On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I am sorry about joining the discussion late. This sounds interesting.
Brian, do you mind clarifying your question without rehashing what has been
discussed? I do not want to bore those who have
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I am sorry about joining the discussion late. This sounds interesting.
Brian, do you mind clarifying your question without rehashing what has been
discussed? I do not want to bore those who have followed the thread, but
what do you mean by
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I am sorry about joining the discussion late. This sounds interesting.
Brian, do you mind clarifying your question without rehashing what has been
discussed? I do not want to bore those who have followed the
From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I hope this is not the case. I wouldn't like Microsoft to have the ability
to suppress WINE because it uses the Windows API.
[DJW:] They are attempting to achieve something
similar for MS Office products. The MSDN Library
licence forbids the use
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, phil hunt wrote:
I'm not familiar with Perl, so I'll attempt to translate this into C
for clarification.
OK.
I create a library in C. The interface is defined in mylibrary.h.
For someone to use my library, they must:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
There are IP lawyers I know who will argue up and down that software
implemented to a specification is a derivative work of that spec, so that
spec's copyright terms need to be obeyed (which is why I said both the
spec and the code were under my
From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
hypocrisy. As the open source community has long since proven repeatedly,
particularly with its contributions to Internet-related software, the
enforcement of appropriate standards can be encouraged and achieved
without
recourse to
"Lawrence E. Rosen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was trying to point out that you CAN'T ALLOW someone to use your name
-- e.g., ALL uses, even friendly ones, are misuses -- because it is YOUR
trademark and not theirs. If you allow a third party who creates a
derivative work to market that
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Eric Jacobs wrote:
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm saying two things: if you create a derivative work
from my code, then the license says if you change the behavior of the
functions or macros, etc., defined in my .h, that you must call it
something else.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, phil hunt wrote:
IMO it could be hard to define what is or isn't the same behaviour.
Granted that "compatible" would need to be rigorously defined by the
license, and it would be up to the original copyright holder to ascertain
if a derivative work was non-compliant; and if
Brian,
Just a real world example:
SGI owns the OpenGL trademark, and it cannot be used without the
appropriate licensing from SGI. The OpenGL API is publicly available,
and Brian Paul created an open source project which he named "Mesa3D"
because he couldn't use the OpenGL trademarked name.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
And this IP lawyer will argue up and down that copyright law protects
expression and not the underlying ideas. Implementing a specification
without copying code is creating neither a copy nor a derivative work of
that specification.
Would you
Hi,
I can see the need for namespace protection; but it is clear that to
remain in the spirit of an open-source system it would have to be done
very carefully. I mean:
Its reasonable (from my point of view):
1) To say that any extension to the API must use a particular form of
name - e.g.
Eric Jacobs wrote:
without exercising control over the quality of his derivative works
"OSI Certified" is a certification mark, a kind of trademark. Yet open
source software authors can claim their software to be "OSI Certified",
not just "equivalent to OSI Certified". This doesn't
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Secondarily, I'm saying even if you didn't implement my code, but
followed the published document that describes the spec (which I also
put under this license), you'd have to follow the same rules.
This cannot be accomplished with an open source copyright license.
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Would you agree that if I took one of Shakespeare's plays and reworked it
into a screenplay, or novel, that my work would be a derivative work?
Throw in translating to Chinese for good measure. Throw in adding some
extra scenes and characters to really flesh out my
, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:38:31 -0400
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Would you agree that if I took one of Shakespeare's plays and
reworked it
into a screenplay, or novel, that my work would be a derivative
work?
Th
OK, so we have two new analogies to implementing an API, that of "baking a
cake from a recipe" and "that of building a house from blueprints". I
still think the line between that and "write a novel based on a
Shakespeare play" is not defined. What is the relevant case history,
especially in
"OSI Certified" is a certification mark, a kind of trademark. Yet open
source software authors can claim their software to be "OSI Certified",
not just "equivalent to OSI Certified". This doesn't constitute
abandonment of the trademark -- does it?
"OSI Certified" is a certification mark, a
Chloe Hoffman wrote:
In the U.S. at least, building a house from a blueprint is creating a
copy of an architectural work
Oops, put my foot in it. No dog biscuit!
- see the definition of an "architectural
work" in s. 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act and other limitations in s.
120.
Well,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
OK, so we have two new analogies to implementing an API, that of "baking a
cake from a recipe" and "that of building a house from blueprints". I
still think the line between that and "write a novel based on a
Shakespeare play" is not defined.
sing?
Rod
-Original Message-
From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 5:34 PM
To: John Cowan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
OK, so we have two new analogies to implementing an API, that
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Let's say I created a specification for an interface in Perl; call it
Foo::Bar. Let's further say I published the specification, and a
collection of code that implemented it, under a BSD-style license, with
the sole added clause that any
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm saying two things: if you create a derivative work
from my code, then the license says if you change the behavior of the
functions or macros, etc., defined in my .h, that you must call it
something else. However, if you keep the same interface (keep
Let's say I created a specification for an interface in Perl; call it
Foo::Bar. Let's further say I published the specification, and a
collection of code that implemented it, under a BSD-style license, with
the sole added clause that any derivative work that changed the
implementation in a way
-Original Message-
From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: namespace protection compatible with the OSD?
Let's say I created a specification for an interface in Perl; call it
Foo::Bar. Let's further
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trademarks and copyrights, as I'm sure you know, are two entirely different
types of intellectual property.
Well, sure, but using copyright law to protect naming has served Apache
well, at least. There is still a substantial reason to not want to
27 matches
Mail list logo
