Linux-Advocacy Digest #770, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [Handhelds] Linux may be abandoned for WinCE here. (lars brinkhoff)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 05:47:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Gresham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
Interesting points - I must admit I never thought of it that way.
Cheers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:00:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/18/00
> at 05:18 PM, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>BZZZT! Wrong. If you read my messages, you will see that I never said what
[...]
>BZZZT what hell makes you think everyone reads everything you say?
BZZZT You misunderstood the exchange, I think.
>BZZZZT you made blanket, black/white statement. If I have it wrong, its not
>my mis-interpretation, but your lack of clearly stating what you really mean.
>-- But lets see what you really know. Why don't you give your of the things
>government has blotched and that business didn't.
BZZZT He made a one line response to JS/PL stating he should engage in
the 'cursory glance at history' before attempting to discuss the issue.
I can understand why someone would want to debate whether government
ever has successfully "run a business", but you do realize you are
arguing for JS/PL's position, don't you?
>BZZZZZT I have repetitive motion injuries to both hands that lead errors.
>Frankly, I didn't the post significant enough to make extra work of it.
BZZZZT Then maybe you shouldn't have bothered.
BZZZZT What's up with this, anyway?
BZZZZT Thanks for your time. Hope it BZZZZT helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:22:37 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote [about the TholenBot and others]:
> Of course, rand() in and by itself tends to be deterministic. You really
> want to put an srand(time(NULL)) before it, or your program tends to be
> very boring.
So rand() it is. They *are* very boring, aren't they?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:24:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8kto85$ji0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>I think the question of RIPEM is really a questions of law. What is
>>a derivative work? If not, has one of the other exclusive rights
>>been infringed?
>>
>>Both sides would probably agree on the material facts, and each would
>>likely ask for summary judgement. (Summary judgement is when the
>>material facts of a case are not in dispute, and the judge can decide
>>the case by applying the law to those facts.)
>
>Copyright infringement normally must involve actually copying
>the covered work. Even if the running program is considered
>a derived work, the user may obtain a copy of the gmp library
>on his own [...]
I think the issue lies in this right here. Copyright infringement
involves copying the *intellectual property*. Now, with "normal" IP,
the situation might be misleading, since books and music don't have any
functional operation. The user can obtain a copy of the source code,
the "covered work". But he does not obtain the *intellectual property*,
since he has no ownership of that work.
>without any violation so the copied material
>isn't really the issue here unless someone copies a
>static-linked binary - and even then it seems odd
>since the user has the right to obtain and use this
>himself.[...]
End users have the right to pretty much absolutely anything they want
with their source code, just as they own and control a book. But where
does the intellectual property come into it? Only when we're talking
about redistributors and developers. Any end-user can become one of
these at will. But then they're dealing with the intellectual property,
not a copy of it which they own. Is anybody following this?
>The case would have to involve some unusual
>concept of how the derivative is forbidden by the
>license terms and how not distributing the library
>is an attempt to circumvent the law. Given the number
>of people who now have gmp as a standard system
>library (in a linux distribution) I think it would
>be pretty hard to make that argument today. Perhaps
>a few years ago it would be unusual to distribute
>source that needed such a library without including
>it, but it would be normal today.
But as soon as a "developer" starts linking libraries, we aren't dealing
with the copy of the IP which is the source code, freely distributable
and without restrictions. Once the matter is a process of distribution,
rather than a programmer enjoying the freedom of his legally owned
software source code, then the intellectual property starts
'manifesting' again.
How close is the actual source in the non-GPL library to the original
library? According to my reasoning, the fgmp library is a derivative
work of mp, regardless of the "interface copyright" issue. It does, I
think, coincide with your supposition that not distributing fgmp with
RIPEM, and PTF not distributing RIPEM, is an attempt to outfox the GPL.
I'm sorry to say it also might seem "some unusual concept of how"
derivative works work in software copyright. But I think it holds up.
I did, however, get confused by your last two sentences. Could you go
over that again?
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:28:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You replied to that specific message, but deleted my question. That
>looks
>to me like a refusal to answer the quetion. Choosing not to answer is
>the
>same as refusing to answer, unless I'm missing some subtlety you surely
>should be happy to explain.
What was the question again? I'll answer it if its that important to
you. I do hope it wasn't an off-target attempt to redirect the
discussion, though.
>> >If I called you a orangutan that copulates with dead chimpanzees, the
>> >fact of you not having red hair would not make it any less insulting.
>>
>> I suppose that is self-evident, though I clearly have no idea why you
>> think it would be an issue.
>
>Because of the obvious parallelism?
I meant beyond the obvious ad hominem intent.
>> Your apparent insistence that making money
>> is some sort of higher purpose was the subject at issue, not my general
>> appearance or sexual preferences, neither of which have come up lately,
>> AFAIK.
>
>You really should stop putting words in my mouth. I have given enough
>proof in my life and contributions to diverse causes of my relatively
>low appreciation for money, and need not defend here.
Don't blame me; you're the one who's tap-dancing, IMHO. I'm not the one
who's unable or unwilling to determine if a statement is information or
rhetoric.
>> I think maybe you need to consider that some statements are intended to
>> be taken literally, and some are not, and often they occur in a
>> staggering variety of combinations in human languages. If you took
>> offense at my suggestion of suicide as an optimal service to society if
>> you believe making money is an end in itself, you have obviously
>> mis-classified it. The category in which it rightfully belongs,
>> however, literal or rhetorical, I will leave for you to determine. So
>> you tell me, "Am I talking about you?"
>
>I take offense at the suggestion of doing many bad things to people
>who fit many descriptions I don't fit. That's not unusual.
Is that a yes, or a no? For that matter, what is it to begin with?
>Throwing an insult under the thin disguise of an if, is, let's say,
>disingenuous. In principle it assumes that it is correct to insult
>those who fit the condition. It's just a cheap rethoric trick.
Something about red hair and orangutans comes to mind. Is that what you
meant?
>As for the final question, if you don't know who you are talking about,
>that's your own problem.
No, that's my question. Answering it seems to be your problem.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:39:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>So the program is based on the intellectual property of the library, and
>>therefore is a derivative work.
>
>Again, maybe in your special world derivative works can be based on things
>that have not yet been written, but not under United States copyright law.
Look, I've been through this with Roger, and compared to him, you aren't
even close to defusing my argument. My "special world" is the real
world, and unless you can explain or evidence quite precisely why my
position is not accurate, consistent, or practical, then I'm afraid this
is going to be a rather tiresome exchange.
If you think the law doesn't make sense, and can only be divined by
special priests with non-intuitive views, then you don't understand
enough about the law. The precedents haven't been written; that is a
valid observation. So now what? You assume an argument from ignorance
is valid? I don't think so.
>> Perhaps the idea of literary property
>>will illustrate the point sufficiently. Consider Star Wars, the
>>original movie. It was, in fact, the fourth story in a series which at
>>that time existed only in someone's imagination. Does that mean that
>>George Lucas has no copyright on it, if he should hire someone to write
>>Episode III for him?
>
>Is this a trick question, or are you just clueless?
Is that an answer, or an admission of guilt?
>Assuming this is not a trick question, based somehow on you referring
>to common-law copyright on a work before 1978, the answer is quite
>simple -- George Lucas had no Federal copyright on a story that was
>only in his imagination, either under the 1909 or 1976 Copyright Acts.
Actually, the real issue would be work-for-hire, but that's beside the
point. It was an analogy, and the question was rhetorical. The answer
is that if George Lucas hires someone to write something, its his
intellectual property. As is the general "non-literal" concept of the
various characters and features of the "Star Wars Universe", as
evidenced by Mr. Lucas's previous work. If someone *else* were to right
Episode III, without Mr. Lucas's permission, he would be infringing on
copyrighted work by creating a derivative of the IP he does not own.
Of course, nobody would care, unless he tried to sell it. Nobody but
Mr. Lucas, probably, would care if he tried to give it away.
>Under the 1909 Copyright Act, effective until the end of 1977, you had
>to publish the work with notice and register the work for Federal copyright.
>If it's just in your imagination, it's not published.
>
>Under the 1976 Act, you had to fix the work in a tangible medium of
>expression for Federal copyright to subsist (17 USC 102(a)). Again,
>in one's imagination is not fixation in a tangible medium of expression.
Ah, but the real question is not whether 'in your imagination' is
'fixed', as that is merely an idea, and ideas can't be copyrighted. The
real question is what *is* "fixed". Does writing a program that
requires a library which has not yet been coded but must, by definition,
already be "worked out", not 'fix' the intellectual property of the
library, if only in the tangible medium of the program?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:40:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) writes:
> >> > [...]
> >> > >Just don't try to print anything and then have your box immediately
> >> > >respond; even on our new G4 (which is some seriously cool hardware,
> >> > >BTW) the whole machine locks up for a few seconds when you print.
> >> > >Oh,
> >> > >and what was that new feature in 9? You could actually use the
> >> > >machine while it was copying files? :) Fun stuff.
> >> >
> >> > I thought that was a new feature in System 7. It was, in fact. But
> >> > then, Windows uses the same line of bull.
> >>
> >> Nope. I have a PowerBase 180 with System 7.5x and it locks the whole
> >> thing up while copying a file.
> >
> >Actually, it doesn't, IIRC. The Finder isn't multi threaded, so the
> >Finder become useless while copying. But you can use other programs.
>
> Oops. I must have gotten confused, and got it backwards. I just posted
> that you could use the Finder, but not other apps. So did System 9 get
> a multi-threaded Finder?
8.0 got the multi threaded Finder.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 02:51:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
>>"intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
>>form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
>>context and purpose.
[...]
>If you'd like a little meaning for it, read the rest of Title 17, the
>Congressional Reports accompanying its enactment, the court cases
>interpreting it, and the various commentators on copyright law.
You're trolling, Lee. Do you have a point, or do you just want to get
on the record as assuming I'm wrong without refuting my statements?
>"Intellectual property" is a general term that includes copyrights,
>patents, trade secrets, and trademarks which are valuable and can
>be sold or licensed. Each type of intellectual property has its
>own laws and rules, in most cases established in the United States
>by Congress.
I'm wondering when we're going to get to the point where you present
some new information or consideration.
>>I have my own ideas, of course, but the only support they have is my
>>best effort to ensure that they accurately, consistently, and
>>practically reflect nature and observations.
>
>There is no requirement that the copyright and patent protection that
>Congress puts in place "reflect nature". It is helpful if the courts
>can reasonably interpret Congress' intentions.
There is no requirement whatsoever that any government laws 'reflect
nature'. Are you saying they don't?
>It would be far better if your ideas had support in the statutes and
>the court decisions interpreting and applying them.
They do. I haven't seen you refute them with any citations. A mere
word in a certain ill-considered context is hardly sufficient. The word
"use" in the basic statute, for instance, was applied without any idea
or consideration of functional works such as software. It could not
possibly have been within "Congress' intentions" to apply to half the
software-related issues which it is, commonly. Particularly by Usenet
posters. Likewise, a naked revelation that a derivative work cannot
precede the original does not enable anyone to make a mockery of
copyright law. Provide a court decision, interpretation, or application
which we might examine, and we will consider whether my ideas have
sufficient support to convince you or to satisfy me in precedent,
statute, and opinion. This argument from ignorance doesn't suffice.
Why does it annoy some people so much that I think you can actually make
sense of the world with reason and observation? My descriptions of IP
don't contradict any facts I'm aware of. And there is nothing I would
prefer to having more facts presented so that I might test the mettle
of, modify, or refine my explanation of my position as appropriate. I
don't care if I'm *right*. I just want to be correct.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: lars brinkhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: [Handhelds] Linux may be abandoned for WinCE here.
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:51:31 GMT
*** I'd be very interested in hearing about work done by others ***
*** to reduce the size of Linux. I already know about Graham ***
*** Stoney's CONFIG_MESSAGES and dead function optimisation ***
*** patches. ***
Wallace Owen wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what files in the Linux kernel have data
> declarations whose dimensions can be safely reduced? My efforts
> at producing a small kernel have got the code segment down below
> half a meg, but the data segment is 1.5 megabytes.
I started a port of Linux 2.3.99 to our MIPS R3000-ish device (IDT
RC32064, really). This device usually has 2M flash and 4M RAM.
To reduce the size of the text and data sections, I sorted the output
of the "size" command and investigated the files with the largest
sections.
These are the memory-saving changes I arrived at. They are not really
tested, so some of them may break some functionality.
fs/dcache.c
Changed HASH_BITS from 14 to 8. This reduces the size of the
cache from 128K to 2K.
fs/inode.c
Changed HASH_BITS from 14 to 8. This reduces the size of the
cache from 128K to 2K.
include/linux/blk.h
Changed NR_REQUEST from 256 to 16. This reduces the number of
requests that can be queued. The size of the queue is reduce
from 16K to 1K.
include/linux/major.h
Changed MAX_BLKDEV and MAX_CHRDEV from 256 to 10 and 20,
respectively. This reduces the number of block and character
devices and saves about 40K.
kernel/printk.c
Changed LOG_BUF_LEN from 16384 bytes to 2048 bytes.
include/linux/tty.h
Changed NR_PTYS and NR_LDISCS from 256 and 16, respectively,
to 16 and 4, respectively. Saved about 12K.
Warning: this change may break the pty driver, in which
case further modifications will have to be done to
drivers/char/pty.c.
kernel/panic.c
Changed a buffer from 1024 bytes to 200 bytes.
include/linux/sched.h
Changed PIDHASH_SZ from 1024 to 16, which saves
1008 bytes.
arch/mips/kernel/entry.S
(Has 21184 bytes of data which might be trimmed?)
include/linux/mmzone.h
NR_GPFINDEX from 0x100 to 0x10. Saves 4800 bytes,
but I'm not sure it doesn't break anything.
net/Makefile, net/socket.c, net/nosocket.c
Replacing socket.c with nosocket.c, a file containing
dummy replacement functions for those in socket.c, saves
about 24K.
Warning: this disables the socket API entirely, but it
is currently not used in our product.
net/Makefile, net/network.a, net/core
Excluding net/core/core.o from net/network.a doesn't save
anything. I guess core.o isn't referenced by anything
in the rest of the kernel (except maybe socket.c, see
above).
mm/Makefile, mm/swapfile.c, mm/swap_state.c, mm/noswapfile.c, mm/noswap_state.c
Replacing swapfile.c with noswapfile.c, and swap_state.c with
noswap_state.c saves about 12K. The no*.c files contains empty
replacement functions.
Warning: this disables swapping of anonymous memory, which isn't
used in our product. But note that demand paging of executables
still works.
mm/Makefile, mm/mmap.c
The functions in mmap.c could probably also be replaced by
empty functions. Estimated saving: 9K (not included in the
grand total below).
*, CONFIG_MESSAGES
Applying the CONFIG_MESSAGES patch and disabling all
kernel messages saves about 80K.
The CONFIG_MESSAGES patch was written by Graham Stoney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
With all of the above, and only this enabled in .config:
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y
CONFIG_CPU_R3000=y
CONFIG_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y
CONFIG_ELF_KERNEL=y
CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF=y
CONFIG_MODULES=y
CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y
CONFIG_KMOD=y
CONFIG_CROSSCOMPILE=y
, the kernel is down to about 550K.
Here is the output of "size vmlinux". I think this is without the
CONFIG_MESSAGES patch (it was many months since I worked with this).
text data bss dec hex filename
572128 41964 15860 629952 99cc0 vmlinux
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 06:57:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l35h4$a6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > : The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead of
> > : reciting the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some
> > : proven incidents of wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
> >
> > Why bother repeating the effort of the court case? Go read Judge
> > Jackson's findings of fact. This task has already been done.
>
>
> Very few facts can be found there.
It contains nothing but proven facts. That's the idea.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 03:04:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I know you said you had not followed the example I gave, but this is
>silly.
>
>I'll rephrase it for you here.
Apparently, you posted this before you got my message relating to this
example's presentation. Allow me.
>There is a library called [Lib #1], in the public domain. It's buggy.
>There is a program called [Program], proprietary, that links to [Lib #1].
>[Program] doesn't quite work, because of the bugs in [Lib #1].
[It's worth pointing out this isn't a 'rephrasing', but a general
overhaul, of the example.]
>Someone reimplements [Lib #1] in a binary compatible way, and without bugs,
>calling it [Lib #2].
>[Lib #2] is under the GPL.
>The author of [Lib #2] (or anyone, really), links [Program] to [Lib #2]. That's
>trivial to do.
>
>You have stated a dozen times to have read that example, and that [Program]
>is a derived work of [Lib #2], thus forcing [Program] to comply with the [Lib #2]
>license requirements for derived works.
Yes.
>Now, there you have a program that links to a libC, which is not
>preexistent.
The linking of the program to Library 2 makes the program a derivative
work of Library 2, yes. I don't really care how you justify it in your
mind, but if the program needs the library to perform its function, then
it is a derivative work. The linking may appear trivial to you, but I
would surmise that eventually if it would come up in law, the court
would agree that it is anything but. The ease with which you perform an
act, particularly in software, is not necessarily related to how legal
that act is. The intellectual property of the program doesn't exist
unless it has a library to perform functionality for it, so it is
dependant, and it is derivative.
>Happy? Now, since the program can not be a derived work of something
>that is not preexistent, the program can not be a derived work of libC.
Once again, you mistake the coding process for the creation of
intellectual property. In this case, the "work" is essentially the
creation of a link from a non-functional program to a library. If
that's the only library that would work, there is little doubt that the
program's IP is a derivative of the library's IP.
>Do you get it?
Yes, but I am afraid that you probably still don't. I'd like to know if
anyone else does, though, just to see if any of this tracks.
>Can you explain in what way is progB derived from the preexistent work
>libC, when libC is not preexistent?
By the action of the linking. It is a mass of letters and numbers
previous to that; not intellectual work as software because it is not
functional as software. It is only an idea you have for a program,
until you get it to work. If the linking is what does that, then
whatever you link to is the source of some of your IP, and that makes
your work derivative.
>> Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
>> "intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
>> form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
>> context and purpose.
>
>And what is that supposed to mean?
Meaning. Real concepts, which can be reasonably applied in varying
circumstances. Meaning.
>> I have my own ideas, of course, but the only support they have is my
>> best effort to ensure that they accurately, consistently, and
>> practically reflect nature and observations.
>
>Oh, yeah, derived works of unexistant works are so natural and
>observable.
I didn't say it was easy; only accurate, consistent, and practical.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
