Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:08:51PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote: It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program is equivelent to linking the library with the object files of your program, seems to verify this. The question still debated is whether Shared libraries are like this also. I haven't heard it debated very hotly in recent memory. General acceptance seems to be that it applies equally to static and dynamic linking. Dynamic linking DOES open up the possibility of distributing the using code and not distributing the library itself. The combination of the two may be un-distributable, however. Notice that the important thing here is not wheter the files are linked together and how, but wheter the combined work of them results in a derivative work, the way things are linked is only a technical detail of it, and the barrer to derivative works is a well defined interface between them or something such. The linux kernel 'copying' file states this: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work. If that statement is true and if it does not qualify as a licence exception, then the following argument would hold: I think this is a license exception (or at least a clarification that applies specifically to this work). It is not a statement about GPL-licensed work in general. To quote RMS (this morning on the OpenSolaris list : The user programs link with libc but not directly with the kernel. People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined program, so the GPL will not have effects across that boundary. Friendly, Sven LUther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The thing is that the kernel is indeed much like a library, but not like a static one. The kernel is a lot like a shared library in that it exists in memory, and has functions that can be called. It is different mainly in that it stays in memory, and on some architectures has special capabilities not available to regular shared libraries. Note that it is not different by being a critical part of the operating system, as other libraries, especially things like the c library, or even the runtime linking library (ld.so) I've written about this very issue in law school. It seems to me there are two ways to view the issue. One is that the GPL is a Contract (*shudder*) and thus the parties are free to restrict what is done with code they distribute. Consider it a contract that says you can have this code, but only if you free the code you combine it with... otherwise you can't have the code That is a perfectly fine contract, mutual promises and all. However, many say that the GPL is not a contract and must be considered a pure license and the sole product of copyright law. If so, then the GPL can only exercise power over (s)106 rights (US copyright law). Any item outside of those rights cannot be controlled by the license. The GPL tries to do this by claiming a derived work or out-and-out copying. I think you very much hit it on the head by asking whether it is either... and based on my understanding of what is and is not a derivative work, what constitutes copying, and applicable caselaw, I don't think it is. But then again, I think the GPL is a contract... so I don't see it as much of a problem. Even if the GPL is a contract, it doesn't matter. Read section 0: 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term modification.) Each licensee is addressed as you. Note particularly the phrase derivative work under copyright law. Whatever terms the parties of the contract agree to, they apply only to the program itself and the aforementioned derivatives, specifically not other programs that merely use the code covered by the contract. The contradictory rephrasing following the colon doesn't pose any problems either, as a program dynamically linked to a library doesn't contain the library, or any parts of it. All it does is makes reference to it, and does so in a very non-specific way. The section continues: 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, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted per the quoted paragraph, it follows that any program can link with a GPL library, no matter what license that program has. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
* Måns Rullgård: The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted per the quoted paragraph, it follows that any program can link with a GPL library, no matter what license that program has. This only supports the widely held belief that you can do what you want with GPLed software inside your own four walls, without thinking too much about copyright issues. (I think this is quite an important freedom!) Usually, the interesting question is if you are permitted to distribute the linked program, and if dynamic linking makes a difference.
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Måns Rullgård: The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted per the quoted paragraph, it follows that any program can link with a GPL library, no matter what license that program has. This only supports the widely held belief that you can do what you want with GPLed software inside your own four walls, without thinking too much about copyright issues. (I think this is quite an important freedom!) Indeed, the GPL only applies to redistribution, this is a widely known fact. And you only have to redistribut the source to the ones you are giving the binaries to, not the world at large. Usually, the interesting question is if you are permitted to distribute the linked program, and if dynamic linking makes a difference. nope, the only difference between dynamic linking and static linking is if you use the LGPL. I am told that also the distribution of something in the sole intent of being linked with GPL code, is already problematic, but that is up to interpretation i guess. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License implications of OpenSSL in a GPL v2 application
I'm the author of ike-scan, which is a GPL v2 licensed application that can optionally use the crypto functions in the OpenSSL library. I am the author and copyright holder of all the ike-scan source files which can use OpenSSL functions. The application uses the MD5 and SHA1 hash functions from OpenSSL, and it also includes C source files for free versions of SHA1 (Steve Reid's sha1.c) and MD5 (L. Peter Deutsch's md5.c). The selection of whether to use the OpenSSL hash implementations or the included C hash implementations is made at configure time. I've seen some discussion about the incompatibility between GPL v2 and the OpenSSL license, and I'd like to find out what I can do allow my application to use OpenSSL but remain licensed under GPL v2. Firstly, I assume that providing the application is not configured with OpenSSL support, so the resultant binary does not link against the OpenSSL library, then there are no problems (please correct me if I'm wrong here). I believe that this is what the current Debian Sarge ike-scan package does. However, it's preferable to use the OpenSSL functions because they are significantly faster than the included C functions. I've read some previous advice on debian-legal at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00595.html, and that answers some of my questions. However, I still have a few remaining questions: The previous debian-legal advice mentioned above says to add the following exception text to the GPL announcement in the source code: In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders give permission to link the code of portions of this program with the OpenSSL library under certain conditions as described in each individual source file, and distribute linked combinations including the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify file(s) with this exception, you may extend this exception to your version of the file(s), but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. If you delete this exception statement from all source files in the program, then also delete it here. 1. Should this be added to every source file, or only those containing functions that can use functions from the OpenSSL library? What about header files that may define prototypes for OpenSSL functions, for example the code snippet from ike-scan.h shown below? #ifdef HAVE_OPENSSL #include openssl/md5.h #include openssl/sha.h #else #include md5.h #include sha1.h unsigned char *MD5(const unsigned char *, size_t, unsigned char *); unsigned char *SHA1(const unsigned char *, size_t, unsigned char *); #endif 2. The text above mentions certain conditions as described in each individual source file. Where should these conditions be mentioned? Do I need to add another comment to the source describing these conditions? If so, what would a suitable wording be? Any help or pointers would be gratefully received. Regards, Roy Hills -- Roy HillsTel: +44 1634 721855 NTA Monitor Ltd FAX: +44 1634 721844 14 Ashford House, Beaufort Court, Medway City Estate, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rochester, Kent ME2 4FA, UK WWW: http://www.nta-monitor.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: These two do not appear to be compatible (unless you think a license can be free with a venue choice that you do not consider sane), so I must have misunderstood one of them. Could you elaborate, please? If we replace sane with enforcable (which is what I think the OP was getting at) then they are in fact compatible. A license does not become non-free if it contains unenforcable components, unless it contains a component that specifies that any unenforcable clause voids the whole license. But choice-of-venue clauses, at least in contracts, *are* enforceable in some significant jurisdictions -- like the one which hosts ftp-master.debian.org. So their freeness is still an issue. I get the feeling that it is not the freeness of them which is an issue, they don't really make the software more or less free after all, since they enter in account only if the licence is broken No, they enter into consideration *whenever the copyright holder decides to sue you*. There have even been cases of one-time Linux kernel contributors flipping out and suing members of the community -- filing suit, of course, in their own home jurisdiction, where it's cheap for them to flood the courts with SLAPP filings. Do we really think it's a good idea to approve of giving copyright holders extra leverage for such lawsuits in their license, and just hope that none of these copyrights ever wind up in the hands of a hostile entity? , and we don't really can consider freeness definitions based on more or less broken local juridictions. In the past, when we have discussed broken jurisdictions, it has been in the context of licenses which don't go far enough to spell out freedoms that are taken for granted. When we talk about choice of venue clauses, however, this is a clause which has been actively included in the license and which is (IMHO) non-free in intent. I don't think we should accept such licenses as free just because they don't *succeed* in being non-free in all jurisdictions. Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : 9. MISCELLANEOUS. This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by the law of the jurisdiction specified in a notice contained within the Original Software (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding such jurisdiction's conflict-of-law provisions. Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts located in the jurisdiction and venue specified in a notice contained within the Original Software, with the losing party responsible for costs, including, without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License. You agree that You alone are responsible for compliance with the United States export administration regulations (and the export control laws and regulation of any other countries) when You use, distribute or otherwise make available any Covered Software. So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Sven Luther schrieb: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : Wrong. So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? Please look up facts before you go this road. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star.copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Write a bug against the package if its non-free is your option now. -- bye Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Sven Luther schrieb: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : Wrong. Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at /usr/share/doc/star/copyright and it was indeed the CDDL version 1. So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? Please look up facts before you go this road. Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star.copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. For your info, the upstream author claims that Debian has accepted the CDDL as free, because the CDDLed star package has been accepted in debian. So i wondered if that was a real thing, or if the licence change just slipped in without anyone noticing, which may indeed be the case. Write a bug against the package if its non-free is your option now. Well, i want first to know if we indeed consider the CDDL and its choice-of-venue clause non-free, or not. And this is as good as any a place to start this discussion, so i will attaach the full licence file here. Friendly, Sven Luther This package was debianized by Pawel Wiecek [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:10:43 +0100. It was downloaded from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/ Project's webpage: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/glone/employees/joerg.schilling/private/star.html Upstream Author: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE 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 Modifications; 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.
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: diff -Naur CDDL.Sun.txt CDDL.Schily.txt --- CDDL.Sun.txt2005-02-09 07:36:33.0 +0200 +++ CDDL.Schily.txt 2005-02-10 01:41:21.0 +0200 @@ -368,10 +368,9 @@ DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) For Covered Software in this distribution, this License shall -be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding -conflict-of-law provisions). +be governed by the laws of Germany (excluding conflict-of-law +provisions). Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the -jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of -California and the state courts of the State of California, with -venue lying in Santa Clara County, California. +jurisdiction and the courts of Berlin Germany, with venue lying +in Berlin Germany. [1] http://sourcewell.berlios.de/appbyid.php?id=1036 -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Sven Luther wrote: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : 9. MISCELLANEOUS. [snip] The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. [snip] That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? I guess it was a mistake. star used to be under the GPL, and then Joerg Schilling changed the license to CDDL. The respective change was at http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : 9. MISCELLANEOUS. [snip] The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. [snip] That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. So, is this non-free or not ? So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master responsible for letting this one enter the archive, and can he comment on this ? I guess it was a mistake. So, we need either to get back the old star version, or somehow kick the whole thing out of debian and into non-free ... star used to be under the GPL, and then Joerg Schilling changed the license to CDDL. The respective change was at http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively. ... but before taking such actions, we should probably decide on the CDDL. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: diff -Naur CDDL.Sun.txt CDDL.Schily.txt --- CDDL.Sun.txt2005-02-09 07:36:33.0 +0200 +++ CDDL.Schily.txt 2005-02-10 01:41:21.0 +0200 @@ -368,10 +368,9 @@ DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL) For Covered Software in this distribution, this License shall -be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding -conflict-of-law provisions). +be governed by the laws of Germany (excluding conflict-of-law +provisions). Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the -jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of -California and the state courts of the State of California, with -venue lying in Santa Clara County, California. +jurisdiction and the courts of Berlin Germany, with venue lying +in Berlin Germany. [1] http://sourcewell.berlios.de/appbyid.php?id=1036 Yeah, this is the CDDL with the modular choice-of-venue and choice-of-law. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License implications of OpenSSL in a GPL v2 application
Scripsit Roy Hills [EMAIL PROTECTED] [program that links to OpenSSL wants to be GPL'ed] The previous debian-legal advice mentioned above says to add the following exception text to the GPL announcement in the source code: 1. Should this be added to every source file, It should be added in *all* copyright notices where you reference the GPL. The exemption effect creates a new, more liberal, license that is different from the GPL, and you want all your code in the program to be covered by that rather than the original GPL. What about header files that may define prototypes for OpenSSL functions, for example the code snippet from ike-scan.h shown below? If you assert copyright in those header files and reference the GPL in that copyright assertion, you should add the exemption. It is slightly controversial whether the copyright status of headers that define prototypes influence the distribution of the final binary, but you'll be on the safe side on either case if you add the exemption to all of your GPL grants. If you don't have copyright in the header file, you don't need to (and can't, legally) add license exemption/ 2. The text above mentions certain conditions as described in each individual source file. Where should these conditions be mentioned? If you want to put special conditions on your permission to link with OpenSSL, just write them down somewhere and adjust the exemption text to describe where somewhere is. Ordinarily, however, you probably just want to give a blanket permission to link with OpenSSL, without further strings attached. In that case you of course do not need the under certain conditions ... clause; just omit it. -- Henning Makholm We cannot time-travel in this dimension. Everything is arranged differently, and they use different plugs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star packages which comes with this clause : 9. MISCELLANEOUS. [snip] The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. [snip] That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. So, is this non-free or not ? It's incomprehensible legalese gibberish to a mere non-lawyer mortal like me, so I can't really say. That's a general problem of MPL-derivative licenses: they were written by lawyers for lawyers, ignoring that most developers do not have an extensive background in intimate details of international contract law, or whatever the MPL (and by inheriting the clause, CDDL) tries to avoid getting bound by. If you are into reading funny flamewars about CDDL from other groups, see the star vs. OpenBSD thread on open bsd lists this spring. ... but before taking such actions, we should probably decide on the CDDL. I agree. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: Dalibor The application of the Dalibor United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale Dalibor of Goods is expressly excluded. Dalibor Dalibor [snip] Dalibor Dalibor That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. Dalibor Dalibor I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses Dalibor as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that it is applicable. Cheers, -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in MPL-derivative licenses. I wish they had expressly excluded the sharia law on software licenses as practised by the late Taleban ruling Kandahar. Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that it is applicable. Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the consequences of it being applicable? ( And for my education: Does it apply to international intra-European contracts? ) -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: Lionel Lionel The application of the Lionel United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale Lionel of Goods is expressly excluded. Lionel Lionel Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the consequences of it being Lionel applicable? Well, a whole bunch of stuff ;-) Basically, it clarifies outstanding matters in which countries have widely different conceptions of contracts: formation, hardship, etc. It's not bad, really, because it takes an unformal approach to contracts: no need for written contracts, usages are to be incorporated, etc. And it helps solve the typical problems that arise when two sets of law might apply. Now, I'll have to add that to me, it shouldn't apply most of the time to software licenses because it applies to *sale of goods*, and to me a software license has nothing to do with sale of goods. But, it seems that in some countries there are people who dispute that, so it might be better to be safe than sorry, even though, as I said, there's not much to fear in the convention. My point was mainly that the Vienna Convention was more relevant than the Wallonia act of 1963 on typewriting or whatever the original example of daft legislation was. Lionel And for my education: Does it apply to international intra-European Lionel contracts? Lionel ) Yep, if they qualify as sale of goods. For those interested, here's a link to the convention. http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.contracts.international.sale.of.goods.convention.1980/doc.html Cheers, -- Yorick Cool Chercheur au CRID Rempart de la Vierge, 5 B-5000 Namur Tel: + 32 (0)81 72 47 62 /+32 (0)81 51 37 75 Fax: + 32 (0)81 72 52 02 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that it is applicable. Yes, but what does it *say*? There are thousands and thousands of words in the CISG. They cover much ground in many areas of contract law. It is impossible to tell which specific one of the CISG's 101 articles Mozilla's lawyers were afraid of. The context of the exclusion suggests that the target might be default choice-of-law and choice-of-venue principles, but such rules are not to be found in the CISG. The very curious may read the full text of the convention at http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/saleofgoods1980.html What are the consequences of it being applicable? The effect of the exception is probably very different in different jurisdictions. The CISG is a treaty between *governments*; some governments may have implemented it by adjusting their national law such that it matches the principles of the CISG (in which case the explict exclusion of CISG is likely a no-op). Others may have special rules for international contracts in their national law which just happen to be compatible with the CISG (in which case the exclusion is probably still a no-op). Still others have incorporated the CISG by reference into their body of law. In the latter case only, the exclusion probably means that a party is barred from appealing to the CISG to justify an interpretation of the license text with which the pther party does not agree. He can still try to argue his interpretation based on other sources than CISG, of course. One readily imagines that the exclusion has some well-defined meaning under California law. However it is quite likely that it becomes pure nonsense when somebody outside USA creates a MPL-derived license and substitutes his own local jurisdiction for California. And for my education: Does it apply to international intra-European contracts? That varies. For example, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland have opted out of part II of CISG (pursuant to Article 92) and do not recognize it for trade between the Nordic countries. In principle the CISG would apply unless a better source of law claims otherwise and takes precedence. Conflicting EU regulations could be one such better source of law, but isn't necessarily - there are several classes of EU regulations, and some of them may have weaker force in some member states than a strongly implemented CISG. (Isn't law fun?) For the record, my own favourite piece of legalese is | The Covered Code is a commercial item, as that term is defined in | 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of commercial computer | software and commercial computer software documentation, as such | terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48 | C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June | 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only | those rights set forth herein. I have managed to find out what C.F.R. means and to locate the text of the referenced sections, completely without becoming wiser about what that text is supposed to achieve (and whether a private party *can* at all stipulate a different application of the U.S. federal administration's _internal_ purchasing regulations than would otherwise be used) ... -- Henning Makholm I paid off ALL my debts and bought a much-needed new car. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
** Mark Rafn :: On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote: It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program is equivelent to linking the library with the object files of your program, seems to verify this. The question still debated is whether Shared libraries are like this also. I haven't heard it debated very hotly in recent memory. General acceptance seems to be that it applies equally to static and dynamic linking. Dynamic linking DOES open up the possibility of distributing the using code and not distributing the library itself. The combination of the two may be un-distributable, however. One of two apply: either both Michael K. Edwards and I are in your killfile OR you haven't payed a lot of attention lately. My (and his) argument goes more or less like this: 1. GPL section 0 defines the expression a work based on the Program, which will be used in the rest of the license as being either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law; after that, it paraphrases (separating the explanation with a colon) trying to explain what a derivative work is under copyright law, and failing, because it says that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. which is blatantly false, because the definition of a derivative work is the work that results on an intellectually-novel transformation over the original work. 1.1. this leads me to the conclusion that (1) above defines a work based on the Program as a synonym for a derivative work of the Program (or the Program itself). 2. GPL section 0, paragraph 1 states that 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. Hold on to your hats and I'll mention this later. 3. GPL section 2, paragraph 3 states that mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. 3.1. this leads me to the conclusion that, even if at some point in time (run-time) the works (GPL-incompatible library and GPLd program, for instance) will be combined to form interdependent chunks of computer memory, as the program is NOT a derivative work of the library nor vice-versa, distributing in the same CD, website, or whatever both the program package and the library package will invoke section 2 paragraph 3, because they are not interdependent in the moment of the distribution. 3.2. and, in the light of (2) above, this is even not contributory infringement, because the GPL section 0 paragraph 1 _explicitly_ licenses the final user to do what he needs to _use_ the program. 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it in my system just in the same places/names/sonames/whatever OpenSSL is installed, this would change the copyright status of _the_ _program_!! Because of the argument above, I don't think the combination of the two would be undistributable at all. Why is all that different in the case of static linking? Because in the case of static linking, the intermingled executable can be considered (altough I don't think so) not merely aggregated, as the fixups are already resolved, etc, etc. The linux kernel 'copying' file states this: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work. If that statement is true and if it does not qualify as a licence exception, then the following argument would hold: I think this is a license exception (or at least a clarification that applies specifically to this work). It is not a statement about GPL-licensed work in general. In this, you are right. NOTE! The GPL does *not* cover programs that use shared library services by normal function calls - this is merely considered normal use of the shared library, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work. The copyright holder of a given library would have to make that statement for the library in question for it to apply. Agreed. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: legal status of faac, xvid
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:20:13AM -0700, seven sins wrote: i am looking for information on how the debian teams views legal status of faac and xvid. work for a company where we use debian, folks on the research team want to do use these for some reason. before i install these i wanted to check on the legal status for there quite a bit of messages on it and i am kind of clueless about it. Nobody is really sure about the legal status of contemporary video codecs. There are more patents on video encoding than you can shake a stick at. The MPEG-LA claims to hold all the patents applicable to MPEG, and that all these patents are valid, but since it's impossible for them to know either of these things they are obviously lying. It's never been seriously tested in court. So, get yourself a lawyer and check the details of their malpractice insurance very carefully. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it in my system just in the same places/names/sonames/whatever OpenSSL is installed, this would change the copyright status of _the_ _program_!! This says that there can be no such thing as copyright infringement for creating a derivative of a piece of software, because you can always replace the original with a reimplementation that wouldn't be infringement. While it may be an interesting legal theory that copyright infringement in software can only apply to verbatim copying (and one that has been proposed before by various crackpots), I would not like to rely on it in court, because it's absurd. I'll leave it as an exercise for the students to find where the argument went wrong; the mere existence of a flawed conclusion is enough to convince me that it went wrong *somewhere*. Go back and do it again in a manner that concludes derivative works are normally infringement, and explains why this case is different. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were doing, I am not certain. It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program is equivelent to linking the library with the object files of your program, seems to verify this. The question still debated is whether Shared libraries are like this also. It's the wrong question. This is a FAQ here. Stop thinking about libraries. Libraries are not relevant. You're getting misled by technial details of how libraries are implemented, when in fact the whole issue is a red herring. Start thinking about source. The question you need to ask yourself is: Is this piece of software, in source form, a derivative of openssl? If it has been written to include and extend the behaviour of openssl by calling its functions - for example, the piece of software is an implementation of HTTPS, an SSL-derived protocol - then the source is probably a derivative of openssl. The shared library form is then trivially a derivative because it's a transformation of the source, but we don't actually care about that - the fact that the source is a derivative is enough to be a blocking issue. You will note that this allows for the possibility of software linked to openssl that is not a derivative of it. The trivial example is to take a copy of GNU hello, and add -lssl to LDFLAGS. That doesn't make it a derivative of openssl. You will also note that this excludes the possibility of being able to evade copyright law via technicalities of how you build the software. That's an expected property of a well-formulated law. I do not know how a program that really used openssl, calling its functions, could avoid being a derivative. I can't rule it out but I've never seen a plausible argument for it and I can't imagine what one would look like. If anybody wants to try arguing that case here, expect it to be a really hard sell. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't modifiable). Yeesh. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
** Andrew Suffield :: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it in my system just in the same places/names/sonames/whatever OpenSSL is installed, this would change the copyright status of _the_ _program_!! This says that there can be no such thing as copyright infringement for creating a derivative of a piece of software, because you can always replace the original with a reimplementation that wouldn't be infringement. my knowledge of the English language is still worse than I tought, because I do not have any recollection of meaning what you said _at_ _all_. Remember: DERIVATIVE == TRANSFORMATION. While it may be an interesting legal theory that copyright infringement in software can only apply to verbatim copying (and one that has been proposed before by various crackpots), I would not like to rely on it in court, because it's absurd. I have not said _at_ _all_ something absurd as you state in your paragraph above. Calling me (directly or indirectly) a crackpot will not change this. I do know what I'm talking about and I think you are not being polite. I'll leave it as an exercise for the students to find where the argument went wrong; the mere existence of a flawed conclusion is enough to convince me that it went wrong *somewhere*. Go back and do it again in a manner that concludes derivative works are normally infringement, and explains why this case is different. The problem here is that you got to a flawed conclusion that I did not state at all, so the error resides entirely in your parser, AFAIK. You seem to be saying that if a program has x = MD5(a, b, c, d); in its text, then it *is* a derivative work of OpenSSL. What I said is exactly the opposite of this: the presence of the above line does not imply at all that some program is an OpenSSL derivative. And it's not. The usage of a library by a program does NOT transform said library in ANY aspect. My point is exactly that, throughout all my argument: a work based on the Program == derivative work under copyright law == the result of an intellectualy-novel transformation applied over the original work. Usage of a library, especially thru its published API != transformation applied over the library == usage of a library != a work based on the Program == usage of a library != said library must be GPL-compatible Maybe my English was clearer now? Mind you, the problem with ike-scan (today on-list) was exactly this: it (optionally) calls MD5 and/or SHA1 from OpenSSL, offering an alternative implementation if OpenSSL is not available (OpenSSL's implementation being better performant). No court that I know of would regard ike-scan as being a derivative work (nor a work based on) OpenSSL. And I had my share of court work. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't modifiable). Since the star upstream author is deeply involved with sun and the whole opensolaris guys, and he told me on the opensolaris list that he did ask for a modular choice-of-venue thingy and that none of the opensolaris guys from sun told him differently, i clearly doubt there is any such problem :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they
were doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact
that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program
is equivelent to linking the library with the object files of
your program, seems to verify this.
The question still debated is whether Shared libraries are like
this also.
It's the wrong question. This is a FAQ here.
Stop thinking about libraries. Libraries are not relevant. You're
getting misled by technial details of how libraries are
implemented, when in fact the whole issue is a red herring. Start
thinking about source.
The question you need to ask yourself is: Is this piece of
software, in source form, a derivative of openssl?
Up to this point, you are 100% correct.
If it has been written to include and extend the behaviour of
openssl by calling its functions - for example, the piece of
software is an implementation of HTTPS, an SSL-derived protocol -
then the source is probably a derivative of openssl.
NO Please, no!!! Never !!! Substitute that for:
If it has be written applying any kind of intellectually-novel
(which rules out *any* kind of automated/automatable) TRANSFORMATION
over the source code of OpenSSL -- for instance, assuming OpenSSL is
written in C, if you port function-by-function the code to Pascal,
having to think and apply your craft in the art of programming to do
so, then the source is a derivative of openssl.
What you said is false, and its falsehood is trivially demonstrated
-- imagine the following C program:
#include stdio.h
int search_ascii_for_my_name_amongst_the_digits_of_pi(char *name) {
//... non-trivial implementation here.
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
printf(hello, %s!\nyour name is in the %dth digit of pi!\n,
argv[1],
search_ascii_for_my_name_amongst_the_digits_of_pi(argv[1]));
return 0;
}
-- end
the program above includes and extends the functionality of libc, by
calling its functions to make it print your name (given to it in the
command-line) and where is the ascii for your name in pi. It's a
derivative work of libc, as per your reasoning. Ah, but which libc?
MSVCRT? BSD libc? glibc?
The shared library form is then trivially a derivative because
it's a transformation of the source, but we don't actually care
about that - the fact that the source is a derivative is enough to
be a blocking issue.
Beware of the use of transformation here... transformation of
source into binary form (static, shared, library, program) is NOT
intellectually-novel. Does _not_ generate a new copyrightable work,
the work is still the same, it does just generate a copy that is in
another format.
You will note that this allows for the possibility of software
linked to openssl that is not a derivative of it. The trivial
example is to take a copy of GNU hello, and add -lssl to
LDFLAGS. That doesn't make it a derivative of openssl.
hello is not derivative of openssl even if you make it print the MD5
and SHA1 of the string hello, world., as calculated by openssl.
No intellectually-novel transformation was applied over openssl.
You will also note that this excludes the possibility of being
able to evade copyright law via technicalities of how you build
the software. That's an expected property of a well-formulated
law.
Yes. And this is exactly WHY you are wrong. If my program above
could be deemed a derivative work on MSVCRT, this would open a
Pandora box.
I do not know how a program that really used openssl, calling its
functions, could avoid being a derivative. I can't rule it out but
Because you seem not to know what a derivative is. I repeat, and I
refer you to 17USC: transformation, transformation and
transformation.
I've never seen a plausible argument for it and I can't imagine
what one would look like. If anybody wants to try arguing that
case here, expect it to be a really hard sell.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:22 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were doing, I am not certain. It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program is equivelent to linking the library with the object files of your program, seems to verify this. The question still debated is whether Shared libraries are like this also. It's the wrong question. This is a FAQ here. Stop thinking about libraries. Libraries are not relevant. You're getting misled by technial details of how libraries are implemented, when in fact the whole issue is a red herring. Start thinking about source. The question you need to ask yourself is: Is this piece of software, in source form, a derivative of openssl? If it has been written to include and extend the behaviour of openssl by calling its functions - for example, the piece of software is an implementation of HTTPS, an SSL-derived protocol - then the source is probably a derivative of openssl. Your definition of derivative is not based on the law, and I don't believe the question is whether it extends the behavior. That would be a definition based on use, which is not a copyright concept (outside of the termination clause). Here is the US definition of a derivative: - A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. URL: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 - The language has certain ambiguities, in particular there is an open question as to whether a derivative work must be an original work of authorship. Sure, the second sentence seems to make that clear, but the first sentence doesn't seem to support it. Suffice to say, the argument is the stuff of many law review articles. But what is clear is that a derivative work requires an act of copying the original work of authorship. The caselaw in question is Lee v. A.R.T. Co. (125 F.3d 580) where someone took a piece of art they purchased, fused it to an ashtray or something and then resold it. The original artist said that was a derivative work and the sale was illegal. The court found that it was not a derivative work because no copies were being made. A legal copy was merged with something else and the first sale doctrine bared A.R.T. Co. from prohibiting resale of its original art. So with shared libraries the question is not whether it extends functionality, but whether there is copying going on to create a new work (possibly of authorship). Well sure, there is some sort of copying going on... bits and pieces of the shared library must be compiled into the finished binary, but that brings us to another fun copyright question. Are those bits and pieces, in of themselves, copyrightable? Consider Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade Inc. (977 F.2d 151) where the court said that you couldn't protect header type materials via copyright and that Accolade was free to develop games for the Sony PS without having to pay Sony's licensing fees for using its fancy libraries. It was based on the idea that the bits Accolade needed to copy where not eligible for copyright protection. Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere linking against a dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere linking against a dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work. s/copyrighted/derivative/ ?? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:47 am, Humberto Mass Guimarães wrote: Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere linking against a dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work. s/copyrighted/derivative/ ?? Good save The linked work is still eligible for copyright... provided it meets all the standards of authorship. You're little regex, by the way, is an excellent example of a program that is not eligible. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Here is the US definition of a derivative: - A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. URL: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101 Here is Brazilian definition of derivative, just for the kicks (*): art. 5º - [...] VIII - work: [...] g) derivative - the one that, while constituting an intellectually-novel creation, is the result of a transformation applied over the original work; [...] (Lei 9610/98 - Lei de Direitos Autorais/Author's Rights Act) (translation mine) (*) no, not really, but I think it's more approximate to the Berne Convention definition, too. -- HTH, Massa
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/ star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't modifiable). Interestingly enough he has already been told that he violates the CDDL itself [1]. Also a good dispute starts here (as mentioned by someone above) [2] and what I was surprised was the vigorous pushing of star and cddl into the obsd tree. So there are at least two kind of problems with cddl: *modifications in a weird way - which doesn't fit into the spirit of BSD *choice-of-venue and choice-of-law - floating sandy layers which could be dangerous for anyone on the Earth IMHO. [1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/0407.html [2] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/thread.html#399 I feel that the author will convert sooner or later smake and cdrecord to cddl as a part of his anti-GPL campaign. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote: --cut-- Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file, so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then. http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/ star .copyright Took about ten seconds to find out it was GPL before upstream relicensed and debian maint just copied that. Ah, ok, nice to know. Note that the latest upstream development version is star-1.5a67.tar.gz [1] and is CDDL licensed with the following slight modifications: Which constitutes a trademark violation at the very least (it's not the CDDL any more) and quite probably a copyright one (the CDDL isn't modifiable). Interestingly enough he has already been told that he violates the CDDL itself [1]. Also a good dispute starts here (as mentioned by someone above) [2] and what I was surprised was the vigorous pushing of star and cddl into the obsd tree. Yes, altough he told me that : 1) Debian has accepted the CDDL as DFSG free, and as proof the star package is in. 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a single person here on debian-legal. So there are at least two kind of problems with cddl: *modifications in a weird way - which doesn't fit into the spirit of BSD *choice-of-venue and choice-of-law - floating sandy layers which could be dangerous for anyone on the Earth IMHO. [1] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/0407.html [2] http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2005-02/thread.html#399 I feel that the author will convert sooner or later smake and cdrecord to cddl as a part of his anti-GPL campaign. Oh, he is the cdrecord guy. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: But what is clear is that a derivative work requires an act of copying the original work of authorship. The caselaw in question is Lee v. A.R.T. Co. (125 F.3d 580) where someone took a piece of art they purchased, fused it to an ashtray or something and then resold it. The original artist said that was a derivative work and the sale was illegal. The court found that it was not a derivative work because no copies were being made. A legal copy was merged with something else and the first sale doctrine bared A.R.T. Co. from prohibiting resale of its original art. So with shared libraries the question is not whether it extends functionality, snip irrelevant distraction about technicalities of shared libraries It'd be nice if this fairly optimistic view of copyright as applied to software would be upheld in the real world, because it would mean we could stop worrying about derivative works and modify[0] anything we liked; the only limitation would be on distribution (be even nicer if we could scrap that too, which would mean copyright wouldn't exist and the only requirement for being free software would be that you have the source). But I'm not hopeful that it would be, particularly since all the corporations and lawyers seem to think otherwise. Also, this completely defeats the GPL, permitting proprietary software to be based on it and making it functionally equivalent to the LGPL. Of course, if this were upheld in court, everybody would just leap to using contracts instead of licenses, and explicitly prohibiting quasi-derivation-via-merging. Enough courts have already upheld that you can substitute a contract for a copyright license and ignore all the limitations of copyright law. [0] I can trivially implement, in a matter of a few hours, a system which will let you modify any piece of software you have on a given platform in a manner that could only be described as 'merging it with something else'. If your platform is perl or some similar ASCII-text script, the system is patch(1). With minimal extra effort I can ensure that this happens only at execution time, and that no copies are stored. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:27:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: ** Andrew Suffield :: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it in my system just in the same places/names/sonames/whatever OpenSSL is installed, this would change the copyright status of _the_ _program_!! This says that there can be no such thing as copyright infringement for creating a derivative of a piece of software, because you can always replace the original with a reimplementation that wouldn't be infringement. my knowledge of the English language is still worse than I tought, because I do not have any recollection of meaning what you said _at_ _all_. Remember: DERIVATIVE == TRANSFORMATION. Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that Only the verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications, can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal. The rest of your mail just ranted the same thing several times. My point stands. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a single person here on debian-legal. Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it cannot make a license non-free. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: legal status of faac, xvid
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: The MPEG-LA claims to hold all the patents applicable to MPEG, and that all these patents are valid, but since it's impossible for them to know either of these things they are obviously lying. They don't claim to do this at all.[1] All they say is that they can license this set of patents on behalf of the patent holders which they feel are essential for MPEG-4, that they're trying to provide worldwide access to as much MPEG-4 Visual essential intellectual property as possible; new Licensors and essential patents may be added at no additional royalty during the current term[2] Indeed, they don't even hold the patents *at all*. It's never been seriously tested in court. What's to test? It's just method of licensing a slew of patents. Don Armstrong 1: Or at the very least I've never seen this claim in any communication; I haven't bothered to request a copy of the license agreement though. 2: http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/ -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CDDL
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: The discussions on CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively. Let's do something about this. At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying with for a slightly more (informally) directed approach to license analysis, that should prove harder to derail with long pointless tangents and more immune to revisionism by the hecklers. So, I'm throwing out a call for comments on the CDDL. Forget the last time we went through it and start over (or dig through it if you want and summarise interesting stuff here). Go over it with a fine tooth comb, find anything that you think is or might be objectionable, and reply to this mail with something vaguely resembling a bulleted list of points. For each, highlight the offending clause and the reason why it sucks. Please be careful to note the distinction between 'is' and 'might be', and for the latter, explain the conditions that would make it suck. (This is a minimally more structured variation on our normal dogpile strategy; the interesting part comes next. It's easier for me to demonstrate than to explain). [License follows as inline MIME foo] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | ******** CCOOMMMMOONN DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT AANNDD DDIISSTTRRIIBBUUTTIIOONN LLIICCEENNSSEE ((CCDDDDLL)) VVeerrssiioonn 11..00 ******** * 11.. DDeeffiinniittiioonnss.. o 11..11.. CCoonnttrriibbuuttoorr means each individual or entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications. o 11..22.. CCoonnttrriibbuuttoorr VVeerrssiioonn means the combination of the Original Software, prior Modifications used by a Contributor (if any), and the Modifications made by that particular Contributor. o 11..33.. CCoovveerreedd SSooffttwwaarree 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. o 11..44.. EExxeeccuuttaabbllee means the Covered Software in any form other than Source Code. o 11..55.. IInniittiiaall DDeevveellooppeerr means the individual or entity that first makes Original Software available under this License. o 11..66.. LLaarrggeerr WWoorrkk means a work which combines Covered Software or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. o 11..77.. LLiicceennssee means this document. o 11..88.. LLiicceennssaabbllee 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. o 11..99.. MMooddiiffiiccaattiioonnss means the Source Code and Executable form of any of the following: # AA.. Any file that results from an addition to, deletion from or modification of the contents of a file containing Original Software or previous Modifications; # BB.. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Software or previous Modification; or # CC.. Any new file that is contributed or otherwise made available under the terms of this License. o 11..1100.. OOrriiggiinnaall SSooffttwwaarree means the Source Code and Executable form of computer software code that is originally released under this License. o 11..1111.. PPaatteenntt CCllaaiimmss means any patent claim(s), now owned or hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method, process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by grantor. o 11..1122.. SSoouurrccee CCooddee means (a) the common form of computer software code in which modifications are made and (b) associated documentation included in or with such code. o 11..1133.. YYoouu ((oorr YYoouurr)) 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)
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Remember: DERIVATIVE == TRANSFORMATION. Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that Only the verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications, can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal. The rest of your mail just ranted the same thing several times. My point stands. Nope. I didn't the first time, and I didn't now. You are being a child, not giving any reasonable reasoning, and trying to put words in my mouth. Me and Sean Kellog (in this same thread) we're trying to demonstrate (via showing of code law, case law, etc -- things that *really* matter in the *real* world) our point of view. Besides, I was a paralegal for two years, in a District Attorney's office and I have participated in legal research for prosecuting copyright infringers -- I _do_ know what I'm talking about, in the real world. And in no moment I showed for you the lack of respect you are showing for me right now. I did _not_ just ranted the same. I did offer you an example of how you are simply plain wrong -- as is the GPL FSF FAQ -- when you say that linking to a library creates a derivative work. A derivative work is NOT what you want it to be... it's a very well-defined (by code law and case law) legal entity. And it happens to differ (a lot) of what you think it is. Go in my example (that you so impolitely skipped in this response) and give me _any_ _good_ argument on why my program is or is not a derivative work of libc. Then, give me an argument on what libc (MSVCRT, BSD libc, or glibc) you think my program is a derivative work of, and why. I'll give you counter- arguments, and you'll see I'm right. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:32:26PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: I did _not_ just ranted the same. I did offer you an example of how you are simply plain wrong -- as is the GPL FSF FAQ -- when you say that linking to a library creates a derivative work. Argument from authority and a straw man, yawn. A derivative work is NOT what you want it to be... it's a very well-defined (by code law and case law) legal entity. And it happens to differ (a lot) of what you think it is. If you're going to make an argument at odds with established understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with more than that. There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: legal status of faac, xvid
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: It's never been seriously tested in court. What's to test? It's just method of licensing a slew of patents. The legitimacy of their claimed patents. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is because the GPL is a contract. The linking clause is a contractual term that you must agree to in order to receive a copyright license. Pretty standard forbearance. I know of no legal professional, outside of the FSF, who believes the GPL stands up as a pure copyright license. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Service Activities Committee Interim Chair c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://www.probonogeek.org So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with more than that. There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. I can't argue with someone who offers ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT. I asked you: why? you answered: strawman and ad hominem. You could not provide an argument. The established practice is nothing more than respect (which I have, too) for RMS's/FSF's contributions to Free Software. It does not mean that the GPL has the meaning they convey. I am still waiting for a good argument coming from you. Respectfully, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is because the GPL is a contract. The linking clause is a contractual term that you must agree to in order to receive a copyright license. Pretty standard forbearance. Which linking clause? The one in the FAQ? That's not in any way part of the license/contract. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
** Sean Kellogg :: On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is because the GPL is a contract. The linking clause is a contractual term that you must agree to in order to receive a copyright license. Pretty standard forbearance. But... there is _no_ linking clause in the GPL (*). Unless you are telling me that the How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs is a binding part of the contract, which I will also dispute, because the mentioned title is immediately after a big, all-caps END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS in the GPL. I know of no legal professional, outside of the FSF, who believes the GPL stands up as a pure copyright license. Ditto. (*) see: $ grep -n -i -C link gpl.txt 336-This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into 337-proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may 338:consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the 339-library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General 340-Public License instead of this License. $ grep -n -i -C how.to.apply.these gpl.txt 280- END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS 281- 282:How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs 283- 284- If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a single person here on debian-legal. Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it cannot make a license non-free. Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should not distribute software with such licence. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it cannot make a license non-free. Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should not distribute software with such licence. There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should not distribute software with such licence. There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Well actually, in most countries part of the UN, the convention applies by default to international contracts. So it is quite relevant to exclude it, otherwise it may seriously be contended that it is applicable. Yes, but what does it *say*? There are thousands and thousands of words in the CISG. They cover much ground in many areas of contract law. It is impossible to tell which specific one of the CISG's 101 articles Mozilla's lawyers were afraid of. Thanks Henning, and thanks Yorrick for putting all the work into investigating what started as a joke on puzzling legalese. Now I know more than I ever wanted to know about UN sale of goods conventions. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CDDL, OpenSolaris, Choice-of-venue and the star package ...
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then. Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case? It does not work this way. If you believe that a license is not free it's up to you explaining why. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:53:57AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is because the GPL is a contract. The linking clause is a contractual term that you must agree to in order to receive a copyright license. Pretty standard forbearance. Then your entire argument is irrelevent. If the GPL stands as a contract then it's valid, period. And there is no 'linking clause' in the GPL. The string 'link' only occurs once in the whole COPYING file, and that's in the postamble, not the license. The *only* thing there is, is the restriction on derivatives, which operates how I described or not at all. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote: If you're going to make an argument at odds with established understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with more than that. There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them. I can't argue with someone who offers ABSOLUTELY NO ARGUMENT. You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken. That doesn't require a counter-argument in this case. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
