Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
In any case, I am speaking here of literal copying only.
In that case, what's the problem you're hypothesizing? Every FOSS
license permits literal copying, and no FOSS license imposes a
copyleft obligation on any *other* work just because of making literal
copies
Therefore, my understanding of the directive is that software, that is
independently created and exchanges information with other software through
an interface, is independent software and not a derivative work.
This is also my own understanding. But it means that linking software for
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
They will refer you to the confusing
abstraction-filtration-comparison tests that are used in the U.S.
courts to distinguish functional from expressive content.
Some U.S. courts. What is more, the AFC test sounds good in theory, but
is decidedly hard to apply in
-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:27 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com
Lawrence Rosen scripsit
Dear Till
Thank you for this - excellent - analysis.
You wrote:
The only hint you may find is Article 6 which says that decompilation is
allowed under certain circumstances to achieve the interoperability of an
independently created computer program with other programs.
Written in 1991, the
Jaeger [mailto:jae...@jbb.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:25 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn; Lawrence Rosen
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com
Dear list,
Bradley and Larry have asked me
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
As I mentioned in a private thread, I didn't really see the need to
burn Till's time posting here, since the discussion was a side-issue
on the main thread about license compatibility, and an OSI director
had already said
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
Does the distribution of a GPL-licensed work along with those separate
works convert them into something not separate in the copyright
sense? Does a staple or a paper clip or a book binding convert separate
works to something not separate in the copyright sense?
by the court for filing a
frivolous lawsuit.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:05 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
I would guess that Bob's adding a bunch of calls to syslog() into
Alice's work might create a derivative work of Alice's work, but that
wouldn't convert syslog() itself a derivative work owned by either
Alice or Bob, even if Bob statically linked it with Alice's
prettier.
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 6:20 PM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com
Till Jaeger wrote:
Bradley and Larry have asked me to share my view as a European lawyer on
the
To be abundantly clear, it was wholly Larry's request to Till, so Larry
deserves all the credit here for eliciting this wonderful and informative
contribution to this list from Till!
As I mentioned
Dear list,
Bradley and Larry have asked me to share my view as a European lawyer on the
question if linking of software components (necessarily) results in a
derivative work as understood by the GPL. In a nutshell, my thoughts are
the following (a more comprehensive overview can be found at
Hi Til:
Thanks very much for this thoughtful analysis. Are you planning to post to the
ftf list as well?
G.
On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Till Jaeger jae...@jbb.de wrote:
Dear list,
Bradley and Larry have asked me to share my view as a European lawyer on the
question if linking of
Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org):
Rick,
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free
Software
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:16 AM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Al Foxone scripsit:
I doubt that Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement is
'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that
combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be
full
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote:
I'd suspect everyone to agree that you must meet the redistribution
requirements of all copyright licenses for a given work to have permission
to redistribute. Thus, license compatibility *exists* as a concept because
if
Al Foxone scripsit:
I doubt that Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement is
'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that
combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be
full of proclaimed 'incompatibly' licensed components (once again
according to
Rick,
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free
Software licensing theorist for the past decade, particularly
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:00 (EDT) on Tuesday:
I asked for practical examples. You cited none. In the world of
copyrights or most logical pursuits, absence of evidence isn't
evidence.
License compatibility issues come up regularly on lots of bug tickets
and threads about licensing on lots of
Till Jaeger answer to the question What is a derivative work? is (on slide
4): I dont know (and probably nobody else) !
I do agree with him as long there is no case law, but my personal feeling
(which as no value as case law !) is that the Court of Justice of the
European Union would *not* follow
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:59:43AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
The GPL has always tried to go as far as copyright would allow to
mandate software freedom. That's what Michael Meeks (and/or Jeremy
Allison -- I heard them both use this phrase within a few weeks of each
other and not sure who
-Original Message-
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:00 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source
license chooser choosealicense.com launched.)
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17
I also believe that incompatibility is a myth.
Here's excellent paper:
http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf
DANGEROUS LIAISONS—SOFTWARE
COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS?
DISTRIBUTION,INSTALLATION, AND EXECUTION
OF LINKED PROGRAMS UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW,
COMMERCIAL LICENSES, AND THE GPL
Larry, it seems that you responded to my point that calling the GPL by the
name 'infection' is a slur that spreads needless discord with (paraphrased)
it's not the GPL; it's the work that *you*, Bradley, and others have done
enforcing the GPL that's an infection on our community.
This doesn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
