Re: Clarification of GPL

2003-12-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 quote Yes, but they will cite

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

2003-12-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

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

2003-12-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

RE: For Approval: CUA Office Public License

2003-12-22 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

www.fsf.org/licenses/NYC_Seminars_Jan2004.html

2004-01-02 Thread Alexander Terekhov
The following caught my attention. http://www.fsf.org/licenses/200104_seminar.html quote 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

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

2004-01-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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,

Re: IBM's open patent licensing policy

2004-01-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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?

2004-01-16 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

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

2004-01-16 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 parliament

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

2004-01-17 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

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

2004-01-19 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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: PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademark) policy and Open Source

2004-01-27 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 to the

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

2004-01-28 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

2004-02-07 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

2004-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 program) makes something a derivative work? Wouldn't that mean

Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

2004-02-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

Re: For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement Version 1.1

2004-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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: Initial Developer's Public License

2004-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 uneducated

RE: Initial Developer's Public License

2004-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Err. Eclipe.org legal FAQ I meant http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html. 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 this example, the

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

2004-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 the

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

2004-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

Re: Initial Developer's Public License

2004-02-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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

2004-02-14 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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)

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

2004-02-18 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?

2004-03-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 software

Re: Question regarding modules/pluggins license?

2004-03-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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. ***)

Re: Source Distribution License

2004-03-13 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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. --

Re: Source Distribution License

2004-03-15 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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) quote Even though

RE: OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries

2004-04-01 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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]:

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

2004-05-18 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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 copyright law does NOT establish

Re: GPL, derivative works and C++ templates

2004-06-08 Thread Alexander Terekhov
[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,

Re: KDE violates IBM patent

2004-06-11 Thread Alexander Terekhov
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: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]

2012-03-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com 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,

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

2012-03-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org 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

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

2012-03-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com 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

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

2012-03-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org 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

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

2012-03-09 Thread Alexander Terekhov
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Alexander Terekhov alexander.terek...@gmail.com 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

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

2012-03-10 Thread Alexander Terekhov
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com 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.