Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: So yes, inquiring minds want to know. And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001. (You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for four years on that, but RMS doesn't have that problem.) Me, I'd be kind of ashamed to preach the economic superiority of the free software system while living on grant money and conference banquets; but YMMV. RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth.
Re: Origins of debian swirl
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote: It's a simple, generic stroke of rough charcoal, a standard brush shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any new document I don't see any problem with this, but I thought it should be mentioned... Actually, one could wonder who was first. I'm not blatantly assuming Adobe just took the swirl without looking at our copyright, but then it's not entirely impossible either. The fact that this wave of other usages of the swirl is fairly recent (or is that a perception on my side?) could imply that this is indeed the case... -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Origins of debian swirl
Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:24:11 +1000, Simon Wright wrote: It's a simple, generic stroke of rough charcoal, a standard brush shape that ships with Adobe Illustrator. Actually, it's one of the five defaults that appear in the brushes pallete when you begin any new document I don't see any problem with this, but I thought it should be mentioned... Actually, one could wonder who was first. I'm not blatantly assuming Adobe just took the swirl without looking at our copyright, but then it's not entirely impossible either. The fact that this wave of other usages of the swirl is fairly recent (or is that a perception on my side?) could imply that this is indeed the case... Having recently watched the Toy Story movies, I realized that the swirl was present on Buzz' chin. The names of the different versions of Debian being Toy Story characters, why not the logo itself ? Look here for instance : http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/ts/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Origins of debian swirl
Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually, one could wonder who was first. I'm not blatantly assuming Adobe just took the swirl without looking at our copyright, but then it's not entirely impossible either. It ought to be possible for someone to dig up a pre-1999 version Illustrator and see if it has the same stock graphics. The question is whether an appropriate someone reads this list, and who would admit to being in possession of such proprietary software? :-) The fact that this wave of other usages of the swirl is fairly recent (or is that a perception on my side?) The first case I remember is http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00167.html - hardly that recent IMO. -- Henning Makholm Det er du nok fandens ene om at mene. For det ligger i Australien! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Origins of debian swirl
Scripsit Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scripsit Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] The fact that this wave of other usages of the swirl is fairly recent (or is that a perception on my side?) The first case I remember is http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/07/msg00167.html On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the Elektrostore swirl is independently created starting from a straight brush stroke. http://henning.makholm.net/debian/swirls.xcf is the logo bar from www.elektrostore.se, with a genuine Debian swirl in another layer - try turning down the transparency to see how the geometry of the spiral matches too. The Debian swirl used is from http://www.debian.org/logos/openlogo-nd-100.png, rotated 53 degrees counterclockwise and scaled to 40%. -- Henning MakholmI, madam, am the Archchancellor! And I happen to run this University! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
** Raul :: On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the cash flows involved are not chump change (see the numbers disclosed by Jamie Zawinski in the Lucid Emacs saga). Whether or not you think RMS and Eben Moglen are cashing in personally (about which I have no evidence), if you are willing to take their uncorroborated claims about the legal strategy at the heart of their enterprise at face value, you are a more trusting man than I. This sounds like something appropriate for the scandal column of a tabloid. But what's the relevance of this issue to debian-legal? IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics. Misrepresentations and charlatanry draw my scrutiny, whether they come from saints or sinners. I have no problem with you pursuing any such intellectual interests. However, this probably isn't the right list for posting random facts. I'd suggest debian-curiosa. Or, if anyone wants to create it: debian-saints. -- Raul
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking. Why? Personally, I've quoted this faq as evidence of things that the FSF has done. I don't see any need to re-evaluate those kinds of issues. Beyond that, I believe it's mostly used to provide succinct heuristics for dealing with issues where there is no case law. Because these are heuristics, they can only be approximations and thus we already have to be prepared to evaluate those issues for specific cases. But I see no need to re-evaluate those issues for the general case. -- Raul
Software 3000 yonkers
Hello We got thousands software at low low price visit us now erevansoft.net visor
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth. You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have contrasted RMS's ethical perspective with, say, ESR's economic perspective. I don't entirely agree with the way this contrast is portrayed, and in particular I think the ethical/economic dichotomy is a false one. Ethical/financial, perhaps; but that's a calculus of personal motivations that isn't really all that fruitful to discuss. Implicit in my perspective is the view that ethics is the study of human motivation, and economics is the application of the fruits of this study to the public sphere; finance is just probabilities and algebra. So, as I say, I don't fail to understand RMS's attitude that his arguments are ethical arguments and trump economic considerations; I just don't agree. He is welcome to that position with regard to his own choice to publish his source code, and welcome to exhort others to go and do likewise (as I have done, and am likely to do again, from time to time.) But when he asks for the legal power to compel others to do so, in exchange for something he has done or offers to do, he is well into the economics zone. RMS rejects the phrase intellectual property, mostly for reasons of legislative history and philosophy which I consider insightful and with which I agree, but also partly out of a belief that whatever exclusive privileges a creator of knowledge should have over his work should not be codified as property rights. (He also seems to think that they aren't currently codified as property rights, which perplexes me; but that's another line of argument.) But he doesn't believe in laissez faire, either. Now, in his view, there is an a priori ethical imperative to share knowledge, and in the case of software products (which are a sort of distillate of knowledge yet capable of being sold in a form where that knowledge is inaccessible), there is an ethical obligation to disclose the secrets of their making to all who use them. He would like to persuade the world that this ethical imperative should be made law; but failing that, he wants to retain a sort of non-property-based control over the terms on which others use his work (and works whose authors signify their alliance with him by attaching the GPL to them). He demands (or perhaps just assumes) the power to apply his ethical calculus when a work that he controls has played a significant role in the creation of another's work, not just through literal borrowing but by building on the utility of the existing work -- i. e., over any work bearing an economic relationship to his. This brings us to the crux of the matter. RMS seems to think that he has, or should have, this power as a natural right; and I (obviously) don't. I see an author's (or inventor's) rights over his creation as entirely socially created; I think that the law as it stands does a pretty accurate job of capturing that social consensus; and I don't favor attempts at extra-legal end runs around the legislative and judicial process, irrespective of the end in view. There's a philosophical difference here that goes back at least to Hobbes and Hume, if not to Pythagoras and Protagoras. This is perhaps not the forum in which to debate this well-trodden topic further. :-) So does the law in this area follow Hobbes or Hume? Judge for yourself. In any case, I wholly encourage you to deny my selection and exposition of precedents any force of authority. If they are useful to you in making up your own mind, so much to the good; if not, that's fine too. Cheers, - Michael (IANAPhilosopher, either)
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant case law? I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the debian-legal archives could tell you more. In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my good name to their conduct in recent years, but YMMV. In this case, why do you continue to argue with what debian-legal thinks is the prudent course of action for Debian to take, especially when you admit that you may not agree with Debian's goals? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. He has been admitted to the bar in New York and before the Supreme Court. He has clerked in district court and for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has held a professorship of law and legal history at Columbia for over a decade. He is not ignorant of the law. It is my opinion that he knows damn well that there is no such thing as copyright-based license and never has been. It's very useful as a propaganda device to make it appear that there is some rich vein of unmined law in this area, and therefore some difficulty in applying the mountain of case law relevant to any given fact pattern involving the GPL. But the truth as I see it (and I am not alone) is that the GPL is a somewhat unconventionally drafted but otherwise completely routine contract of adhesion. If this is in fact the truth, then many of the things that he, and other attorneys closely associated with the FSF, say in public about the GPL are untrue, perhaps even deliberately misleading. That doesn't inspire my respect. Is that a bald enough statement for you? It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your credibility. It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. That you stoop to character assassination as a defense suggests that you are incapable of holding such a low opinion of yourself. I suggest that you may need to find yourself a more credible champion for your position if you want us to accept it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your credibility. What makes your opinion more credible than that of Eben Moglen? Or am I missing something here? -- Chris With the way things are starting to go in this country, if forced to choose between being caught with a van full of pirated DVDs or heroin you'd actually have to pause and think about it. -- Michael Bell, drunkenblog.com
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics. Misrepresentations and charlatanry draw my scrutiny, whether they come from saints or sinners. I have no problem with you pursuing any such intellectual interests. However, this probably isn't the right list for posting random facts. Sigh. Did anyone else have trouble understanding that both an intellectual interest and a trade referred to computer programming? Do you not think these random facts are relevant to assessing whether two prominent individuals' preferences and assertions should have the effect that they currently do on your and my pursuit of that trade, and to whether they can be relied on for a disinterested analysis of the applicable law? Have these questions no relevance to debian-legal? I'd suggest debian-curiosa. Or, if anyone wants to create it: debian-saints. Having intimated that I thought it likely that RMS's role in the FSF had made him a rich man, and having been called on that by Diego Bierrun, I felt obliged to report on what facts I could easily find in the public record -- which, as it turns out, don't lend much support to the idea that he is piling up personal assets. (But I doubt he misses a meal very often; I expect his other material needs are more than met, including an ample supply of computer-related toys; as near as I can tell he has done nothing for any reason other than because he feels like it since 1985 or so, if ever; and I count myself as rich partly for similar reasons, whatever one's net worth may be.) I would not have taken the trouble of that particular inquiry except in response to Diego's accusation of slander, which would not have been accurate anyway but did prompt me to go the extra mile. - Michael
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:11 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth. You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have contrasted RMS's ethical perspective with, say, ESR's economic perspective. I don't entirely agree with the way this contrast is portrayed, and in particular I think the ethical/economic dichotomy is a false one. Ethical/financial, perhaps; but that's a calculus of personal motivations that isn't really all that fruitful to discuss. Implicit in my perspective is the view that ethics is the study of human motivation, and economics is the application of the fruits of this study to the public sphere; finance is just probabilities and algebra. I may not be much in the legal department, but you are now commenting on a field I am trained in. Suffice it to say that you have not thought seriously about the implications of your conflation of ethics and economics--or that if you have, then I want nothing to do with you, and you have no business lecturing this group on any subject. If ethics is allowed to be more than sociology, then RMS's position is quite clear: ethical concerns must have priority over economic ones. Stipulating any particular set of ethical standards, I'd say that's not only a clear position, but a rather uncontroversial one. We take a dim view of killing for profit, for example, even if such a decision adversely impacts the hired gun's ability to make a living. Obviously, the question of software freedom is not on the same level as killing for hire, and there are many disagreements regarding the specifics of the ethical questions and their importance. But you seem intent on shutting down the debate (or, less charitably, trying to regain ground from making a grievous error and being called on it) by simply defining it out of existence. If this is your way of handling inconvenient evidence, then I have even less confidence in your legal analysis. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. That you stoop to character assassination as a defense suggests that you are incapable of holding such a low opinion of yourself. Can you not tell the difference between character assassination and an inquiry into the impartiality of a person held up as an authority? I may well be wrong about the law, and you are welcome to inquire into my motivations as well -- though I claim no authority, only whatever merit the substance of my arguments may carry. I have corresponded (very briefly, on this list) with Eben Moglen and (at greater length) with the FSF, and asked them what basis they have for their position; their argument is, as near as I can tell, _purely_ derived from his personal authority and public stature. To the extent that anyone's motives can ever be deduced from their conduct, don't you think inquiring into his public conduct is fair game under the circumstances? I suggest that you may need to find yourself a more credible champion for your position if you want us to accept it. If not taking Eben Moglen's word over my best effort at understanding the law destroys my credibility in your eyes -- or if I could only retain credibility with you by dissembling the implications for his integrity if he himself knows better -- then I can hardly expect another champion to succeed where I fail. Accept nothing I say without evaluating its evidentiary basis; then my credibility doesn't enter into it. - Michael
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may not be much in the legal department, but you are now commenting on a field I am trained in. Suffice it to say that you have not thought seriously about the implications of your conflation of ethics and economics--or that if you have, then I want nothing to do with you, and you have no business lecturing this group on any subject. You seem to have completely missed my point. Ethics is not dictated by economics; it's the other way around. What possible use is an economics -- a science of human motivation -- that is not informed by ethics? My personal ethics extend into areas that economics cannot reach; but when making an ethical argument for a public policy, I recognize that it must be supported both by an argument from the public good (utility) and an argument that it is fair to individuals. If ethics is allowed to be more than sociology, then RMS's position is quite clear: ethical concerns must have priority over economic ones. Stipulating any particular set of ethical standards, I'd say that's not only a clear position, but a rather uncontroversial one. We take a dim view of killing for profit, for example, even if such a decision adversely impacts the hired gun's ability to make a living. Wow, that's some straw man. If you think you can make an argument from the public good for legalizing assassination for pay, I'd like to hear it. Obviously, the question of software freedom is not on the same level as killing for hire, and there are many disagreements regarding the specifics of the ethical questions and their importance. But you seem intent on shutting down the debate (or, less charitably, trying to regain ground from making a grievous error and being called on it) by simply defining it out of existence. No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's public posture as preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free software system. How you can call this an attempt to shut down the debate is beyond me. If you think it's a grievous error to use the word economics for an inquiry into the conformability of RMS's expectations about GPL enforcement with the balance of public and private interests embodied in the law, then it is an error from which I have no wish to recover. If this is your way of handling inconvenient evidence, then I have even less confidence in your legal analysis. What inconvenient evidence did you have in mind? - Michael
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have contrasted RMS's ethical perspective with, say, ESR's economic perspective. I don't entirely agree with the way this contrast is portrayed, and in particular I think the ethical/economic dichotomy is a false one. Ethical/financial, perhaps; but that's a calculus of personal motivations that isn't really all that fruitful to discuss. Implicit in my perspective is the view that ethics is the study of human motivation, and economics is the application of the fruits of this study to the public sphere; finance is just probabilities and algebra. I agree with what you've said here (though I use different definitions for the terms ethics and economics than you). And I pretty much agree with the following paragraphs, until we get to a tangent: RMS rejects the phrase intellectual property, mostly for reasons of legislative history and philosophy which I consider insightful and with which I agree, but also partly out of a belief that whatever exclusive privileges a creator of knowledge should have over his work should not be codified as property rights. (He also seems to think that they aren't currently codified as property rights, which perplexes me; but that's another line of argument.) I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify property rights protecting them. There will always be cracks in the structure. On the one hand, you have property. Property exists as matter, and we have reason to believe (the laws of thermodynamics) that mass is conserved. Ideas do not exist as matter, and while they can be associated with matter there aren't any conservation laws associated with them. There's physically no way to enforce boundaries around them, because in that sense they do not exist. Copyright laws are written to protect the tangible expression of creative ideas, but if you look closely enough there will always be problems determining what is and is not being protected. These boundaries are fluid, because it's simply not possible to survey them or map them -- they have no locations. Now, granted, these laws are sometimes enforced (when there's enough money involved). But, for example, RMS has made it a practice to deliberately avoid dealing with anything which has even a hint of this enforcement associated with it (for example, consider the emacs / xemacs fork). Some people consider him rather poorly for making these kinds of choices, but his loss of credibility in that sense doesn't seem to have much to do with the stuff you're talking about. Well, except that you're indicating that people seriously think of him as a saint. But... there's also plenty of people who think of him as something other than a saint. Personally, I just don't think that issues bearing on sainthood are all that interesting. -- Raul
Re: License problem
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:23:46 +0200 Alexis Papadopoulos wrote: Thanks for your answer... You're welcome, but, please, do *not* reply to me while Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and I'd rather avoid receiving replies twice... Thanks. Mmmh, you should explain the dependence relationship better. How do these executables interact with bamg? Do they invoke it by forking another process? Do they link against it? Do they incorporate parts of bamg source code in their own code? The invoke it by forking another process (more precisely the system method of C++ is used). In other words, they invoke it just like a shell would do (more or less). They launch bamg as a separate executable process, passing it command-line arguments. If this is the case, I think that even the FSF would say that it's not necessary for bamg to be GPL-compatible... Of course, from a Debian point of view, DFSG and Policy considerations still hold (see my previous reply)... What does he agree with? That bamg is distributed along with other files? Or that bamg is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL v2? He agreed on the distribution of bamg along with rheolef, we are allowed to include bamg's sources in our own. OK, it seems you are allowed to distribute bamg along with rheolef. That is enough for non-free, I think. But definitely *not* for main! Again see the discussion in my previous reply... This depends on your answer to the above questions regarding the relationship between bamg and rheolef... Doesn't the fact that bamg's sources are now part of rheolef obliges us to make it GPL ? I don't think so. It would qualify as mere aggregation. Now it gets a little bit more complicated (I hoped we didn't have to go this far :). Bamg is undevelopped for more than a year now. Instead it's author is working on a new application (FreeFem++), which includes some of the bamg code, but creates a more complete binary (bamg is only a part of it). Now if he accepts to release the former code of bamg (the one I use) under GPL, won't he be forced to do the same for FreeFem++, since bamg code has been used in it. (in case this is revelant, FreeFem doesn't produce any bamg binary, it's using the sources directly) ? No, because bamg author is the copyright holder: consequently he/she is able to release the same code more than once, each time under a license of his/her choice. And he/she is not bound by the license he/she chose: only the rest of the world is! Here, I'm assuming that bamg author is its sole copyright holder... I'll wait until I have a clear view on the issue before contacting him again to propose GPL :). Good strategy. -- :-( 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 pgpagPgnmnMjY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my good name to their conduct in recent years, but YMMV. In this case, why do you continue to argue with what debian-legal thinks is the prudent course of action for Debian to take, especially when you admit that you may not agree with Debian's goals? Although I think that argument's perfectly good, I think the arguments on the other side are sometimes better. And as I've written elsewhere, the reasons why one says one is making a particular decision can sometimes have bigger legal consequences than the decision itself. Although I have no direct stake in the outcome of these debates (IANADD), I care enough about Debian's well-being to have put rather a lot of time and thought into the matter. Now, where did I say that I don't agree with Debian's goals? I respect Debian's priorities -- Debian's users and Free Software. My own goals are rarely, if ever, in conflict with them. I am largely satisfied with the definition of Free Software given in the DFSG. But I don't believe that _either_ of Debian's priorities is well served by misunderstanding or misrepresenting the applicable law, by citing fear of legal action rather than courtesy to the FSF as a reason for seeking GPL exemptions from upstream, or by hostility to ISVs who are making an effort to play fair. Cheers, - Michael
RE: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:52 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking. If you can prove that the FSF is wrong about copyright law at such fundamental levels, I suspect we will need to re-evaluate far more than our policy regarding the GPL and linking.
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's public posture as preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free software system. How you can call this an attempt to shut down the debate is beyond me. If you think it's a grievous error to use the word economics for an inquiry into the conformability of RMS's expectations about GPL enforcement with the balance of public and private interests embodied in the law, then it is an error from which I have no wish to recover. I consider it a grievous error to claim that RMS preach[es] the economic superiority of the free software system. You were not calling for an inquiry of any kind in that statement; you were simply snarking. And you were called out for making an incorrect statement. What I'm curious about now is why you felt the need to blather about the nature of ethics and economics, instead of just letting the stupid comment go, and then get even more defensive when someone points out the absurdity of your blathering. You are, of course, free to refuse to admit error, just as we are free to draw whatever conclusions we might from your refusal. But I'm curious to see how far this rabbit hole goes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify property rights protecting them. There will always be cracks in the structure. As I understand it, no one in recent centuries has tried to codify property rights protecting ideas as such; neither copyright nor patent nor trademark law presents any barrier to the free dissemination and use of ideas, and trade secret law creates no property right and governs nothing but the breach of duties voluntarily accepted with regard to unpublished information. Imperfect but workable property rights have been created for original expression (at a rather literal level), industrial applications of an invention, and symbols of authenticity; how are these any less amenable to codification than the ownership of a parking lot, a skyscraper, or anything else for which a valuation must be based on the income that may be derived from controlling its use rather than the incremental cost of using it? On the one hand, you have property. Property exists as matter, and we have reason to believe (the laws of thermodynamics) that mass is conserved. A common misapprehension. Chattels are matter. Property is a legal right, i. e., a social convention. I'm not trying to go toe-to-toe with you in the pedantry stakes; but your analogy is faulty right from the outset. The whole _point_ of making copyright, patent, and trademark forms of property is that they become subject to the great body of law that governs legal property rights. They can be sold or transferred without running afoul of continuing performance. They can be used as security for a loan. A non-exclusive right to use them can be offered for a fee or bartered in exchange for a similar right. The owner's exclusive rights may be limited for the sake of the public good, by analogy with public right-of-way and environmental protection laws. [snip] Now, granted, these laws are sometimes enforced (when there's enough money involved). But, for example, RMS has made it a practice to deliberately avoid dealing with anything which has even a hint of this enforcement associated with it (for example, consider the emacs / xemacs fork). I have no idea what you are trying to prove by this example, but you certainly pique my curiosity. What law could RMS have sought to enforce on anyone involved in Lucid or XEmacs? Some people consider him rather poorly for making these kinds of choices, but his loss of credibility in that sense doesn't seem to have much to do with the stuff you're talking about. Actually, the whole Lucid thing excites my sympathy for RMS rather more than the converse. Whatever the facts of the matter may have been, some of the messages in Jamie Zawinski's archive (notably Richard Gabriel's initial public sally) strike me as unnecessarily unkind. In his position I would probably have handled it less gracefully, leaving no one better off. How can I not admire a man whose response to a hostile takeover of his pride and joy begins: quote The long delay in releasing Emacs 19 is the FSF's fault. (In some sense, therefore, mine.) While it's regrettable that there are multiple versions, I can't blame people for filling the gap that the FSF left. One of the goals of the copyleft is to allow people to do this--so that one central maintainer's lapse does not hold back the rest of the community. /quote Well, except that you're indicating that people seriously think of him as a saint. But... there's also plenty of people who think of him as something other than a saint. Personally, I just don't think that issues bearing on sainthood are all that interesting. They're a sidetrack to be sure; but kind of an interesting sidetrack. His personal history and philosophy strike me as more reminiscent of Dominic de Guzman or Benedict of Nursia than any modern figure. In any case, I certainly intended no slur on RMS by that, nor on any participant in this discussion. Cheers, - Michael
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:40:42PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news. I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about free software when provided free travel and lodging. Do you know the numbers? As I wrote, I don't. For all I know, RMS never solicits or accepts a speaker fee -- although if so he would be quite extraordinary among conference speakers, even among speakers on free software topics. I believe the typical conference speaker's fee in this area is in the $5K-$20K range (compare http://www.speaking.com/speakerindexes/internet.html ), often more for futurists (several $50K and up speakers at http://www.speaking.com/speakerindexes/future.html ) and actual celebrities with drawing power (usually reported simply as rumored six-figure speaker fee). That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag (the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of or all of their travel expenses covered, but no more than that. There's a lot of money to be made in this area (although it's a pretty hard life if you have close friends and like your home); and if RMS had a way of laundering the money (don't give it to me; but donate to the FSF if you like) so as to appear saintly, he wouldn't be the first. You're again bordering on slander, I'd tread more carefully if I were you. Speaking of (real) saints: Mother Teresa accepted donations directly and passed them on. There is nothing unethical in that. Your claims are slanderous. I would suggest you to research better before making claims with such serious implications. I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal affairs. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consider it a grievous error to claim that RMS preach[es] the economic superiority of the free software system. You were not calling for an inquiry of any kind in that statement; you were simply snarking. And you were called out for making an incorrect statement. I think my statement is correct as it stands; have you any substantive argument against it? RMS seems to think that it would be a superior economic model -- more conducive to the public good and more fair to individual creators -- if copyright were abolished and copyleft enacted in its place. He also seems to think that the creation of a copyleft microcosm, and the prohibition of its use in conjunction with works outside it, is consistent with the economic bargain embodied in current law. I differ on both points -- and if it's snarking to point out that, by relying on his unique public notoriety to put food on the table, he's not exactly practicing what he preaches, then yes, I'm snarking. What I'm curious about now is why you felt the need to blather about the nature of ethics and economics, instead of just letting the stupid comment go, and then get even more defensive when someone points out the absurdity of your blathering. This point is rather central to my rejection of his claim to the ethical high ground. An ethical stance that fails both economic-model (what if this were the social bargain imposed on everyone?) and economic-tactic (is it at least marginally productive, at an acceptable cost to society, for some people to act thus within the existing social bargain?) tests is no basis for an equitable claim as far as I am concerned. There is of course no reason to demand that any particular activity of his, driven by his personal ethics, be marginally productive; but if he wants to ask that society at large recognize and honor his ethical system with a privilege of exclusivity granted to no other, he's going to have to defend it on utility grounds. You are, of course, free to refuse to admit error, just as we are free to draw whatever conclusions we might from your refusal. But I'm curious to see how far this rabbit hole goes. Now who's snarking? Which is fine by me; but I do not yet find you particularly persuasive on the substantive issues. Cheers, - Michael
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify property rights protecting them. There will always be cracks in the structure. As I understand it, no one in recent centuries has tried to codify property rights protecting ideas as such; neither copyright nor patent nor trademark law presents any barrier to the free dissemination and use of ideas, and trade secret law creates no property right and governs nothing but the breach of duties voluntarily accepted with regard to unpublished information. Imperfect but workable property rights have been created for original expression (at a rather literal level), industrial applications of an invention, and symbols of authenticity; how are these any less amenable to codification than the ownership of a parking lot, a skyscraper, or anything else for which a valuation must be based on the income that may be derived from controlling its use rather than the incremental cost of using it? There's probably a lesson in here somewhere. information is also a term used to describe how people communicate. You try to draw a distinction between ideas and information. And, indeed, they are spelled differently -- they have different physical representations. And yet, both of these terms refer to the same underlying concept, in this context. If we can't even manage this issue in the context of a single paragraph, what hope do we have of codifying protection for newly thought up instances of this issue, in law? Answer: codification is easy -- it's easy to put words down on paper and call them law -- but it's unlikely that this codification will ever be meaningful in a general context. Thus, no one really wants to take copyright issues to court, because fundamentally the laws don't make sense. When taken at face value, the concepts are simple enough, but the protected works are not real property. As you point out, they're not even chattels. (Though I challenge you to show me any cases of real property which does not stake out a physical chunk of the planet. (I'm aware that you can, at least in some cases, move dirt from one location to another, without changing the legal definition of the property boundaries. But my point is: you can determine those property boundaries because of physical properties of matter, such as the fact that mass is conserved, which do not apply in the realm of intellectual property.)) As for xemacs and emacs: RMS has not accepted xemacs code into emacs because the xemacs developers would not, or could not, transfer copyright ownership on that code to the FSF. -- Raul
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag (the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of or all of their travel expenses covered, but no more than that. Then my guess would be that LinuxTag can fill the rooms with people interested in Linux-related topics without having to shell out speaker fees. Which doesn't say that some of the speakers, perhaps even yourself, couldn't earn speaker fees elsewhere if they tried. If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather sizable donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking engagements, then perhaps conference organizers should be prepared for the eccentric behavior that is occasionally reported. There's a lot of money to be made in this area (although it's a pretty hard life if you have close friends and like your home); and if RMS had a way of laundering the money (don't give it to me; but donate to the FSF if you like) so as to appear saintly, he wouldn't be the first. You're again bordering on slander, I'd tread more carefully if I were you. Still far from slander; but I confess that I regretted this immediately, and was relieved to be able to find enough public evidence in a matter of a couple of hours to refute my own speculation, at least as regards the FSF. Treading carefully does not, if I may say so, seem to be _your_ specialty. Speaking of (real) saints: Mother Teresa accepted donations directly and passed them on. There is nothing unethical in that. Not in the least. It would only be (somewhat) unethical if a large fraction of the donations wound up back in one's own pocket; and that doesn't seem to be the case with RMS. Your claims are slanderous. I would suggest you to research better before making claims with such serious implications. I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal affairs. It's really interesting that people who show no evidence of having invested any effort whatsoever themselves in research of any aspect of this topic are so quick to reject, not only the slightest speculation beyond the proven facts, but any evidence I may have brought to bear on any conclusion distasteful to them. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. - Michael
Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's probably a lesson in here somewhere. information is also a term used to describe how people communicate. Indeed, among other things; and it is a term sufficiently broad and vague as to have very little utility in law. You try to draw a distinction between ideas and information. And, indeed, they are spelled differently -- they have different physical representations. And yet, both of these terms refer to the same underlying concept, in this context. And yet, the law does distinguish quite successfully between ideas and expression; and disputes about that borderline rarely get as far as an appeals court, usually when someone is deliberately pushing that border for economic gain at another's expense. If we can't even manage this issue in the context of a single paragraph, what hope do we have of codifying protection for newly thought up instances of this issue, in law? That would be the reason that the integrity and competence of judges matters. Your Pyrrhonist (I just learned that nifty word) jump from imperfect certainty to quietism does not persuade me. Answer: codification is easy -- it's easy to put words down on paper and call them law -- but it's unlikely that this codification will ever be meaningful in a general context. Thus, no one really wants to take copyright issues to court, because fundamentally the laws don't make sense. When taken at face value, the concepts are simple enough, but the protected works are not real property. As you point out, they're not even chattels. If you think no one takes copyright issues to court, then you have a very different perspective on the literature than I do. Copyright law mostly makes sense to me, and I rarely feel that I would have decided a recent appellate case differently (though I favor Corey Rusk over Rano and am not that fond of Eldred v. Ashcroft). I do not think this can be attributed to a tendency on my part to accept authority. :-) (Though I challenge you to show me any cases of real property which does not stake out a physical chunk of the planet. (I'm aware that you can, at least in some cases, move dirt from one location to another, without changing the legal definition of the property boundaries. But my point is: you can determine those property boundaries because of physical properties of matter, such as the fact that mass is conserved, which do not apply in the realm of intellectual property.)) You certainly have a point that the boundaries of a copyright (or patent or trademark) holder's rights are imperfectly defined; but if you have ever owned rural property you may be aware that the same is often true of land, although survey-grade (centimeter-accurate) GPS helps. :-) Modern copyright is an imperfect system, but it sure beats hell out of what preceded it. As for xemacs and emacs: RMS has not accepted xemacs code into emacs because the xemacs developers would not, or could not, transfer copyright ownership on that code to the FSF. Which has little to do with (US) copyright law, given precedents such as Aalmuhammed v. Lee; but I probably would have done likewise in his position. I have used both within the past couple of months, and each has its strengths; but if I had the skill and the free time to do so, I think I would rather contribute to GNU Emacs, and would cheerfully assign any copyright I might possess in those contributions to the FSF. For the contributors to Lucid Emacs and XEmacs to have refused to do so strikes me as somewhat churlish, and indeed to reflect a delusional attitude about the value of intellectual property as opposed to customers' and collaborators' trust. Cheers, - Michael
