On Jan 12, 2008 1:49 AM, Reid Nichol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thus the combined work, THE WHOLE POINT OF WRITING IT, is under
> > the GPL. That IS what you just said. Which is forcing me into a
> > license for my project that I don't want.
> >
> > We require you to use, for your program that contains our code,
> > a license that protects the essential freedom for all its users.
> > That defends real freedom.
Stallmanism cult wants you to believe in something that is "true" only
in the GNU Republic. Uncopyrightable aggregations[1] aside for a
moment, you, as a sole author of a compilation (this term includes
collective works), do have all the rights in compilation work. That's
one difference (among others) between compilations and derivative
works. Your compilation copyright is totally independent from
copyrights on constituent works.
But in the GNU Republic, the copyr^Hleft act has created fascinatingly
fuzzy regime for software ("quanta" mismatch and all that, see below).
It's not about expression (as in literary works per Berne Convention
which says that computer program works are to be protected as literary
works) modulo the AFC test[2] (to filter out unprotectable elements)
like in the rest of the world. Rather, as Eben The dotCommunist
Manifesto Moglen has nicely put it (in slight disagreement with RMS):
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript
-----
Q10c: Lets say I have a program that uses free libraries, which are...
Richard Stallman: Well, linking them together like that is clearly
combining them. The rules, based on the existing GPL, are too
complicated for me to try to recite them to you. All I can say is, yes,
the GPL makes conditions in that case.
Q10d: That means any such use is a violation of the GPL?
Richard Stallman: Some kinds may be permitted. That's why I'm saying it
depends on details, very much. But linking components together is
certainly combining them.
Eben Moglen: Richard, can I make a comment here? Here's the problem.
The problem that you're facing in asking the question, and the problem
that Richard is facing in trying to answer it. When you try to take two
disciplines of thought that use different primitive quanta - different
units of meaning - there's not going to be a congruent mapping between
one vocabulary and the other - as there is no guarantee that there is a
one-to-one match between words in Hindi and words in English.
The problem is that the unit of meaning in copyright law is the work,
whatever the work is. That's the unit in which copyright law speaks. So
the author, or authors, of a work have certain exclusive rights,
including the rights to control modification and distribution. GPL
says, we give most of those rights to the user, in the work, rather
than withholding them, as proprietary users do.
What's the unit of a program? Not the work. Computer science has
defined many quanta of meaning in computer program since I began
decades ago. The subroutine, the function, the module, the object. Each
of those is a unit of meaning in a language of computer activity, but
it's not the work under copyright law.
Between the the quantum: work, and the quantum: module, library, file,
function, object, procedure, there is not a one-to-one mapping, and the
consequence is that when we attempt to exert our intention in copyright
law, we only speak in terms of the work. We must use the vocabulary of
copyright. Since that doesn't map neatly to the vocabulary of computer
programming, no matter what that vocabulary happens to be, given the
dominant paradigm of program construction, there is guaranteed to be a
zone of uncertainty.
Richard Stallman: I disagree. I wouldn't say that you're wrong. What
you're saying is right, but there's something even deeper to be said,
which is that what you're saying is not a problem. It sounds like
you're describing a problem, but in fact, criteria... because of the
fact that in a program you can express the same thing in many different
ways, and you can rewrite it to use many different ways to communicate,
any kind of criteria drawn up in terms of the technical boundaries that
exist in programs would be a bad criterion because it would be too easy
to play games with it.
If there were a criterion about files, well, it's easy to move
something from one file to another. If the criteria were about
subroutines, it's easy to split up a subroutine. You see what I mean?
Any criteria formulated in terms of the technical entities of
programming would be too easy to game around.
Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between
static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to
keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under
copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link
time or run time. Right? Those kinds of technical decisions, whatever
they are, don't map neatly into the language of copyright, which is the
language of the licence.
Richard Stallman: Nor into the intentions of the GPL. Because, the
point is, if we drew the line in the kind of clear way that programmers
want, in terms of technical points, then it would be easy for somebody
to evade the intention of the GPL just by taking that line as the
instructions on how to do it.
So, by making it so clear, in a mechanical sense, we would be
undermining the goal.
-----
>
>
> You mean your twisted definition of freedom. Btw, your own FAQ states
> that I can't BSD my code if I link to a GPL'd lib. Contrary to what
> you said I might add. I think you need to read your own FAQ.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>
> And find out what freedom actually means:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
[1] http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
-----
DANGEROUS LIAISONS SOFTWARE COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS?
Distribution, Installation and Execution of Linked Programs under
Copyright Law, Commercial Licenses and the GPL
By Lothar Determann
Prof. Dr. Lothar Determann teaches courses on Computer and Internet
law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall),
University of San Francisco School of Law and Freie Universitdt Berlin
(www.lothar.determann.name) and practices law as a partner in the
international technology practice group of Baker & McKenzie LLP, San
Francisco/Palo Alto office (www.bakernet.com). The author is grateful
for assistance from his students, in particular Tal Lavian, Principal
Scientist at Nortel Labs (valuable comments from computer science
perspective), Steven B. Toeniskoetter, Lars F. Brauer, and Neda
Shabahang (legal research and footnote editing).
-----
[2] http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html
(IV. Applying The AFC Test)
See also
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
(VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)
regards,
alexander.
P.S. HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:H.R._Rep._No._94-1476
-----
Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works''
which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable
work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There
is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically
represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a
process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging
previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether
the individual items in the material have been or ever could have
been subject to copyright [...] an unauthorized translation of a
novel [i.e. derivative work] could not be copyrighted at all, but
the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry [i.e. compilation]
could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though
the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was
unauthorized.
-----
