-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 20:50
Well, and what is about all non open source software?
For those it IS a issue if inheritance is (that is you
speaking not me)derived work.
AS I allready pointed out in several PMs: most software
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 09:28
if inheritance was legally ruled to be a derived work,
most open source licenses would get rewritten
to grant, unconditionally, the right to inherit.
I don't think that there
-Original Message-
From: Rob Myers
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:01
IANAL, TINLA.
For the latter to be a problem (assuming you don't prohibit it in the
license or just not export the symbols from the DLL), we
assume that new
versions of the grid developed using inheritance
-Original Message-
From: Lawrence E. Rosen
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:12
Do you think the ruling in the Micro Star case would have come down
differently had it not been a copyright case involving a fictional
storyline included in a game? Since what was copied in that
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 09:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IMHO the author gives the user implicitly the right to create a
subclass and override the abstract methods.
I'm not so sure -- creating abstract
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 23:24
The `right to derive classes`? I thought someone explained,
quite thoughtfully, that this was NOT a matter of concern
under copyright law.
Which one do you have in mind?
IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA
I'll try to put it in as simple terms as possible:
the question you introduced was:
Is class inheritance a derivative work in the eyes of copyright law?
Let's skip the legal debate for a second and skip right to the
possible solutions: either inheritance is
IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA
On Wed, 24 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I withdraw.
That's a shame. I hope, you'll reconsider.
Your posts indicate you've done some legal research.
When you quote case history and legal terms, you appear
quite reasoned.
But
-Original Message-
From: Karsten M. Self
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 15:06
I've been trying to ignore this thread for some time. It's not
possible.
Michael: it's clear that neither facts nor logic will sway your
position. _That_ point has been sufficiently demonstrated.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 02:20
This is german and in most EU countries law.
For germany Urheberrechtsgesetz.
E.g. www.recht.de, follow links to Urheberrechtsgesetz.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything specific. If you could
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Above is only ONE implementation lsited, and
java.util.Dictionary is not
abstract but the base class.
According to my knowledge, it is an abstract class. See:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/api/java/util/Dictionary.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 02:19
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary,
then whose
implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
No-one's.
Is the original work changed? No.
Is the original
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 23:40
The text of Bob's code is not cut and paste, it is not
plagerism, yada yada.
It doesn't have to be Cut Paste. Please see Micro Star v. FormGen:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 02:26
For copyright law is only one thing interesting:
If you look at the piece of derived work, can you still see the
original work?
I would argue that it is sufficient that the original class assumes a
a compatible class implementation in a class.
The open issue is if the inherited class is a derivative work. If yes, then
probably you could substitute the original class only with those concrete
classes that allow you to create derived classes. Of course, IANAL...
Michael
--
license-discuss
-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 00:11
When you derive a class, you're creating a copy of the
original class *on your
machine*. That doesn't mean that if you write code that
derives a class, and
distribute the code, you're distributing copies
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 06:06
Every implementation of the Java language contains the
non-abstract class
java.util.Properties, which does in fact implement all the methods of
Dictionary.
So let us suppose
Hi all!
Michael Beck wrote:
For copyright law is only one thing interesting:
If you look at the piece of derived work, can you still see the
original work?
I would argue that it is sufficient that the original class assumes a concrete
or permanent form in the derived class by
-Original Message-
From: Angelo Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:12
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html
That case is not about derived work but about plain copyright
infringement.
Derived work is something different.
on 24/10/01 1:44 pm, Michael Beck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know, but if had a super-cool grid class,
I certainly would like the copyright to protect me from anyone
buying my grid, creating a subclass, and then marketing it against
me.
Unless they distribute your code without
-Original Message-
From: Rob Myers
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:54
Unless they distribute your code without negotiating a deal
with you (which
is piracy), people will still need to buy your class in order
to use the
oo-derived class. So this would drive sales of your
Michael Beck wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 06:06
Every implementation of the Java language contains the
non-abstract class
java.util.Properties, which does in fact implement all the methods of
I find this thread interesting, and hope that when some consensus is
reached (or the thead dies down and there is perhaps an agreement to
disagree) that someone can summarize the areas of consensus and
disagreement for a layman. (Perhaps the best resting place for
something like that is on a
IANAL, TINLA.
on 24/10/01 2:07 pm, Michael Beck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That doesn't matter. The issue is legal, i.e. does the author holds the right
to future releases of the grid, or can anyone develop new versions of the grid
by using inheritance?
There is no way that they can do
This is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established.
etc etc
From: Michael Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:45:38 -0400
[snip]
Of course, by using
: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Myers
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:54
Unless they distribute your code without negotiating a deal
with you (which
is piracy), people
Chloe Hoffman wrote:
In the case of Java, there seems to be no need to rely on fair use. The
following is from, e.g., the JDK 1.1 documentation:
Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants to you a fully-paid,
nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (without
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why? You, as some others, have suggested that in order to
declare something as
derivative work, it has to contain parts of the original.
The above case shows
that it doesn't have to be the case, that the original part
can assume a
concrete or permanent form by a
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 06:07 am, Michael Beck wrote:
That doesn't matter. The issue is legal, i.e. does the author holds the
right to future releases of the grid, or can anyone develop new versions of
the grid by using inheritance?
A subclass is not a new version of the grid. It is an
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 04:01 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
No, it has nothing to do with it. Otherwise you would imply that every
author not giving away the rights to his/her creation (book, movie, song,
painting, house design, etc.) wants to have a complete megalomaniac
control over their
of open source licensing.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: Michael Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/24/01 6:07:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sunday 21 October 2001 06:13 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 22:24
Deriving a new class is equivalent to linking to an API. No
question about
it. Just examine the mechanism. If
Michael Beck wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 08:54
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then
whose implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
- GNU Classpath's?
-
Michael Beck wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rob Myers
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:14
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then whose
implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
No-one's.
Is the original work changed? No.
Is the
On Sun, 21 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[blah blah blah]
I am not sure that I followed your example.
you draw a blueprint for a lovely two story colonial house.
You copyright the blueprint.
I buy a copy of the blueprint from you.
I look at your blueprint, and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:48
you draw a blueprint for a lovely two story colonial house.
You copyright the blueprint.
I buy a copy of the blueprint from you.
I look at your blueprint, and I go and
draw a blueprint for a lovely
raised in the question, here.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: Angelo Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10/19/01 9:33:08 AM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all!
Rob Myers wrote
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 23:52
The bigger issue (in my opinion) is why the LGPL treats inheritance
differently from composition. Why is a direct function call
different than an indirect function call through a vtable?
Because one is
-Original Message-
From: Rob Myers
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:14
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then whose
implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
No-one's.
Is the original work changed? No.
Is the original work copiedpasted? No.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 00:06
you are attempting to excercise a right that Copyright Law
does not grant you.
you are using words that have double meanings that are
separate and distinct
in their two fields, i.e. derived
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 21:54
Licenses should not be in a position to influence how an
application is
designed. But if the above interpretation really is that of
the FSF, then the
LGPL would be
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 08:54
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then
whose implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
- GNU Classpath's?
- Kaffe's?
- Sun's?
-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 22:24
Deriving a new class is equivalent to linking to an API. No
question about
it. Just examine the mechanism. If anything, inheritance creates an
additional level of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:38
I'm not insisting on that.
So can we agree that a class is a copyrighted entity?
I of course of the oposite opinion, I only liked to point out:
After you have created a
On Sun, 21 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[snip] [back to Michael]
Copies are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed
by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be
perceived,
On Sun, 21 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 00:06
I am afraid, you are mixing class, and interface concepts here. Class is a
design blueprint, similar in its function to chip design or architectural
design, and as such it's protected
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
When you derive a class, you are creating a copy of the original class. When you
make changes to the new class, you are creating a derivative work, the same
way as you would do it by making changes to a copy of book, copy of a picture,
copy of a house
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 00:05
I'm afraid that you're mixing a copyrightable work with a
nice idea.
The work, Alice's database,
and the idea, all databases,
does not prevent Bob from using Alices code, and writing code
of his own
Hi all!
This is indeed a very good post!
It exactly brings to the point what I seemed to have failed in :-(
Ok, seemy three comments below :-)
William Uther wrote:
Hi,
I lurk on the list. I've been skimming the conversation. I thought I'd
try an analogy. Not sure if this will help
Michael Beck wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Angelo Schneider
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 05:33
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in
your license.
Why are in
IANAL, TINLA
on 19/10/01 1:53 pm, Chris Gray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then whose
implementation
of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
No-one's.
Is the original work changed? No.
Is the original work copiedpasted? No.
Is the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 23:34
Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
applications that are
under different licenses and
Hi all!
Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use
of
-Original Message-
From: Angelo Schneider
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 05:33
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in
your license.
Why are in insisting that deriving a new
Hi all!
This a very good answer as it shows where the common missunderstanding
resides!
Please see below.
Michael Beck wrote:
Von: Michael Beck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From: Angelo Schneider
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
Angelo Scneider wrote:
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in your license.
I didn't say I agreed with the FSF/RMS interpretation, I just mentioned
what I remember it to be.
One of the
On Thursday 18 October 2001 12:21 am, Michael Beck wrote:
Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
applications that are
under different licenses and which of subclassed some KDE
classes (kwin,
kicker,
On Thursday 18 October 2001 09:04 am, Michael Beck wrote:
Why are in insisting that deriving a new class is equal to linking to an
API? Unless you believe that a class cannot be copyrighted, please see the
class as a copyrighted entity, the same way as you see a book.
Deriving a new class is
Hi,
I lurk on the list. I've been skimming the conversation. I thought I'd
try an analogy. Not sure if this will help or not. I am not a lawyer, nor
do I really know copyright law very well. Feel free to ignore :).
Imagine person A creates a picture. Person B comes along and makes an
On Thursday 18 October 2001 08:20 pm, William Uther wrote:
One could argue that in the second case the overlay is merely USING the
original picture, and that the original picture can be copied because of
its license. I suspect that a court would rule that you have a derived
work here.
On Tue, 16 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The issue is that
when I release something under OpenSource, I want to make sure that it will be
used as is, and if there is any derivative work, it will benefit the
community, i.e. it will be
On Thursday 18 October 2001 09:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 October 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The issue is that
when I release something under OpenSource, I want to make sure that it
will be used as is, and if there is
OOP!!!
Sorry, my bad.
There's four 's in front of your name, but
the text below it has three 's, so the quote
should go to Michael?
not even sure anymore. my cut and paste sucks on this machine.
but it was quite misleading.
Sorry again.
Greg
On Thu, 18 October 2001, David Johnson wrote:
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use
of inheritance constitutes the creation of a
[ Apologies if multiple copies were sent -- mail server problems ]
Michael Beck wrote:
I just got a response from FSF lawyers stating that inheritance is considered
^^^
modifying the library (see below). My question was related to releasing code
[...]
Hi all!
The FSF is incorrect.
However your extract and the talk with the FSF might have been
missleading, see below.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more thorough analysis
of the situation from them
on 17/10/01 2:34 pm, Angelo Schneider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Germany dynamic linking is: derived work.
Its up to your lisence if you allow it.
Inheritance is NOT, NOWHERE, NEVER a derived work.
However incorporating the derived class plus the base class into a piece
of software
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 19:05
I've been watching the exchange on this topic with interest.
Great, finally a lawyer here!
While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more
thorough analysis
of the
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted the
comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance to post
the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use of inheritance
constitutes the creation of a derivative
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 00:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
That said, inherited classes are not derivative of the base
classes
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 00:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more thorough analysis
of the situation from them before I accept their conclusion. In
particular, how does inheritance differ in a substantive and legally
significant way from traditional
On Tuesday 16 October 2001 03:22 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
I just got a response from FSF lawyers stating that inheritance is
considered modifying the library (see below). My question was related to
releasing code under LGPL and wanted to make sure that I've interpreted
correctly the
.
You might want to check the list archives for related discussion.
I recall one thread had the subject Copyrightable APIs
There are distinct types of works discussed in this
thread, which I think that is causing some confusion.
Instead of asking whether an inherited class is a
derivative work
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
Michael Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derived class is a derivative work, because it is based on, or extends,
the original class. Using would
Angelo Schneider scripsit:
In source code this means: portions of the original source code must be
present.
I repeat: this falls down on the question of translations. Translate
a piece of Java code into Prolog, none of the original text will survive,
but it is most definitely a derivative
On Sunday 14 October 2001 11:21 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 16:40
A derivative work must contain at least portions of the
original work.
The new inherited class extends the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 16:40
A derivative work must contain at least portions of the
original work.
The new inherited class extends the original class, i.e. it contains
(implicitly) the whole base
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 11:48
Greg,
thanks for your comments.
first of all, you're mixing USE (inherit)
with MODIFY. A derived class is not a modification
of the original.
Derived class is a
We have a discussion going on internally about inheritance. Some people believe
that when you subclass/inherit/derive a new class, you are creating a
derivative work in the copyright sense, especially when you override existing
methods. Others believe that inheritance is delegation of
Michael Beck wrote:
Some people believe that when you subclass a new class,
you are creating a derivative work in the copyright sense,
especially when you override existing methods.
The scary scenario is that somebody will inherit a
class, make some modifications to it, and then claim
On Saturday 13 October 2001 03:54 am, Michael Beck wrote:
We have a discussion going on internally about inheritance. Some people
believe that when you subclass/inherit/derive a new class, you are creating
a derivative work in the copyright sense, especially when you override
existing
David Johnson scripsit:
A derivative work must contain at least portions of the original work.
I know what you mean, but that's poorly worded. Translations, for example,
don't contain any literal portion of the original, but are paradigm cases
of derivative works.
Dependency alone does not
83 matches
Mail list logo
