Linux-Advocacy Digest #401, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:22 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:26:18
GMT;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Les often gets hung up on the idea of software functionality and
>> copyright. He insists "functionality is not protected", as if that is
>> all there is to it.
>
>No, I have never said anything like that. What I have said is that
>each library may have its own terms to allow you to use it. Having
>met those terms, you may then use those libraries by running
>code that calls their functions. However, the owner of the library
>may not claim to own or control the separate code that calls it.
Now you are not only confused about the principle you support which I
described; now you're confused about the description, and have invented
a whole new unrelated issue, simply because it was too much for you to
think and to realize I was referencing an opinion you hold which is not
necessarily related to the discussion you are currently having. The
mistakes you make concerning "functionality is not protected" have
nothing to do with this metaphysical weirdness about "control" which you
are now trying to make sense of. The owner of the library is perfectly
entitled to claim ownership of code that calls it if that code is
derivative of the intellectual property embodied in the library. Hell,
the program doesn't even have to call the code, for there to be a
potential for it to infringe.
>> But functionality does not have to be *protected*
>> in order for copyright to involve functionality when it comes to
>> software. If a piece of software is not functional, it might be
>> considered code, but it can't be considered "a program", and only
>> programs merit copyright protection. A non-functional snippet can, of
>> course, be copyrighted, but that is because its function would be to be
>> a non-functional snippet; a piece of text, putatively assumed to be
>> natural language.
>
>The functionality is irrelevant as far as copyright protection goes. An
>abstract work of art has the same level of protection as functional code.
Correct. Now, are you going to say that the "next version" of an
abstract work of art is the "same product"? Copyright is book-keeping,
not metaphysics.
>> >In short, how do you decide which party can sue and which can't?
>>
>> I'm afraid that's a conundrum with any intellectual property. All the
>> more reason to support the GPL as the only method of *guaranteeing* that
>> software will remain open source.
>
>No, it just guarantees that a lot of useful things won't exist.
If you say so. I'm of the opinion that the only reason they wouldn't
exist is because they're not anywhere near as useful as you seem to
think.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:25 GMT
Said Graham Murray in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 05 Apr 2001 11:56:35
+0000;
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Netscape can't be derivative of any plug-ins because plug-ins are
>> useless without Netscape, but not the other way around. *Netscape* is
>> the equivalent of the library (note that app becomes platform), which
>> means the plug-ins (any add-ons to Netscape, regardless of what they're
>> called *or what they are or do*) are derivative of Netscape, not the
>> other way around.
>
>How does this fit in the case of RealPlayer and Adobe Acrobat Reader?
>These are fully functional applications in their own right but can
>also be both plugin and helper[1] applications to both IE and
>Netscape. Also some of the RealPlayer functions will not work without
>a browser, so both applications depend on each other. Or is the case
>that only the "glue logic/library" is a derivative of both
>applications but the applications are not derivatives of each other.
They fit perfectly well with the formulation of the issue advanced by
the FSF. Whether functions will work without a library (browser in this
case) is entirely irrelevant. Does the plug in work, is it a commodity?
If presence of a library is entirely optional, the program still
provides value without it, then I don't suppose there's any way to claim
infringement. That, in fact, seems to me to be the issue here; a
program is infringing, regardless of how derivative it might be in
either code or process, or how the technical dependency works, or
whether any explicit code is present in any particular place or not, if
it is a necessary dependency.
If there are only "voluntary dependencies" of whatever type, the program
would still be a functional program (for _whatever_ definition of
'function' any person uses) if the neither the operator or the developer
has access to copyrighted works from anyone other than either of them,
it cannot be considered derivative.
If a program is ported across multiple platforms, operating systems,
libraries or whatever, then it is not derivative of any of them in a
copyright sense, merely a functional sense which does not bear
protection; the alternative would be like saying that any book
discussing Romeo and Juliet would be Shakespear's property.
Thus, the conundrum that seems to afflict software copyright is a
difference in the perception of just what "software" is, because what
makes it valuable to those who develop it is a different commodity than
those who find it valuable to use are paying for. The nature of
copyright law as a matter of "social benefit", mentioned frequently in
the decisions concerning video game consoles and die-mixing software,
seems to be in conflict.
Is it the fact that an author can write them, or that a consumer can
read them, that makes books valuable?
>[1] If I understand the distinction correctly, a plugin displays its
>output inside the browser display (as though it is an item of markup)
>whereas a helper application
It seems pretty obvious, I think, that things like that can't have
anything to do with the issue. Even the concepts 'plug-in' and
'browser' are meaningless, though I suppose 'display' must be taken into
account because of the very principle I tried to explain above: what is
protected by copyright is whatever is valuable to the consumer, because
the only reason for protection is to provide profit to authors, based on
the theory that this advances the development of the sciences and useful
arts. If that 'social good' is not met, there is no intellectual
property to be protected. A program has to provide a display, I
suppose, so some characteristics of that might indicate whether it is
infringing. But whether it is a browser or a plugin or library or
whatever is meaningless in determining whether it is derivative. That
is simply a matter of *functional* dependency, I'm afraid, despite the
fact that function itself is not what is being infringed, as function
does not merit copyright protection. It is simply the way one knows
what is derivative, the same way its rather easy to see that West Side
Story is derivative, though none of the derivational aspects merit
protection. Certainly it's easier to see that Jim Carrey's Grinch is
derivative of Dr. Suess' intellectual property, but its possible the
only reason West Side Story isn't a landmark case like My Sweet
Lord/She's So Fine is because Shakespear's work is now in the public
domain.
I'm well aware that my opinions seem outrageously ludicrous to many
people, and extremist to almost everyone who isn't a complete flake
themselves. Its certainly not surprising that the contention that
someone writing a plugin for a browser can be said to be infringing on
copyright, and could potentially (at the browser owner's discretion
*entirely*, which means if they don't care, nobody cares) claim you must
license permission from them is greeted with absolute and total
skepticism by the majority of software developers and even legal
experts. But those are two entirely separate domains, we should admit,
and so the status quo is no guarantee that legal software experts
correctly recognize the appropriate interpretation of their own
knowledge. The fact of the matter is that I know few people who don't
think that the My Sweet Lord/She's So Fine case isn't also entirely
ludicrous. And how that consideration might have changed over the last
decade considering musical perceptions and tastes is all the more reason
to recognize that there is an issue with software copyright.
And the interpretation I provide, which does state clearly I will myself
point out, as well as agree when you point it out, provide a legal right
for the browser programmer to sue you for infringement. The only
reason, I believe, this is supportable without completely contradiction
the video game console/cartridge decisions is simply that video game
consoles and cartridges are *NOT* software, to those who purchase them
and therefore make them, and any components used to create them,
valuable. A browser developer who wishes to claim that all plug ins
which are specifically designed for his browser are derivative is
perfectly within his legal right, because he is protecting his
intellectual property, not his market. The fact that nobody does so is
entirely compatible with this fact, and for that reason. There is no
reason any browser developer would want to do so. So to say he 'could',
and that this possibility makes the interpretation I give to software
copyright unsupportable, is a tremendous logical fallacy, I believe. A
browser developer would have no reason and no reward, save making his
browser unattractive to both developers and users, to try to assert his
"rights".
Copyright is book-keeping, not metaphysics. The only reason any
"rights" exist (actually, the only reason the intellectual property
exists; the right to property itself is independent of copyright law) is
because there's money in it. Without protection to ensure an author's
ability to profit if there is any value in his work (the ability to
copyright does not guarantee there is such value), nothing would ever
get published. Everything would effectively be secret, save for a small
and select minority who has access to the secrets and the knowledge to
modify them and add to them and extend them. This doesn't sound like a
very palatable state of affairs, if your aim is to develop the sciences
and useful arts. It does, however, sound exactly like the modern
software world.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:26 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:20:41
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:16:22
>>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:53:34 GMT;
>>>>>On 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>>>>>>the program is written, breaking causality.
>>>>>
>>>>>Breaking causality is a little strong. But the principle Max argues
>>>>>would allow me to write a plug-in for Netscape and then to sue Netscape
>>>>>to stop distribution of their browser that is now capable of calling my
>>>>>new plug-in.
>>>>
>>>>No, but it would allow Netscape to sue you, if they wanted to.
>>>
>>>Over what? Over writting a program that agrees to a spec?
>>
>>No, over writing a program that implements that spec as a necessary part
>>of its functionality.
>
>The plugin implements an interface. That interface is publicly accessible,
>you can read the exac definition of the interface without signing any
>agreements.
That's metaphysics. When I say "implements that spec" and use say
"implements an interface", those are metaphysics, non-comprehensible
terms, to copyright. Something infringes because of a right to profit,
not because of any metaphysical properties.
>If you say that implementing the interface is a copyright violation,
>the copyright of WHAT is being violated?
Are you only now figuring out that 'intellectual property' is an
abstraction, and is not actually bound into physical substance? Nothing
needs to be copied to violate copyright. That's what 99% of the
copyright law is all about.
Perhaps we need a new clause to explain this to software developers,
because their technical education seems to force them to think in terms
of metaphysical manipulations of things. Something like "A software
author has the right to dictate whether anyone ever makes any money on
the very existence of his code in any way now or in the future, and has
no right to keep secret any code he writes which relates functionally to
any other code owned by someone else."
Or maybe we should just give up the silly *pretense* that software is
copyrightable, and run the whole industry with just plain old trade
secret licenses. There's little chance the world will come to a
crashing halt if we do; most people aren't trying to make money on
someone else's effort.
>>>Are you saying they would sue over an API copyright?
>>
>>No, it is not API copyright, though the difference is amazingly subtle.
>
>Or the difference is only in your mind? ;-)
Your ability to grasp abstractions is simply staggering, Roberto. In
case you weren't aware, 'API', 'copyright', and 'intellectual property'
are all also entirely mental concepts. So when someone suggests there's
a difference between two things that you can't see, it's rather insipid
to proclaim it isn't there because you can't see it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:27 GMT
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:22:17
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:20 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:50:04
>>+0100;
>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:09:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 05:30:48
>>>>GMT;
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:41:13 GMT, Isaac wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:28:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 20:17:48 GMT;
>>>>>>It wouldn't take luck. It would simply be a matter of properly
>>>>>>implementing an api already intended to accept future plug-ins. It's
>>>>>>not magic, it's science you simply don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is hardly surprising -- Max doesn't do (or even know very much about)
>>>>>software development: he merely holds very strong opinions about it, as
>>>>>well as a completely unjustified delusion of superiority.
>>>>
>>>>Guffaw.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you'd like to inform us of what (preferably open source, so we
>>>can look at it) projects you've worked on.
>>
>>I'm not working on any "projects", and never have; I am not a
>>professional programmer. So that proves what exactly?
>
>If someone has never written code, their opinions on the subject are
>liable to be taken less seriously than someone who has written a lot of
>code. That's because people learn from experience; no experience, little
>learning.
Yes, I know that. So does everybody who gets intimidated by the
protectionism and elitism of any specialist. I don't, though, so you
can save yourself the effort.
I have twenty years experience understanding software development, and
many other aspects of the technology world. If you want to tell me I
can't program, go to it, but you're wasting your breath. We aren't
talking about programming, we're talking about copyright. So if all you
have is the childish little ad hominem attack, then forgive me while I
proceed to ignore you and continue with the discussion. Ask questions,
if you think you're up to it, but spare me your naive opinions until
you've got a better handle on the issues, and whether how reliable my
opinion on a programming issue would be has anything to do with it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:28 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:23:04
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 4 Apr 2001
>>13:59:53 -0400;
>>>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 12:01:40
>>>> [...]
>>>>> It is technically simple, and it is done all the time.
>>>>> It can't be ludicrous, because it's happening, and will continue to happen.
>>>>> Technical ignorance is not a defense against reality.
>>>> Please provide a couple examples of programs which were written to use
>>>> libraries which did not yet exist. I do not believe "it" is done all
>>>> the time, though I do know for a fact that you and other's have
>>>> misconstrued what "it" is.
>>>
>>>thinkDB 2 for the Palm. Adobe PhotoShop. The GIMP. Oh, gee. Just about
>>>anything that supports a plug-in interface. (Hint: plug-ins are
>>>libraries.)
>>
>>No, they are not libraries. They are plug-ins.
>
>What do you claim is the difference between one and the other?
>Technically there is none.
>
>Any program can link to a plugin and access its functionality,
>even if the main application for which the plugin was developed
>is not present.
And any library can link to a program to 'use' some of its code, as
well. I have never claimed there is a difference, but Austin was.
"(Hint: plug-ins are libraries)". Clue: no, they aren't; they're
plug-ins.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:30 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 20:48:03 GMT;
>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:21:33 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> >A book is 'written' when its author puts words to paper. But there is
>>> >no paper in software. Is not documented an API spec essentially not the
>>> >same thing as writing the software?
>>>
>>> Too many "not"s there :-)
>>> Writing and documenting an API is not the same as implementing it.
>>>
>>> > I'm not suggesting its not easier,
>>> >but is the artistry in the API, or in the code?
>>>
>>> I'd say they are two works.
>>
>>I would say that it's usually much harder to build an API's spec than to
>>code it.
>>The writing & documenting API is design, which mean that you there is a lot
>>that you have to consider.
>>Implementing the API is a more technical task, which should be easier.
>
>The amount of work required is a red herring. In both cases (designing
>an API and coding the API) there is enough creativity required so that
>both the spec and the implementation can be protected by copyright.
The spec is not protected by copyright, though, as a functional work.
Anyone can use the spec, so why can't anyone use the implementation?
Not read it, I mean. Just give it to their cook so it can unfailingly
and without any comprehension or creativity exactly implement "its"
instructions.
>Beyond that of what possible relevance is the amount of "artistry"
>I'm going to follow the lead of another poster and stop being a billy goat
>gruff.
I'd appreciate that, thanks. As for your question, the reason it is a
matter of "artistry" is that there is a distinction between a work of
authorship and a work of engineering. Attempting to claim protection
for a work of engineering is to try to 'copyright an idea', and you're
not allowed to do that. You're only allowed to copyright the expression
of an idea. On a metaphysical level, perhaps, we cannot draw
distinctions between painting a picture and programming an app or
library. They are both effort, they are both creative and require
skill. But what does the programmer need with originality? Isn't the
only reason you would need to be original is to do something *better* in
some way? There is a quantitative issue here, a measurable and
objective benefit to doing it one way or the other. This is not art,
this is engineering. Copyrighting software is trying to own your ideas,
not your efforts. Its actually just profiteering on the "facially
plausible existence" of intellectual property. I never had to sign a
license to read a book, even one I borrowed from a friend. AND I have
access to a photocopying machine.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
