it is part of the decisions they make with regard to licensing. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components. Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking. See also http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf (Linking to GPL Software) and http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf (SOFTWARE COMBINATIONS UNDER THE GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking. No, static linking results in a combined work since the elements are chosen with intention and by design, much as would be the case for stories in an anthology. Mere aggregation corresponds to shipping a pile of books in one box. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking. No, static linking results in a combined work since the elements are chosen with intention and by design, much as would be the case for stories in an anthology. Mere aggregation corresponds to shipping a pile of books in one box. It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. It is a quite special case to explicitly load a shared executable (and call its entry points) for which not particular headers were used in the preparation of the binary. I do not even know the library/system call for that. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-25 09:51:04 -0400, Hyman Rosen said: The FSF does not believe that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. The release of the Library GPL is an implicit recognition of the fact that the GPL is a poor fit for libraries. Correction: for equivalents to already existing established libraries. And the problem is not poor fit, but incentive for change. Renaming it to the Lesser GPL isn't likely to convince anyone old enough to remember, or intelligent enough to do a little research. A name is a name. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 11:18 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Static linking is mere aggregation of (sub)programs with relocation and symbol resolution done earlier than in the case of dynamic linking. No, static linking results in a combined work since the elements are chosen with intention and by design, much Ha ha. So the GPL mere aggregation applies only to random aggregations? as would be the case for stories in an anthology. Mere An anthology is mere aggregation of literary works. aggregation corresponds to shipping a pile of books in one box. Think of shipping a pile of e-books in own file. That's what static linking is as far as copyright is concerned because relocation and symbol resolution are irrelevant details regarding copyright. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Peter Keller wrote: [...] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. To wit: http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf (Moot Court Statements of Fact) http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/OmegaBrief.pdf (Omega Plaintiff's Brief) http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf (Alpha Defendant's Brief) http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/03.%20Beyond%20the%20Basics%20-%20Moot%20Court.mp3 (Hearing and QA) --- The Scope of Derivative Works as Applied to Software: David Bender of White Case LLP and author of Computer Law and Ieuan Mahony of Holland Knight LLP will argue the proper scope of derivative work under U.S. copyright law when applied to software, before a panel of distinguished federal appellate judges: * HONORABLE WILLIAM C. BRYSON, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit * HONORABLE HALDANE ROBERT MAYER, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit * HONORABLE MARGARET MCKEOWN, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit --- It didn't bode well for the copyleft side... regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote: It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute the program. Copyright law does not care that a program needs a certain version of a library to work correctly, because copyright law does not care whether or not a program works at all. It's only copying and distribution that count. It is a quite special case to explicitly load a shared executable (and call its entry points) for which not particular headers were used in the preparation of the binary. I do not even know the library/system call for that. That the text of a program contains indications that the program will use certain libraries in certain ways is generally irrelevant to the copyright status of the program. There is generally only one way to express within the text of a program that the program will use elements of a library, and therefore that expression is not copyrightable because it lacks originality as defined by copyright law - see the Lexmark printer cartridge case http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/e9bc6a89-03dc-4e37-9dba-d3d324d6a94c.cfm. To put it more simply, that the program contains #include joe-lib.h' and 'JOEbits jb;' and 'JOEjob(jb, hello);' does not generally cause the text of the program to fall under the copyright of the JOE library, nor does it cause the compiled binary which dynamically links to the JOE library to fall under the copyright of the JOE library. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Keller wrote: It is that permit linking proprietary applications phrase which is the rub. It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. No. It does not matter what the GPL or the LGPL says unless there is a reason that the license should apply. When a program is linked dynamically against a library and is copied and distributed without that library, then the copyright license of the library is irrelevant because the library is not being copied and distributed. That is, when copying and distributing a program, the first thing to determine is which licenses apply. Only after that do you need to worry about what those licenses say. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Ralph writes: Mac OS X is BSD Unix. No it isn't. It's a heavily modified Mach single-server kernel with a partial BSD userland. And Apple contributes little or nothing back. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 12:00 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: An anthology is mere aggregation of literary works. ... Think of shipping a pile of e-books in own file. That's what static linking is as far as copyright is concerned because relocation and symbol resolution are irrelevant details regarding copyright. No, both of these statements are wrong. See 17 USC 101 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 12:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Wow. Hyman, I agree with you 100% with the caveat that static linking doesn't change anything. It's mere aggregation Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, since even when your conclusions are correct you seldom arrive at them through correct reasoning. Your error with respect to static linking is an example; a statically linked program is not a mere aggregation of its components. Sez who? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 12:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Why do you think that assembled doesn't fall under mere aggregation? Why do you think that collection and assembling doesn't fall under mere aggregation? Do you think that leaving out the portion of the law which shows you are wrong is convincing? http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote: It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute the program. If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from the library, just because the _binaries_ of the library are loaded at a later point of time. You may be ferociously defending your own legal theories, but as long as nobody wants actually to rely on such a theory to a degree where he is willing to let himself be taken to court over it, that's academical. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro writes: Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the source code for any released product that included your library. They are not required to publish it. They are merely required to distribute it along with the binaries. If you offer source to everyone to whom you sell binaries you are done. As a result, most people working on commercial [closed source] published software, or who contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries altogether. And that's fine, just as it is fine that some of us avoid non-free libraries because source is not available or the terms are too restrictive. Nicolas writes: Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of GPLed software allowed? Yes. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one could either argue that the company operates as an entity... It does. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Sez who? 17 USC 101 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 A collective work is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term compilation includes collective works. Hyman, please stop ignoring the facts. Facts such as http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT® ENTERPRISE LINUX® AND RED HAT® APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. and http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html The Software is a collective work of Novell Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka mere aggregations in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even incompatible with the GPL. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, David Kastrup wrote: If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from the library, just because the _binaries_ of the library are loaded at a later point of time. Copyright law is about copying protected works. When deciding on whether a program file may be copied, the first question is do determine if the file being copied contains any protected content. In a dynamically linked executable, the only such content is what the compiler and linker have placed into the executable in order to indicate that during execution the program will invoke some specified functionality. But that cannot be protected content because it lacks originality; there is generally only one way to indicate that such-and-such a function will be called in such- and-such a way, and any concept that can be expressed in only one way lacks originality as defined by copyright law - the idea has merged with the expression and the result is not copyrightable. You may be ferociously defending your own legal theories, but as long as nobody wants actually to rely on such a theory to a degree where he is willing to let himself be taken to court over it, that's academical. In fact, such did happen with the distribution of a program which dynamically linked to the GPL-covered readline library. To avoid aggravation, the developer created a stub readline library, but it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 12:59 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman, please stop ignoring the facts. And in fact, mere aggregation means exactly what the FSF wants it to mean, not more and not less, because mere aggregation is not a term defined by copyright law but a term defined by a license, and as such it is to the license that one must go to to see if some combined work is a mere aggregation or not. It is clear from the text of the GPL that a statically linked program is not a mere aggregation of its components. For example, if a document was licensed to be freely copyable except that it must not be copied and distributed on a medium together with instructions on how to make bombs, it would be a reading of the license that determined whether it would be permitted to copy and distribute it on a medium together with instructions on how to make firecrackers. Copyright law would have nothing to say on the matter - there is no definition of bomb in copyright law, and there is no definition of mere aggregation in copyright law. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Ralph writes: I think people should avoid GPL licensing their work as a pragmatic means of ensuring maximal adoption. You assume that everyone has maximum adoption as their primary goal. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this part back. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro writes: Possibly counterintuitively, the goal of maximizing open source is actually better accomplished by *not* choosing the GPL. I guess this is why Linux has been totally eclipsed by BSD. Instead, these potential users will become users of some other library which is LGPL, or BSD, etc. licensed, and they will become open source contributors to those other libraries, not to the GPL licensed project. Most never become contributors at all. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Clear to whom? Clear to those who are not eager to deliberately misinterpret the GPL for their own purposes. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this part back. What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different other parts, this is definitely not the case. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Clear to whom? Clear to those who are not eager to deliberately misinterpret the GPL for their own purposes. Hyman, the FSF is on record: http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. [T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls. Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). . . In pertinent part, the GPL provides that, if a licensee of computer software under the GPL modifies that software or creates a derivative work from it, that subsequent work, when distributed, must be licensed to all third parties at no charge under the same terms and conditions. derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka mere aggregation in GNU-speak) Got it now, silly Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this part back. What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different other parts, this is definitely not the case. No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author of a license can put in any conditions he wants, so if he wants to say that you can copy and distribute a combined work which includes my content provided that some separate content exists, he may do so, and then permission will change based on that existence. But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute a separate work when that work does not contain the library. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka mere aggregation in GNU-speak) Got it now? No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes. Naturally, courts see through such flimflam, and no amount of blustering on the internet can counter that. GPLv2 says http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. It is clear, therefore, that GPLv2 distinguishes between mere aggregations and collective works which are not mere aggregations, so repeatedly claiming that it does not is foolish. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka mere aggregation in GNU-speak) Got it now? No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes. Naturally, courts see through such flimflam, and no amount of blustering on the internet can counter that. GPLv2 says http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. It is clear, therefore, that GPLv2 distinguishes between mere aggregations and collective works which are not mere aggregations, so repeatedly claiming that it does not is foolish. http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf I have already explained the fundamental difference in copyright law between a collective work and a derivative work. You will recall generally that the former is a collection of independent works and the latter is a work based upon one or more preexisting works. A work containing another work is a collective work. A work based on another work is a derivative work. Merging those concepts in the GPL would leave no distinction between a derivative and collective work, an absurd result considering the importance of those two defined terms in copyright law. [...] The law makes it clear that the GPL cant affect the licenses to those preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesnt matter. The GPL then expresses its intent this way: The intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (GPL section 2.) That may be the intent, but is that what the GPL actually does? This is a critical example of imprecise phrasing. Who gets to exercise the right to control distribution? Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets to exercise the right to control those works, and the owner of each contribution gets to exercise the right to control his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].) Does the phrase based on the program refer to both derivative and collective works? That isnt technically correct, at least under the U.S. Copyright Act, because a derivative work is a work based on one or more preexisting works, but a collective work is not. (17 U.S.C. § 101.) There is still no meaningful clue about linkage. [...] Finally the GPL directly addresses the distribution of collective works, noting that the GPL does not apply to them: ...In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. (GPL section 2.) This sentence seems to mean that only derivative works are covered by the GPL reciprocity provision, and that mere aggregation of separate works onto common media (or common computer memory?) does not require reciprocity, even if those mere aggregations are distributed in one unit (i.e., as part of the whole). http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. [T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls. Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). . . In pertinent part, the GPL provides that, if a licensee of computer software under the GPL modifies that software or creates a derivative work from it, that subsequent work, when distributed, must be licensed to all third parties at no charge under the same terms and conditions. derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka mere aggregation in GNU-speak) Go to doctor, silly Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption, it is no wonder that error piles upon error. There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating the covered work provided you meet condition two. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Nicolas Neuss lastn...@kit.edu writes: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your user base away from you. This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft use my code. However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which license to choose[*]. A commercial license did not make much sense, because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable. However, I wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value (in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting. A GPL license would make this business model impossible for everyone - _including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL. Therefore, I decided in favor of the (modified) BSD license. That does not keep other people from contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL, if they so desire. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption, it is no wonder that error piles upon error. Let the author http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm know about his error piles upon error. chuckles There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating the covered work provided you meet condition two. http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf Courts that have embraced the doctrine of copyright misuse192 initially adopted a rationale developed in the patent context.193 The doctrine of patent misuse penalizes patent holders who try to expand their limited legal monopoly over the patented invention beyond the four corners of the patent and thus upset the balance that patent law has struck between protection and public access.194 In patent cases, courts have found a number of licensing practices to be abusive, including royalty requirements for components, territories, or time periods outside the scope of the patent grant, covenants not to deal in competing products, and package licensing.195 A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking to control external activities and subject matternamely, the use of independent programs. Depending on the context, such a clause could, in effect, constitute a prohibition on using competing products. In any event, such a clause would limit a licensees right to create compilations and non-creative combinationsrights that the Copyright Act declares to be free, in contrast to the right to prepare derivative works.196 Thus, such a copyright owner would seem to run a significant risk that a court would classify such a clause as copyright misuse with the dramatic result that the copyright owner would be denied copyright protection even against outright piracy. A licensor who merely prohibits licensees from creating derivative works, as the term is defined by statute and through combinations or otherwise, would generally remain within the scope of its statutory rights and not risk a finding of copyright misuse. The need to prevent an abuse of intellectual property law is internationally recognized.197 regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating the covered work provided you meet condition two. 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 collective works but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption, it is no wonder that error piles upon error. Let the author http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm know about his error piles upon error. chuckles There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone 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 collective works but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people. copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating the covered work provided you meet condition two. http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf Courts that have embraced the doctrine of copyright misuse192 initially adopted a rationale developed in the patent context.193 The doctrine of patent misuse penalizes patent holders who try to expand their limited legal monopoly over the patented invention beyond the four corners of the patent and thus upset the balance that patent law has struck between protection and public access.194 In patent cases, courts have found a number of licensing practices to be abusive, including royalty requirements for components, territories, or time periods outside the scope of the patent grant, covenants not to deal in competing products, and package licensing.195 A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking to control external activities and subject matternamely, the use of independent programs. Depending on the context, such a clause could, in effect, constitute a prohibition on using competing products. In any event, such a clause would limit a licensees right to create compilations and non-creative combinationsrights that the Copyright Act declares to be free, in contrast to the right to prepare derivative works.196 Thus, such a copyright owner would seem to run a significant risk that a court would classify such a clause as copyright misuse with the dramatic result that the copyright owner would be denied copyright protection even against outright piracy. A licensor who merely prohibits licensees from creating derivative works, as the term is defined by statute and through combinations or otherwise, would generally remain within the scope of its statutory rights and not risk a finding of copyright misuse. The need to prevent an abuse of intellectual property law is internationally recognized.197 regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 3:47 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Let the author http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm know about his error piles upon error. I'm insufficiently motivated to bug someone about some mistake he made years ago. If he shows up here, I'll change my mind. By the way, http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf, Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets “to exercise the right to control” those works, and the owner of each contribution gets “to exercise the right to control” his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].) so he's certainly not as wrong as you are. I shouldn't be surprised - as always, the things you quote contradict your thesis. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 4:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rightshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS holder to say that you may make and distribute standalone copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating the covered work provided you meet condition two. 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 collective works but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people. No, through the exclusive rights granted by 17 USC 106. The control a rights holder gets is extremely precise, and every collective work requires separate permission from the rights holders of the components in order for the collective work to be copied and distributed. That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS It would scarcely preserve the author’s copyright in a contribution as contemplated by Congress if a print publisher, without the author’s permission, could reproduce or distribute discrete copies of the contribution in isolation or within new collective works. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: On 2010-03-21 22:14:30 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: Sure. And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? My principal objection to the GPL is that its license requirements regarding opening source code make it very unpopular with many commercial developers, and therefore whenever possible, they choose non-GPL alternatives. That's perfectly fine since what makes the source code unpopular with the commercial developers also stops them from contributing back. So there is no loss. In short, I don't think GPL licensing gets you anything additional in terms of getting code open sourced. Users who need to keep their source closed either won't use it, or will use in in a way that allows them not to open the source (e.g., Paul Graham's viaweb and their use of the GPL CLISP). It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your user base away from you. Meanwhile, users of LLGPL or BSD, etc. licensed code frequently open source whatever they are able as contributions back to the relevant project. Giving users the choice of what they will and won't open source results in more users, and just as many open source contributions. The real world tends to disagree by example. Yes, I'd prefer a world in which Richard Stallman was pretty much wrong about everything, too. But one has to make the best from what one actually got. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets to exercise the right to control those works, and the owner of each contribution gets to exercise the right to control his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].) so he's certainly not as wrong as you are. I shouldn't be surprised - as always, the things you quote contradict your thesis. You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_(House_Report_No._94-1476) - Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is copyrightable if it represents an original work of authorship and falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7 of the present law, the important interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting and of new material in a particular work. The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a new version covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. Between them the terms compilations and derivative works which are defined in section 101, comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A compilation results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright. A derivative work, on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting one or more preexisting works; the preexisting work must come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted. The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully, the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. - It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. Got it now, silly Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tasini.html The United States Supreme Court ruled that print publishers such as newspapers and magazines may not use material in online databases to which they had previously obtained only print rights from independent contractor creators. The Courts ruling establishes that such online and electronic uses are separate uses from that of print. Publishers had argued that they had these rights under the collective works section of the United States Copyright Act. That section provides in part: § 201. Ownership of copyright (c) Contributions to Collective Works.-Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. The publishers' argument was that the online uses within an electronic database were a revision of that collective work, meaning a revision of the original print publication. This was the argument rejected by the Court saying that the use within a database was a separate use, not contemplated by the foregoing provisions. The Court stated: In accord with Congress prescription, a publishing company could reprint a contribution from one issue in a later issue of its magazine, and could reprint an article from a 1980 edition of an encyclopedia in a 1990 revision of it; the publisher could not revise the contribution itself or include it in a new anthology or an entirely different magazine or other collective work. The Contractual Significance The issue arose because the contracts by which such print rights were acquired were either silent on the issue of electronic rights or were vague and uncertain. I have written about this issue in several other articles that you should read on my site. See Electronic Issues in Publishing Contracts, Electronic Publishing and the Potential Loss of First Serial Rights and Digital Rights Management. If you are a publisher or have otherwise acquired rights to materials and your contract is more than just a few years old, it may be deficient either because it does not speak to or is vague in defining the electronic rights that you need. You should examine your contracts in this regard and if necessary, have those contracts updated for current and future use. © 2001 Ivan Hoffman This article is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. You should consult with an attorney familiar with the issues and the laws. No portion of this article may be copied, retransmitted, reposted, duplicated or otherwise used without the express written approval of the author. FOR MORE INFORMATION: MAIL Where Next? Ivan Hoffman Attorney At Law || More Helpful Articles For Writers and Publishers|| More Internet and Electronic Rights Articles||More Articles for Web Site Designers and Site Owners || Home regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. Got it now? There is nothing to get. The creator of the compilation owns the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but cannot copy and distribute the arrangement with the works included without permission of the owners of the rights in the included works. You are about as confused as anyone I have ever seen. It's a good thing you hold no position of responsibility where your incorrect knowledge of copyright law could cause harm. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this part back. What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different other parts, this is definitely not the case. No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author of a license can put in any conditions he wants, The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. So the GPL takes care not to go further than copyright does. But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute a separate work when that work does not contain the library. The courts ultimately determine the meaning of separate and contain. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Pascal Bourguignon writes: And the question remains why you should imposes your choices on me? Explain. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. Got it now? There is nothing to get. The creator of the compilation owns the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but cannot copy and distribute the arrangement with the works included without permission of the owners of the rights in the included works. Go tell Red Hat and Novell that they are blatantly violating the GPL, silly Hyman. Yeah, I know that you're insufficiently motivated... right? http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT® ENTERPRISE LINUX® AND RED HAT® APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html The Software is a collective work of Novell Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka mere aggregations in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even incompatible with the GPL. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: [...] The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosenhyro...@mail.com writes: On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this part back. What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different other parts, this is definitely not the case. No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author of a license can put in any conditions he wants, The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is to establish an alternate, imaginary reality where federal courts don't universally hold a copyright license to be a contract thus extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. It's kind of like extending the structure of frogs so they have wings and thus don't bump their asses. So the GPL takes care not to go further than copyright does. But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute a separate work when that work does not contain the library. The courts ultimately determine the meaning of separate and contain. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. into a possible: the court says that _if_ one stipulates a contractual relationship, _then_ the GPL spells the conditions. So the defendant can't claim _both_ having a contractual relationship _and_ the GPL _not_ being involved in this particular case. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y. 1993) (Nominal damages are always available in breach of contract action.). Thus, SCO's footnoted damages argument is no basis for summary judgment as to liability. Moreover, IBM has proffered expert evidence that it was financially damaged by SCO's violations of the GPL. First, as IBM expert Professor J. R. Kearl will testify at trial, under the methodology of SCO's own experts (offered in support of SCO's affirmative case), IBM has suffered quantifiable damages resulting from SCO's wrongful conduct, including its GPL violations. (¶ 28; Ex. 591 ¶¶ 1.C, 33-34.) http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf To begin with, the Panel has no doubt whatsoever that the general business conditions have been effectively incorporated into a possible contractual relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff pursuant to German Civil Code Section 305 Para. 2. into a possible: the court says that _if_ one stipulates a contractual relationship, _then_ the GPL spells the conditions. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf The Panel considers the license conditions to be general business conditions which are to be examined under application of German Civil Code Sections 305 et seqq. In the original it says Die Kammer stuft die Lizenzbedingungen als allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen ein, die einer Prüfung nach §§ 305 ff. BGB zu unterziehen sind. Now, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000P305 Section 305 Incorporation of standard business terms into the contract (1) Standard business terms are all contract terms pre-formulated for more than two contracts which one party to the contract (the user) presents to the other party upon the entering into of the contract. It is irrelevant whether the provisions take the form of a physically separate part of a contract or are made part of the contractual document itself, what their volume is, what typeface or font is used for them and what form the contract takes. Contract terms do not become standard business terms to the extent that they have been negotiated in detail between the parties. (2) Standard business terms only become a part of a contract if the user, when entering into the contract, 1. refers the other party to the contract to them explicitly or, where explicit reference, due to the way in which the contract is entered into, is possible only with disproportionate difficulty, by posting a clearly visible notice at the place where the contract is entered into, and 2. gives the other party to the contract, in an acceptable manner, which also takes into reasonable account any physical handicap of the other party to the contract that is discernible to the user, the opportunity to take notice of their contents, and if the other party to the contract agrees to their applying. (3) The parties to the contract may, while complying with the requirements set out in subsection (2) above, agree in advance that specific standard business terms are to govern a specific type of legal transaction. Furthermore: http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, . . . Plaintiff, or the licensors from whom Plaintiff derives his right, have not violated any contractual obligations themselves. Rather, Defendant, who violated contractual obligations, relies on rights granted by contract. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Get somebody to explain the difference of contractual penalties and nominal damages to you. The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Get somebody to explain the difference of contractual penalties and nominal damages to you. Did you read the rest of my quote, silly dak? The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. In absence of such stipulation in contract, a non-breaching party must simply establish the damages sustained. First, as IBM expert Professor J. R. Kearl will testify at trial, under the methodology of SCO's own experts (offered in support of SCO's affirmative case), IBM has suffered quantifiable damages resulting from SCO's wrongful conduct, including its GPL violations. (¶ 28; Ex. 591 ¶¶ 1.C, 33-34.) regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is Dak, please stop ignoring the facts: It's established by several courts in Germany that the GPL is an AGB contract. http://www.jbb.de/fileadmin/download/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf The GPL grants anyone who enters into such contract with the licensor the right to copy, ... Germany might call things different, but you still have the situation that a contractual arrangement to which one party has not given its implicit or explicit consent differs in the details of execution and enforcement. For one thing, the license can't stipulate contractual penalties for non-conformance. http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061123091221786 SCO's GPL violations entitle IBM to at least nominal damages on the Sixth Counterclaim for breach of the GPL. See Bair v. Axiom Design LLC 20 P.3d 388, 392 (Utah 2001) (explaining that it is well settled that nominal damages are recoverable upon breach of contract); Get somebody to explain the difference of contractual penalties and nominal damages to you. Did you read the rest of my quote, silly dak? Sure. Nothing relevant as usual. The former can be an arbitrary amount agreed upon in advance by the contract parties. In absence of such stipulation in contract, a non-breaching party must simply establish the damages sustained. You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ sustained damages can actually be claimed. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ sustained damages can actually be claimed. Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27 It is likely that a court, in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact, the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a contract was alleged, in both of the first two U.S. federal court cases in which the GPL was implicated.28 27. See, e.g., Free Software Foundation, Inc., GNU General Public License, Version 2 §§ 13, available at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt (June 1991) (imposing affirmative obligations on licensees). See also id. at § 5. . . . 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50, MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah filed July 23, 2002) (The aforesaid individual or joint acts of Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.). http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/MySQLcounterclaim.pdf COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) Go to doctor, silly dak. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You did not understand a word of what you were replying to, again. The whole point was that in the case of a _license_, as opposed to a contract, any such stipulation of a _penalty_ is _invalid_, and _only_ sustained damages can actually be claimed. Uh silly dak. A copyright license IS A CONTRACT in U.S.A., Germany, and elsewhere except the GNU Republic in alternative universe. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Transactions/TakingTheCase.pdf The GPL is not just a method for a licensor to give up rights that he could otherwise enforce in court; the GPL imposes obligations on the licensee as well, which the licensee must accept.27 _Which_ _the_ _licensee_ _must_ _accept_. Nobody forces him. It is likely that a court, It is likely in some arbitrary commentary is not the same as IS A. Really, you should stop quoting stuff that contradicts you. in the U.S. or abroad, would recognize the GPL as a contract. In fact, the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a contract was alleged, was alleged. Great. 28. See Countercl., at ¶¶ 110–118, Progressive Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); First Am. Compl. ¶ 50, MontaVista Software, Inc. v. Lineo, Inc., No. 2:02 CV-0309J (D. Utah filed July 23, 2002) (“The aforesaid individual or joint acts of Defendants constitute a breach of the GPL.”). Which is short for constitute a breach of the terms and conditions of the GPL. COUNT VIII Breach of Contract (GPL License) Sigh. Look and behold, we have here a _count_ of charges that is supposed to be exhaustive in case the court finds some of the charges don't apply for whatever reason. If a court is going to entertain the line of reasoning this looks like a contract, let's rule on that, you better want an argument in for that, just to make sure. You don't want to go to higher courts unnecessarily. But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a count of charges, it has no legal precedence whatsoever. That this is COUNT VIII should tell you something about the priorities of this approach from the plaintiff. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup wrote: [...] But until such a reasoning appears in the _ruling_ but just in one of a count of charges . . . Uh silly dak. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf Nature of Suit: 190 http://directory.westlaw.com/scope/default.asp?db=DOCK-INDEX-DCTRS=WVR=2.0 NATURE OF SUIT (NOS) SEARCHING: The Nature of Suit (NOS) is a subject matter classification used in federal civil litigation. An NOS is a code that is selected at the outset of litigation when completing the Civil Cover Sheet (JS-44). Below is a table of generally accepted NOS codes and their related subject matter. Note: In the DOCK-INDEX-DCT database, NOS searching is limited to three individual NOS codes (e.g. 440,550,950), or a range of NOS codes (e.g. 510-555). NOS Description Case Type Code [...] 110 Insurance Contract 120 Marine Contract 130 Miller Act Contract 140 Negotiable Instruments Contract 150 Recovery of Overpayment Enforcement of Judgment Contract 151 Medicare Act Contract 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Contract Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Benefits Contract 160 Stockholders' Suits Contract 190 Other Contract Contract [...] 820 Copyrights Property Rights 830 Patent Property Rights 840 Trademark Property Rights regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html The Software is a collective work of Novell Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka mere aggregations in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even incompatible with the GPL. And there's no problem with that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't going to have such trouble. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html The Software is a collective work of Novell Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka mere aggregations in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even incompatible with the GPL. And there's no problem with that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't going to have such trouble. As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of copyright. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible thing to waste. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Forgot one bit. Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html The Software is a collective work of Novell Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka mere aggregations in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even incompatible with the GPL. And there's no problem with that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. Snipping ambiguity/undefined terms it says just exactly what the GFDL says (recall that under copyright law software is protected as literary works modulo the AFC test): A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate if snip nonsense. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document. IOW, it's mere aggegation just like in the GPLv2, stupid. As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't going to have such trouble. Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? The unified program is an extension of a GPL-covered work or a larger program which has been formed by being combined with a GPL- covered work, just as the GPL describes. Separate permission is required from rights holders every time a work is copied and distributed as part of a collective work, and the rights holders may choose to distinguish what permissions they grant based on the nature of the collective work, or in fact based on anything at all. The creators of the GPL choose to grant different permission based upon whether a covered work is included as part of an aggregate on a distribution medium, or whether it is integrated into a single program. Your willful misinterpretation of the permissions granted by the GPL serves your purposes as an anti-GPL crank, but fools no one. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? The unified program is an extension of a GPL-covered work or a larger program which has been formed by being combined with a GPL- covered work, just as the GPL describes. Separate permission is required from rights holders every time a work is copied and distributed as part of a collective work, and the rights holders may choose to distinguish what permissions they grant based on the nature of the collective work, or in fact based on anything at all. The creators of the GPL choose to grant different permission based upon whether a covered work is included as part of an aggregate on a distribution medium, or whether it is integrated into a single program. Your willful misinterpretation of the permissions granted by the GPL serves your purposes as an anti-GPL crank, but fools no one. As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of copyright. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible thing to waste. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called a unified program? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? The unified program is an extension of a GPL-covered work or a You must mean a derivative work of a GPL-covered work because the term extension is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. or a larger program ... Full stop once again for the same reason: the term larger program is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law. To repeat, snipping ambiguity/undefined terms it says just exactly what the GFDL says (recall that under copyright law software is protected as literary works modulo the AFC test): A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an aggregate snip if nonsense. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document. IOW, it's mere aggegation just like in the GPLv2, stupid. which has been formed by being combined with a GPL- covered work, just as the GPL describes. chuckles Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. Stop moving the goalposts. regards, alexander. P.S. Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com 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 hyro...@mail.com 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: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/29/2010 11:04 AM, RJack wrote: The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301 The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. The federal preemption of state copyright equivalence provisions is completely irrelevant to the GPL. it is unenforceable under contract law The GPL is a copyright license which authorizes certain actions based on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by federal copyright law. No one has permission to otherwise copy and distribute GPL-covered works, so anyone who does so without obeying the requirements of the GPL is infringing copyright. and is a misuse of copyright Misuse of copyright, when applied at all (its appearance is rare as hen's teeth), is found in anti-competitive and anti-trust contexts. As Daniel Wallace found, courts do not find that the GPL creates such a context, because competition laws exist to benefit the public, not to benefit competitors. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional tilting at Windmills. Rather, all of this anti-GPL crankery consists of deliberately distorting copyright law and case law to reach false conclusions. None of these false conclusions have been upheld by courts, nor are they likely to be, leaving anti-GPL cranks no outlet but to rail on the internet. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
On 3/29/2010 10:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: IOW, it's mere aggegation just like in the GPLv2 Yes, the mere aggregation part is mere aggregation, just as the combined program part is the combined program part. The GPL grants permission for covered works to be copied and distributed as part of a collective work differently depending on the nature of the integration of the covered work into the collective work. Since permission to be copied and distributed as part of a collective work must be obtained separately for each collective work, there is no problem in doing so. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
