On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Mike Meyer m...@mired.org wrote:
Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Mike Meyer m...@mired.org writes:
Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer m...@mired.org:
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before
it was
Mike Meyer m...@mired.org writes:
Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer m...@mired.org:
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before
it was written.
Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and
hacked on) before he did
Mike Meyer m...@mired.org writes:
As it's commonly understood, reverse engineering doesn't involve
looking at the code.
I guess I should make it clear that I don't use it in the strict sense -
I would call that clean-room reverse engineering. (I'm not sure which
is the most commonly
Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of
literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such, and
that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before
writing one's own does not imply that the
On 12/17/12, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
I would use copying to mean verbatim cut-and-pasting, which is something
else.
I feel I should point out that, while that's currently a common
definition of copying, it's not the legal definition. Copyright law
predates the ability to
Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Mike Meyer m...@mired.org writes:
Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer m...@mired.org:
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before
it was written.
Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used
Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
In particular when copyright is concerned, I believe that verbatim
copying in many cases will require a license to the original work, but
merly examining the original work to make use of algorithms, tricks,
and
structures from it will not.
If you don't actually
So I heard back from softwarefreedom.org, and they're looking for a
representative from haskell.org to talk to them, as they want to avoid
conflict-of-interests with other clients.
Does anyone with any official status want to talk to real lawyers about
this issue, then let the list know of
On 12/17/2012 01:47 PM, Clark Gaebel wrote:
Does anyone ... want to talk to real lawyers ...
No.
This is absurd. If anyone cares, email the original author and explain
the situation. Ask if he's cool with the reimplemented version. Chances
are he'll say yeah, and we've just solved the problem
Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca writes:
I just did a quick derivation from
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2
A copyrighted work, you say?
to get the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers
implementation. Here is my code:
If
Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org writes:
I just did a quick derivation from
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2
A copyrighted work, you say?
Whoops, public domain, according to itself. Of course, there's no way
to tell if the author read similar copyrighted
Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca writes:
I just did a quick derivation from
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2
A copyrighted work, you say?
The work is copyrighted, the snippets are placed in the placed in the public
domain.
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer m...@mired.org:
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it was
written.
Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and
hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that
was reimplemented in Linux.
Same
Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/15 Mike Meyer m...@mired.org:
Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before it
was written.
Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and
hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:27:03 +0100
Vo Minh Thu not...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is.
Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a
propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by
copyright.
While algorithms aren't covered by
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:
Well, actual legal advice comes from actual lawyers, who often want actual
money.
That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono
legal services.
I'm interested in what you saw as anti-copyleft FUD though.
On 12/13/2012 08:34 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:11:28PM -0800, Chris Smith wrote:
That's true. However, haskell.org's fiscal sponsor receives pro bono
legal services.
I may have been conflating threads, though the response to what I assume
was just a lawyer asking
I didn't even know that site existed. Let's add them to the thread!
softwarefreedom.org, what are your opinions on what was discussed in this
thread:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-December/105193.html
Is there anything that we, as a community, should know about? Should we
On 14/12/2012, at 7:45 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Just thought I'd mention: It is possible for anyone involved in a FOSS
project to get pro bono legal advice from the SFLC, from actual lawyers
who are highly familiar with the legal aspects of FOSS licenses:
On 12/13/2012 05:54 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 14/12/2012, at 7:45 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Intimately familiar with New Zealand law, are they?
I couldn't say anything about that, specifically. However, SFLC has an
international outreach. From 2011 SFLC news:
quote:
We
Hi Cafe,
I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked
sources of containers package and found out that it refers to some
GPL-library.
Here is quote:
The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library
in file Data/IntMap/Base.hs
The problem is that FXT library is GPL
2012/12/12 Dmitry Kulagin dmitry.kula...@gmail.com:
Hi Cafe,
I am faced with unpleasant problem. The lawyer of my company checked sources
of containers package and found out that it refers to some GPL-library.
Here is quote:
The algorithm is derived from Jorg Arndt's FXT library
in file
Right. If either of the following hold, you should be able to carry on as
you were (but double check with your lawyer):
1) The algorithm is borrowed but the code was not copied. In this case,
copyright doesn't cover it, and the GPL is inapplicable. (Patents could
conceivably be an issue, but no
I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1]
According to the GPL:
To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement
under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or
I'm not sure what your point is.
Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a
propagation of the original work). Algorithms are not covered by
copyright.
2012/12/12 Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca:
I think this is a potential problem, but, obviously, IANAL. [1]
It's not an algorithm. The source code of containers is derived from the
source code of another library.
- Clark
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Vo Minh Thu not...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what your point is.
Re-implementing an algorithm is not a copyright infringement (nor is a
The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not
be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case
(closed source software).
Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as GPL?
The package is widely used by other packages
2012/12/12 Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com:
The problem is that FXT library is GPL and thus containers package can not
be considered as BSD3. And it means that it can not be used in my case
(closed source software).
Is this logic actually correct and containers should be considered as
Ah, that's more than we'd been told. If that is the case, then containers
is in violation of the GPL (unless they got permission to copy that code,
separately), and either must obtain such permission, be relicensed,
remove/replace that code.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Clark Gaebel
2012/12/12 David Thomas davidleotho...@gmail.com:
Ah, that's more than we'd been told. If that is the case, then containers
is in violation of the GPL (unless they got permission to copy that code,
separately), and either must obtain such permission, be relicensed,
remove/replace that code.
This may be overconfident - how does copyright law deal with translations
in literature? Still, it certainly makes infringement less likely, and the
earlier explicit statement that code was copied likely the result of
confusion.
On Dec 12, 2012 8:33 AM, Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
Just for reference:
In Data/IntMap/Base.hs
highestBitMask :: Nat - Nat
highestBitMask x0
= case (x0 .|. shiftRL x0 1) of
x1 - case (x1 .|. shiftRL x1 2) of
x2 - case (x2 .|. shiftRL x2 4) of
x3 - case (x3 .|. shiftRL x3 8) of
x4 - case (x4 .|. shiftRL x4 16) of
#if
Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/12 Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com:
There is no copied code from FXT (which can be said with certainty as
FXT is a C library), hence the there can be copyright issue.
Gah, I should proofread! NO copyright issue, of course.
Um, no.
I just did a quick derivation from
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get
the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers
implementation. Here is my code:
highestBitMask :: Word64 - Word64
highestBitMask x1 = let x2 = x1 .|. x1 `shiftR` 1
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I just did a quick derivation from
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get
the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the containers
implementation. Here is my code:
2012/12/12 Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I just did a quick derivation from
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#RoundUpPowerOf2 to get
the highest bit mask, and did not reference FXT nor the
Possibly. I tend to trust GHC's strictness analyzer until proven otherwise,
though. Feel free to optimize as necessary.
- Clark
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Vo Minh Thu not...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/12 Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.
12.12.2012, в 22:56, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com написал(а):
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
I just did a quick derivation from
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Clark Gaebel cgae...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Possibly. I tend to trust GHC's strictness analyzer until proven otherwise,
though. Feel free to optimize as necessary.
The GHC strictness analyzer will have no troubles with this. Since the
return type is Word64,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin
dmitry.kula...@gmail.com wrote:
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.
Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Crisis averted!
=)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Johan Tibell johan.tib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin
dmitry.kula...@gmail.com wrote:
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.
Clean-room reimplementation merged and
On 12/12/2012 08:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin
dmitry.kula...@gmail.com wrote:
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.
Clean-room reimplementation merged and released as 0.5.2.0.
Not even a little bit
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
On 12/12/2012 08:15 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kulagin
dmitry.kula...@gmail.com wrote:
Clark, Johan, thank you! That looks like perfect solution to the problem.
Clean-room
43 matches
Mail list logo
