Linux-Advocacy Digest #793, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Tim Jarman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:52:56 -0400
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>> Max:
>>>>> 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.
>> Lee has consistently pointed out why your position is inaccurate,
>> impractical. You have, however, been consistent -- consistently wrong.
> I don't recall any such arguments provided by Lee. Could you summarize,
> perhaps I missed the posts.
More likely, you were so busy patting yourself on the back for being so
clever you didn't notice.
>> Once again:
>> * libA is written at time 0. It is public domain.
>> * progB is written at time 1.
>> * libC is written at time 2. It is API-compatible with libA, but it
>> fixes bugs in libA. It is GPLed.
> ProgB is an idea.
> LibA is an idea.
> LibA is coded, becoming intellectual property.
> ProgB is coded, becoming intellectual property.
> LibC is coded, potentially copying LibA's intellectual property.
You have made an error; libA is *written* prior to progB -- before
progB was even an idea, someone wrote libA. I put things on a specific
time line -- and you shifted it.
> Books are "written". Programs and libraries are "designed" and "coded".
> You are simply confusing the coding with the creation of intellectual
> property, because no other copyrightable works have any function, and
> therefore aren't designed, they are merely written.
Incorrect. Programs are written. The process of writing a program is a
combination of design and code.
You claim that you're a manager of educational and research resources,
right? Are you *seriously* going to lie through your teeth and tell me
that training programs -- not software -- are not *designed*, merely
*written*? I know better than that; the training program is designed
and the materials are written to support the design. While the
supporting materials are IP in and of themselves, the whole thing --
program and materials is also IP.
Copyright law has ZILCH to do with functionality, merely the expression
-- which means that programs are *written*.
> The law recognizes
> that software is uniquely functional within the realm of copyright law.
Cite, please? The law does *not* recognise functionality as a part of
copyright for software or anything else.
> Why don't you? It isn't a question of whether the code is literally
> copied; that is not ever the issue with copyright.
That is precisely the issue. Your attempt to pretend that the law
*doesn't* cover that only demonstrates the depth of your ignorance of
reality, practicality, logic, and the law.
> It is whether the
> intellectual property is replicated without permission.
You're thinking patents.
> You're over-simplifying, and I realize why it seems to make as much
> sense as my view in practice, but this kind of gedanken experiment
> only enhances the difference between what you think and what is real
> and subject to interpretation by law.
I've not oversimplified at all. The case presented is *very* complex --
and the only one who is varying from interpreted law is you. Hyman
Rosen has brought up _Computer Associates v. Altai_; Lee Hollaar has
pointed to the statute and the congressional record at the time of the
law being passed.
> You can't understand why a library link could make a program
> derivative; I can.
If you're speaking static link, then it *can* make a program derivative
-- but dynamic linking cannot. (IMO, there shouldn't be a distinction
between the two behaviours; either both are or both aren't. IMO. The
law, however, has made the distinction non-academic.)
> The difference is I can also understand why a library link wouldn't
> make a program derivative. I can also see why such a position would
> be inaccurate according to the concept of intellectual property as
> distinct from real property, inconsistent with both the FSF lawyers
> and several illuminating examples of law, and is practical in
> preventing people from capitalizing on that which they do not own.
Please point to these 'illuminating examples of law' -- because you've
not presented them yet.
>> At time 3, someone runs progB with libC on their system instead of
>> libA. Your position is that progB is a derivative work of libC -- which
>> is neither logical nor correct. Lee has explained this in relation to
>> other things, and Hyman has even pointed out that the courts have ruled
>> in such a way that it *isn't* the case.
> Neither case was made, apparently, or I would have changed my opinion.
No, sorry, but that's not true. The cases *have* been made -- you've
just not bothered to listen to the *facts* in favour of your own
inflated opinion of yourself.
> Backtracking in a mongo-thread like this one is a bitch, so I'm not even
> going to bother pointing out the flaws; I no doubt already have, and
> you've either ignored or ridiculed them. Neither leaves me any way to
> know if you were able to consider or understand them.
No, Max, you have not pointed out any flaws. You have creatively edited
and ignored the facts as presented. You're so convinced that you're
right that you're not reading *anything* that anyone is writing.
> Your single reference to the word 'pre-existing' in statute is a thin
> excuse at best for making a case that a program can not be considered
> derivative of a library to which it links.
I didn't say 'pre-existing'; nor, when it has been said by others, has
it been said as *part of the statute* (what you just claimed). The fact
is that the postulate raised has libA preexisting progB.
> A complete consideration of the events in question, if assumed to be
> isolated from the rest of all software, is that the program itself is
> not intellectual property at all.
This is false and merely demonstrates your ignorance. The program *is*
IP. You are assuming that progB merely wraps libA -- when this is not a
valid assumption. If progB uses five different libraries and implements
its own functionality as well ... and you're saying that it *isn't*
IP?
> It's packaging. It becomes intellectual property when it is linked to
> the library, and is therefore derivative of that pre-existing work.
> You can't link a program to a library unless the library exists, and
> that means the program *becomes* derivative, if it relies on that
> library for essential functionality.
Sorry, but you're full of shit.
> [...]
>> Even if progB can be considered a derivative of libA, it cannot be
>> considered a derivative of libC -- the order of creation denies that
>> possibility in the *real world* you claim to be so fond of.
> The order of creation doesn't have anything to do with it.
Incorrect.
> I am not fond of software as intellectual property in any way, for
> the most part. I think for reasons which your illustration does
> attempt to address. But that's because all software is derivative of
> all previous software, IMHO, and not because software as intellectual
> property fails to conform to the laws of physics which you
> inadvisably assume is the case.
*snort*
> [...]
>> Max ... Lee has said that he *teaches* copyright law. I think that
>> you're the one who doesn't have a firm grasp on the law, and I'm
>> beginning to question your grasp on reality.
> I would like to hear more from him, then, because I haven't seen
> anything I wasn't familiar with, nor anything which I believe refutes my
> remarks, in his posts so far.
*snort* You're just ignoring him.
> If you cannot convince me with reason and information, you cannot
> convince me with referral to authority. I am not saying you cannot
> convince me with reason and information; quite the opposite. I am
> saying you, Lee, and Hyman combined have not yet even begun to do so.
You wouldn't know reason and information if they bit you in the ass.
There are numerous facts which do not support your wild-eyed
assertions. These have been presented -- with supporting information --
and you still have pretended that they are assertions instead of
facts.
> [...]
>> In other words, it was a clueless question by you, Max. (Hint: when
>> someone is hired to write a story, they are usually signing over the
>> copyright under the arrangement.) IP doesn't *property* until it's
>> fixed in a tangible form, as Lee makes clear in his next paragraph.
> Notice how as we get further, your ad hominem gets more and more
> prevalent.
(Notice how Max gets dumber and dumber as he gets contradicted further
and further by the facts, reality, and logic.)
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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".
>> Are you stupid or just clueless, Max? Is the program in a tangible medium
>> of expression? Then it's fixed. Even if the program won't run, it's still
>> covered by copyright law.
> No, that is an incorrect assumption.
No, it's not.
> If it needs to be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" by law,
> then it most certainly wouldn't be proper to assume that it is fixed
> simply because it is in a tangible form, nor assume that it is always
> in a tangible form.
"Fixed" in this case does not mean 'unchanging'. Rather, consider that
Oracle has a copyright notice from 1977 - 2000 for its software. As
each version was released, its copyright was fixed on the release year
and version.
And software most certainly *is* in a tangible form -- it can be
manipulated.
Main Entry: 1tan7gi7ble
Pronunciation: 'tan-j&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin tangibilis, from Latin tangere to touch
Date: 1589
1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch :
PALPABLE
b : substantially real : MATERIAL
2 : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her
grief was tangible>
3 : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible
assets>
Can you perceive software? Absolutely -- whether it's running or not.
You can look at, print out, modify, etc. the source code, which means
that it is most certainly tangible.
> It may indeed be the case that this same assumption is shared by many
> who professionally interpret the statute, but that doesn't make it any
> more sound; argument by popular opinion is not my goal.
The courts have interpreted the statute that way. That's not popular
opinion, that's law.
> Reason indicates that if the statute merely needed to say "fixed" and
> that by definition included being in a tangible form, then that is,
> indeed, all it should have said.
For some value of reason, where that value is being the deranged person
known as T. Max Devlin.
> It is being "fixed in a tangible form of expression", in its entirety,
> which is necessary to be considered, I believe.
Can you decide what you're going to argue, Max?
> Perhaps Lee could give me some additional instruction on this matter,
> if he teaches and assumably understands copyright law.
> But obviously being in a tangible medium of expression doesn't *have*
> to mean its fixed, though I'm sure it is.
Fixed in this case does not mean that the work is forever unchangeable.
If I write a novel and submit it to be published, my copyright exists
from the point where I have first written the first word of the novel.
The editor can work with me to change this expression up until the work
is published, and when we go from one format to another, we can change
it again if there were errors in the first printing or format.
The copyright is consistent throughout.
> Then again, fixing the same idea into a different tangible medium of
> expression through a separate, possibly subsequent, action would be
> an independent piece of intellectual property.
Yes, it would, but not for the reasons you would pretend. Fixing the
*expression* is what makes copyright law IP work. Not the idea. Get
over yourself, because you're wrong.
> Regardless, if you think the issues are clear cut, you don't understand
> either software or intellectual property.
I do quite understand them; I understand that copyright protects the
expression, not the idea, and that it doesn't have shit to do with
functionality.
>> One more time for the slow: copyright law says nothing about
>> functionality, only expression.
> One more time for those with too many assumptions: that is an argument
> from ignorance.
Incorrect. This is statement of fact. Douglas Coupland wrote a novel,
_Microserfs_, that contained five pages of nonsense (literally; it
wasn't meaningful in any human language). Those five pages are still
covered by copyright, even though they are effectively non-functional
in the sense of a novel.
> Are you trying to *deny* that there is an ongoing and rather heated
> debate among the professionals concerned over whether the non-literal
> aspects of software are covered by copyright?
Explain what you mean by non-literal. The *only* thing protected in
software copyright (and this has been decided in the courts, as Lee and
Hyman have presented the cases to you) is the software itself. Not the
function. The source code and the translation of the source code (the
binary) are the protectable forms -- not the behaviour.
> Would you like to do some research, or ask some questions, so that
> you can discuss the matter? I'd love to consider some real cases.
> This imaginary stuff is getting rather tired.
Yes, it is -- which is why it would be nice if you could present even
*one* case that supported your lunacy.
>>> Does writing a program that requires a library which has not yet be
>>> 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?
>> No. By saying that the library must do a, b, c, with the interfaces a',
>> b', and c' -- you have set an API. The expression of a library is fixed
>> when the library is written. This would be rather like saying that "to
>> be a Star Wars story, it has to have the following characteristics..."
> True, the intelletual property protected as Star Wars does not follow
> any such rules. But if it did, they would be *descriptive*, not
> *definitive*. I'm quite sure you'll have difficulty grasping the
> difference.
Sorry, but you erred here in several ways. The IP protected as Star
Wars *does* follow such rules (or have you perhaps missed the fact that
there's a large body of non-Lucas Star Wars books authorized by
LucasArts). These rules are the "API" of Star Wars stories. They do not
restrict the *content*, only the boundaries.
Your attempt at declaring such rules as 'descriptive' and not
'definitive' (and the converse that APIs are 'definitive' and not
'descriptive') ... is another error. Just because it must do a, b, and
c with a', b', and c' does nto meant that it cannot also do e, f, and g
with e', f', and g' -- the API does not fix the expression of the
library, the *writing* of the library behind the API fixes the
expression of the library. This is fact, not conjecture.
> Your description of the API from which the program is created has
> nothing to do with intellectual property, other than to allow you to
> plan who's intellectual property you wish to make your program
> derivative of.
False. PhotoShop plugins technologically work in both The GIMP and
PhotoShop. They both have the same API -- but neither is a derivative
of the other. (How's that for a fact, Max?)
>> The 'rules' for writing a Star Wars story are established, but they do
>> not *fix* the universe of all possible Star Wars stories in any way.
>> (If libC provides functionality d, e, and f with interfaces d', e', and
>> f' in addition to a', b', and c' -- then it's not even necessarily
>> constrained by the API requirements set forth by progB.)
> Nor does it need to be, for 'progB' to be a derivative work.
progB *isn't* a derivative work of libC in any way. (Watch -- Max will
write this long, incoherent, and idiotic response pretending that it is
... despite the factual and logical reality that, well, it isn't.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
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 23:54:39 GMT
In article <8l4a6f$qgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39752aad$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8l35h4$a6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> : The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead
> > >> : of
> > >reciting
> > >> : the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some proven
> > >> : incidents
> > >of
> > >> : wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
> > >>
> > >> Why bother repeating the effort of the court case? Go read
> > >> Judge Jackson's findings of fact. This task has already been
> > >> done.
> >
> >
> > >Very few facts can be found there.
> >
> > Are you for real? Its "factual" enough that now M$ is hanging on
> > thread praying and paying that US Supreme Court will not make them
> > into ieces. --- Its over and you need to get a life.
>
> Pfft. It's a long document containing largely a *single* judge's
> _opinions_, and very few facts.
Please quote me an opinion from the Findings of Fact.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:55:50 -0400
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>> It would be far better if your ideas had support in the statutes and
>>>> the court decisions interpreting and applying them.
>>> They do.
>> Not.
>>> I haven't seen you refute them with any citations.
>> Which merely means that you haven't been reading.
> No, it means I've read their statements and don't consider them to be
> reasonable support for their contentions. I haven't ignored either
> their contentions or their attempts at reasoning, and have happily
> discussed these, directly addressing many of their remarks. Why would
> that indicate to you that I've not read them?
Like I said; you haven't been reading. You've been presented with facts
and respond only with lies, conjecture, and insults. You won't present
any facts of your own (could it be that you don't have any) and haven't the
first clue about which you talk, and revel in it.
You, sir, are a buffoon and a fool. I'll now stop being a fool by arguing
with you. I can't do anything to help you; that appears to be a permanent
problem you have.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
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 23:59:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > Enough facts for Microsoft to be convicted of breaking numerous
> > laws.
> >
> >
> > It only takes one judge, btw.
>
> It takes more than one judge. That's the beauty of the legal system.
> MS was on the path to being railroaded by this judge from day one
> which was his first mistake. The findings of fact are the culmination
> of his railroading activity. No Microsoft evidence was looked at
> during his "finding of fact" where he merely re-wrote the DOJ's
> opening statements.
Microsoft "evidence?" Like that fraudulent video tape? Or maybe you mean
all that hand waving and screaming about taking things out of context?
Strange Microsoft never bothered to release that context to clear those
issues up.
> It will all be thrown out.
Not unless Bush gets elected and Microsoft buys him. Even that might not
work, because Microsoft's competitors are all big companies with deep
pockets as well.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not by volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Jarman)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:01:44 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:47:47 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil
hunt) wrote:
>
>MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came up
>with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they thinking of?
>
>--
>***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
>Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
>Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
No - that would be too quick a death. Something lingering, with
boiling oil in it.
--
freedom, joy & love
Tim
http://www.mycgiserver.com/~tmjarman/
(Opening soon: www.rolloverjehovah.co.uk)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
