Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Alexander Terekhov writes: >  > May I suggest that you finally do your own research, Mr. Nelson? > > You're the one who wants to convince me of something. How about this (see below), Mr. Nelson? http://unlicense.org/

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: [...] >  > and I can tell you that anyone with even a little skill to perform >  > research can find out that Mr. Moen is at best deeply mistaken. > > In what way? Please be specific about which bits of research refute > which of Mr. Moen's claim

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: [...] > Now, in this particular case, Mr. Moen has pointed to a web page of > his which addresses Dr. Bernstein's arguments. There is NO POINT in > copying from Dr. Bernstein's web page arguments which have already > been replied-to. You should l

Re: [License-discuss] First Sale in Europe (upcoming preliminary ruling)

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > This may be of interest to lawyers and non-lawyers on these > (license-rev...@opensource.org, license-discuss@opensource.org, > bo...@opensource.org) lists: > > The European Court of Justice, upcoming preliminary rul

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan wrote: [...] > I think this language is much too strong.  It's true that there is no > treaty or statutory language allowing abandonment, ... Certainly there is statutory language, e.g.: http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html "Waiver of Moral Rig

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Rick Moen wrote: > [Moving this back over to license-discuss where it _still_ belongs, > thank you.] > > Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lro...@rosenlaw.com): > >> [paring the distribution list] > > Previously CC'd to Basingstoke and back, I wouldn't doubt. For the record

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Rick Moen wrote: [...] > Abandonment of ownership... It all boils down to a defense against a claim of IP infringement... A dedication to the public domain (abandonment) defense is a much better defense than IP license because it doesn't raise the questions of ac

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan wrote: [...] > Someone in the other thread raised the points of first sale and patent > exhaustion, but by the same token I doubt if pulling source code off > a website counts as a sale: there is neither an express nor an implied > contract here, I'd say

Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rick Moen wrote: [...] > a fallback permissive licence, the document's fundamental reason for > existing is foolhardy: the delusional belief that creative works can be > safely magicked into the public domain despite a worldwide copyright > regime, and the equally d

Re: KDE violates IBM patent

> Where do we go to get our license? http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/contact I'd guess. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: GPL, "derivative works" and C++ templates

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > boost (http://www.boost.org/) or even portions of GNU libstdc++? http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64361.php http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64381.php http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64388.php boost-ly y'rs, regards, alexander

Re: [off-band] Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license exception

the subject (given that you've already chosen to ignore it). regards, alexander. To: Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [off-band] Re: FYI: Next draft of MySQL FLOSS license exception Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > The co

Re: Which OS license should we use?

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > > Clint Oram said on Fri, May 07, 2004 at 05:08:59PM -0400,: > > > Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are: > > Google for info about QT and MySQL and their licensing policies. IIRC, both MySQL and TrollTech require copyright assignment in order

RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries

"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote: [...] > moduleA + moduleB = statically linked executable > > executable IS a derivative work of both moduleA and moduleB. Read this and try to extrapolate it to software and static linking [dynamic linking aside for a moment]: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyrig

Re: Source Distribution License

"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote: [...] > Having said that, Alexander's mistake appears to be ... My mistake was the omission of reference (and context) to the source of my comment. http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise26.html (VI.B. Source Code and Object Code) Even though source

Re: Source Distribution License

"Mahesh T. Pai" wrote: [...] > General consensus is that binaries are modified/derived versions of > sources. AFAIK, The U.S. copyright office doesn't agree (the copyright office regards the source code and object code as equivalent for purposes of registration). regards, alexander. -- licens

Re: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [... COPYING*** file ...] http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt http://google.com/groups?threadm=YPep.5Y5.21%40gated-at.bofh.it (Read the entire thread -- this is real fun ;-) ) regards, alexander. ***) http://google.com/groups?selm=11ljP-5SN-21

Re: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] > A number of people have argued that if the only implementation > of an API is under the GPL, and if the API is not independently > described, nor managed by a standards organization, then > writing to that API is, in effect, creating a derived work of > the softw

Re: apache license 2.0 for consideration

"Roy T. Fielding" wrote: [...] > A derivative work that is distributed under only the GPL... Are you saying that your license allows GPL-forking? I think that it does allow things like distribution of GPL'd patches... but the resulting/originating derivative works would fall under multiple lic

Re: FSF list Apache License, Version 2.0 as GPL-incompatible

http://google.com/search?q="The+GPL+is+not+Compatible+with+itself"; regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote: [...] > Courts don't issue advisory opinions. ... Okay. For the sake of any possible benefit to anyone else who cares, here's some stuff that I think is rather interesting (and highly entertaining ;-) ) reading. Note: follow the links/see the entire context. A) http:

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] > Who would benefit from taking such an action? The Global Economy, of course. > For a free software organization, the upside is minimal, > and the downside is severe. Really? I see nothing wrong if a free software organization would have to adopt some "EULA" (to

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [...] > I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking > does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in > the link. ... With all those $$ legal funds "to protect open source" of lately, I just wonder whether the time is right for some vendor

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

John Cowan wrote: [...] > I think that it does matter, because static linking produces > something "fixed in a tangible form", which is a basic > requirement of copyrightability. The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the distinction "compilation-vs-derivative" is rather obvious.

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

John Cowan wrote: [...] > Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers > break up and redistribute the individual object files into > different regions of the executable. Do you seriously believe that such details/"linking analysis" [whether this or that linker redistributes t

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

Err. > Eclipe.org legal FAQ I meant . To: "Ann W. Harrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:RE: Initial Developer's Public License "Ann W. Harrison" wrote: [...] > In th

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

"Ann W. Harrison" wrote: [...] > In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a > single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins. > To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to > Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide > for Version 8. To my uneducate

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

Ben Reser wrote: [...] > But seriously I don't think there is an OSI certified license > that includes an indemnification clause. Hmm. IPL/CPL section 4? regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

RE: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

[... screen saver ...] > More to your point, I think that you *cannot* create screen > saver pictures from copyrighted images without license from > the copyright owner. Agreed. > Those are derivative works. Nope! They simply look like derivative works. ;-) regards, alexander. -- license-

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: [...] > Usually a compiler adds certain code to the executable it > produces. For example, it may add a standard library or > start-up code. As a result, the executable may very well > qualify as a derivative work of this code. Well, http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

John Cowan wrote: [...] > Questionless. But machines don't compile code, people use > machines to compile code. Similarly, you can use the GIMP > to colorize a photograph (thus creating a derivative work), Absent some additional "creative input" (e.g. selection of color) from human being, I w

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

John Cowan wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > > > Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine "a computer" > > (interpreter) that can run "program tarballs". Why simple > > addition of an intermediate step (required to run the > >

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

John Cowan wrote: [...] > A tarball that contains works by various authors is a compilation > work; a compiled program made from that tarball is a derivative > work of the individual files of the tarball, ... Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine "a computer" (interpreter) that can run "

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

Robert Osfield wrote: [...] > vulnerabilities and risks to our livelihood. If you don't intend to eliminate all IP laws (as an ultimate solution to the problem of vulnerabilities and risks), then something like www.pubpat.org is the way to go, I think. regards, alexander. -- license-discuss arc

Re: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

Heck, I just can't resist. Note that nothing that "I say" here represent official opinion or policy of IBM Corp. Just in case. I'm speaking for myself only. And I'm developer, not attorney. I've contributed some stuff to a few open source projects and I also participate in the http://www.opengr

RE: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

"Ken Brown" wrote: [...] > I am really interested in this stuff. First all, I have to say > that I suspect a tad bit of paranoia in the reporting about what's > happening overseas. What sources are you quoting that talk about > criminalization for patent infringement? Sources in opposition t

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

Russell McOrmond wrote: [... questions ...] http://google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10.10109131121160.13573-10%40calcutta.flora.ca (Russell McOrmond's Submission to 2001 copyright reform) "[...] In order for us to move forward we need to reject the concept of ideas as property [...]" You

RE: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > Copyright law on the expression ... protects ... Right, *expression*. And that's why patents are your friends. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg5.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/pthreads-win32/2004/msg7.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml

Re: Promotion of software patents == opposition to Open Source.

Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > IBM has been lobbying for unlimited patentability, pushing > the rhetoric of "technology neutrality" that is the most > common political phrase used against Open Source software. > The problem is, software is not a 'technology' any more than > laws, acts of parl

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with. Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3 and see a

Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy

c: Steve Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy On 15-Jan-04, at 1:57 PM, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > I'm not sure how to get to the license-discuss archives f

Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy

"Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote: [...] > There is also a current conflict in open source licensing circles about how > IBM and other companies use their patents for defensive purposes, with > important implications for open source software. [See thread " termination > with unrelated trigger considered

Re: Open Source Definition : can it be made explicit about non-copyright issues?

Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > Note: There are all these Halloween documents discussing the OSI > battle-of-words with Microsoft, but I wonder why there is no similar > discussion with IBM? Well, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php and, p

www.fsf.org/licenses/NYC_Seminars_Jan2004.html

The following caught my attention. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/200104_seminar.html The LGPL is a "scaled back" version of GPL, designed specifically to allow creation of a very well-defined class of proprietary derivative works. [...] We introduce the two classes of derivative works c

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

Patranun Limudomporn wrote: [...] > Also, short name of CUA Office Public License is "CPL" not "CUA" So go ahead with the CPL (the real one). ;-) regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

John Cowan wrote: [...] > computer scientist (HINAL) http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html [...] > Added material is not itself a derivative work of the GPL'd > thing, obviously. A binary, however, which combines them into > a single object, probably is. I don't think so. I t

Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

John Cowan wrote: [...] > You can't compare property in physical things directly to its > copyright. If you replace the car by a detailed description of > it (#1), and incorporate into that a detailed description of the > gas pedal (#2) that has already been written, then #1 is indeed > a deriv

Re: Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: [...] > If you distribute a work that is a derivative of GPL-licensed > code, and you do not comply with the GPL, you simply violate > the license. ... Yeah. Simple. www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf The Lesser GPL, or LGPL, is a second software license w

Re: Clarification of GPL

Mahesh T. Pai wrote: [...] > Regarding legal binding -- In all these years, only the SCO > has been silly enough to question its bindingness. OTOH, SCO is probably in full agreement with Linus on this: groups.google.com/groups?selm=ZhWT-39U-3%40gated-at.bofh.it > Yes, but they will cite the