Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
Hi, I agree with most of what you said, except I'd like clarification on this part: On Sun, Jul 24, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote: The copyright of the rest of GStreamer depends on how it's distributed. In Debian, it's clear that GStreamer is distributed with MAD support, which makes its effective license the GPL. However, someone interested in distributing proprietary plugins or apps for GStreamer (as part of a derivative, for example) could do so by removing the GPL plugins from the distribution before adding the non-free bits. This wouldn't even require a recompile to do. GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various plugins, these are then dlopened when requested. I would personnally think that installing only Debian's GStreamer packages that are linked to LGPL libraries doesn't make your GStreamer installation / packages GPL (that is the build process has nothing to do with the resulting packages). I would even thing that installing GStreamer plugins packages which link to GPL libraries don't make your installation nor your running GStreamer applications GPL (that is only dlopening() something GPL makes the whole program in memory GPL, while it remains in memory). Is that correct? Bye, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Come, your destiny awaits! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: A question about converting code to another programming language
On Saturday, 23 Jul 2005 10:28:05 -7.00, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Saturday 23 July 2005 02:40 am, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a few questions about software developement. One of them is whether a program written in e.g. Fortran by me or somebody else (who owns the copyright) is converted to C (not f2c). How is copyright changed and what about patent issues (maybe not relevant). What about copyright to the translation when using f2c, is it the authors of the f2c code? If the transformation from Fortran to C involves creative activity, then the person who did the transformation may hold a copyright in the C-version. Compare a translation from French to English of a book. If it's just a literal translation, then the translator has no copyright. To be clear, if someone translates something from Language A to Language B, they do not hold a copyright in the Language B version. What they hold is a copyright in the expression that is the translation. This is important because the translator cannot authorize the translation from Language B to Language C, as he does not control the copyright to the underlying work on which any translation effort is based. Does the same apply for GPLed code? What if you convert GPLed code from Fortran to C and add enhancements/functionality. Is the Copyright of the new C code shared between the author of the old Fortran code and the translator (assuming the translation is not literal). I assume that the Copyright issues are easier to resolve for GNU code (i.e. where the authors assign the rights to FSF). What if the code is old with a known author/institution but no author can be found and no clear license is in the code. What about a clean-room implementation. Is it possible to have access to the old source code (translation or not) when doing the implementation. What about a running program in binary code and a users manual. This, of course, is the default rule and can be circumvented with good licensing allowing the translator to have full control over their derivative... but outside of a copyleft context, I can't imagine an author wanting a translator to have the authority to translate back into the initial language and sell competing versions. Does this case include GPL as well as LGPL code? -Sean (The included text above is copy-pasted since I was not subscribed before) Thanks, (different email address compared to above) -- Svante Signell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: [osol-discuss] Debian with OpenSolaris: a broken dream]
Hi all, Some days ago I asked about the viability the idea of creating a new architecture of Debian using the OpenSolaris stack. I got a reply complaining and pointing out some problems about the CDDL license, which I understood like a CDDL rejection from Debian. Now, I have got this message, so I'm wondering again if the CDDL license meets with the DFSG. I need some clarification. What is the official position of Debian about this license? PS: I'm attaching the CDDL license: http://www.sun.com/cddl/ -- Greetings, alo. COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) Version 1.0 * 1. Definitions. * 1.1. Contributor means each individual or entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications. * 1.2. Contributor Version means the combination of the Original Software, prior Modifications used by a Contributor (if any), and the Modifications made by that particular Contributor. * 1.3. Covered Software means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. * 1.4. Executable means the Covered Software in any form other than Source Code. * 1.5. Initial Developer means the individual or entity that first makes Original Software available under this License. * 1.6. Larger Work means a work which combines Covered Software or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. * 1.7. License means this document. * 1.8. Licensable means having the right to grant, to the maximum extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed herein. * 1.9. Modifications means the Source Code and Executable form of any of the following: * A. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications; * B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or * C. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available under the terms of this License. * 1.10. Original Software means the Source Code and Executable form of computer software code that is originally released under this License. * 1.11. Patent Claims means any patent claim(s), now owned or hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method, process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by grantor. * 1.12. Source Code means (a) the common form of computer software code in which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included in or with such code. * 1.13. You (or Your) means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License. For legal entities, You includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You. For purposes of this definition, control means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of such entity. * 2. License Grants. * 2.1. The Initial Developer Grant. Conditioned upon Your compliance with Section 3.1 below and subject to third party intellectual property claims, the Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license: * (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Software (or portions thereof), with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and * (b) under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Software, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Software (or portions thereof). * (c) The licenses granted in Sections 2.1(a) and (b) are effective on the date Initial Developer first distributes or otherwise makes
Re: A question about converting code to another programming langu age
Agreed, and in the vast majority of the cases the translation is a creative work. A babelfish translation would be a literal translation. an f2c translation is a literal (automatic) translation, so it's not a creative work. The copyrights of the original work apply to the translated work IMHO. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various plugins, these are then dlopened when requested. I would personnally think that installing only Debian's GStreamer packages that are linked to LGPL libraries doesn't make your GStreamer installation / packages GPL (that is the build process has nothing to do with the resulting packages). I would even thing that installing GStreamer plugins packages which link to GPL libraries don't make your installation nor your running GStreamer applications GPL (that is only dlopening() something GPL makes the whole program in memory GPL, while it remains in memory). In a technical sense, you're right, in that each binary retains its separate copyright status. Most people, however, are concerned about the restrictions effectively placed on them more than about the specific status of any particular binary. From the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted... So the particular details of how things are distributed in memory while running aren't directly relevant. Modification and distribution are what matters, and it's clear from looking at the packages that GStreamer is distributed in Debian in conjunction with GPLed bits in a manner that's more than mere aggregation. I see two ways in which this practically effects people using Debian. One, Debian could decide to package a plugin linking to a free but GPL-incompatible library, such as OpenSSL. Two, others might want to add a few proprietary plugins on top of Debian and distribute the result. This seems worth mentioning in the copyright file, even if the license itself doesn't change.
Re: libdts patent issue?
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:25:27PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 7/16/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please remember that this is my answer to your question of what _I_ would do, I didn't say what Debian should do. [...} But you're telling me you won't at least call your lawyer? I never said something to this effect, please don't misrepresent my words. Reality upstream is that the hosting university could not be bothered to fight the patent, even though the consensus was that the patent is invalid. What consensus is that? Consensus among qualified commentators (of which I am not one)? That I really, really, doubt. Consensus among VideoLAN developers and the university's lawyer. It seems that at least I have read it, while you haven't... Au contraire, mon frère. I have read it, and thought about it, and spot-checked some of its facts, and I stand by my assessment that it is rubbish. I advise you again to ask yourself: is this a dispassionate, scholarly analysis or is it a polemic that, at best, uses outside evidence to exhort rather than to inform? I _have_ thought about it and consider your continued suggestion that I have not insulting. People arrive at different conclusions without being complete idiots. C'est la vie, mon ami. I stand by my assessment that it is well thought-out, much better than what I have read from the other side of the fence. Feel free to point me at your spot-checks and texts on the subject that you consider dispassionate, scholarly analysis. In an attempt to keep the discussion ontopic for this thread and this mailing list I suggest that we continue this part of the discussion in private, should you wish to answer. Given that more and more DVDs come with DTS audio, this software is useful whether you like the specification or not. It's also not half-finished, it works just fine. Even if it were true that more and more DVDs come with DTS audio -- I don't think I've ever actually seen one that wouldn't play on an AC-3 + stereo player, but I'm sure it varies radically by region and genre They generally come with an additional AC3 track, that's why they still work for you. -- what does that have to do with whether it is the sort of thing _you_ want to go to the wall for? I might go to the wall for Larry Flynt's right to publish material that may or may not differ from my personal taste in literature, but would I go there for someone who (IMHO) is less exercising free speech than circumventing his society's prevailing bargain of temporary monopoly on a design in exchange for permanent documentation of how it works -- and not putting his own money and/or liberty on the line? Basically I'm willing to go to the wall for free software and I consider software patents the biggest threat to free software at this moment in time. The prevailing bargain might have to be revisited every once in a while to see if it is (still) a good one. Seeing how patent systems are coming under fire in recent years around the world I appear not be entirely alone with that opinion. Michael, let's try to keep this ontopic please. What could possibly be more on-topic for debian-legal than the discussion of a strategy for dealing with a foreseeable legal problem for Debian and its distributors and users? This is ontopic. Discussing the pros and cons of software patents in general is not. Besides, I doubt you will find much support for your position that (some) software should be patentable in this forum. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libdts patent issue?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 05:54:40PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Do you really think it's fair to characterize as pro-patenters people who are simply pointing out: the absence of a public policy rationale for denying the same sort of encouragement to applied researchers (and their financial backers) in fields where the work is done at a computer keyboard as in those where it is done at a lab bench? You're turning things on the head. Patents are a restriction and as such _you_ need to present a compelling rationale to extend this restriction to other fields of endeavour, not the other way around. And to answer your question: Yes, it's fair. The argument you just presented appears in every pro-patenter's portfolio, btw. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In the countries where moral rights apply, the Licensor waives his right to exercise his moral right to the extent allowed by law in order to make effective the licence of the economic rights here above listed. This seems to be a legal no-op, as moral rights are inalienable. But it could be useful in case the law changes... Actually, I didn't read it that way at all ... if moral rights get in the way of this licence, then this licence takes precedence. Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports as Lies-to-People. The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EUPL draft
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:11:35 +0100 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: Actually, I didn't read it that way at all ... if moral rights get in the way of this licence, then this licence takes precedence. AFAIK, this is impossible at the moment. Since moral rights are inalienable, it is my understanding that I cannot make a legally binding commitment to *not* exercise them. I can of course avoid exercising them, but I can still change my mind at any time in the future... That's how the law is now (AIUI). It could change in the future... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgprm0wZROP5O.pgp Description: PGP signature
