Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:40:36AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: Machine generated assembly is, in general, significantly less modifiable than hand-written assembly. And code in which information that the original coder inserted has been removed is less modifiable than code written without that information in the first place. Can give you a good reason why the two situations we described are significantly different? -Peff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: generated source files, GPL and DFSG
On Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 02:35:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: So say we have two drivers for a piece of hardware. One is written without comments. One was originally commented, but the comments have been removed. Both provide the same amount of information about how they work. Both are released under the same license. Both provide exactly the same freedoms to our users. How is one of these free and the other non-free? Let's say I write a program in C code and compile it to assembly language, which I distribute. Somebody else writes an equivalent program directly in assembly language and distributes it. The distributed products contain the same amount of information about how they work. How is one of these free and the other non-free? -Peff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Yes, it is the intention. How about a license like: Do whatever you want. The only argument I have heard against this is that you (or your heirs) may later say Oh, but I didn't really mean *anything*. Which seems silly to me, but perhaps that's why I'm a programmer and not a lawyer. Perhaps lawyers are silly, but I think the law is getting a bad rap in this conversation. The issue is not with evil heirs but with termination rights and market forces. Consider for a moment a budding I think there are actually two issues we're talking about. I was mentioning a line of reasoning I have seen here[1], which indicates that we must be explicit in crafting PD-ish licenses, because our heirs can bring suit, saying that the original author couldn't have really meant to do something so clearly to his detriment. You are, as you say, talking about termination rights. But wouldn't those be just as much an issue here as they are with, say, the GPL? -Peff [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00485.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:48:57PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public Domain... I have been on this list for about 6 weeks, and I have seen no less than three active threads regarding public domain licenses. A minority, perhaps, but certainly there are people interested in this. wishes of the few. If you really want to ensure your works stay forever free, then make sure you teach your mate and offspring (the only folks who can exercise your termination right other than yourself) the value of your decisions. I'm not worried about my works staying free. I'm worried about people who want to use my works being sure that my works will stay free. I like the Public Domain, don't get me wrong... but I dislike strong armed corporations more, so I think the balance struck by Congress works pretty well. Well, clearly I don't. :) The root cause of this problem is Congress, not an inherent balance. I don't *want* to license my work to a corporation in an irrevocable way. I want to put it in the public domain in an irrevocable way. But because there's no explicit way to do that (and I must fake my way through by using an extremely permissive license), both cases fall under the same category. With well-written legislation, they don't need to. You sound like a corporate lawyer... they would love nothing more than for the freedom of contract to be absolute. Imagine situations where you sign Now you're just being mean. I happen to agree completely with Glenn's statements. I'm not only not a corporate lawyer, but am spending considerable effort trying to figure out how in the world to just give away intellectual works which I have created on my own time. I'm sorry if that seems cold-hearted and corporate to you. -Peff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:57:47PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: What's the public domain in the context of UK / European law? I don't know, as I am neither a lawyer nor a European. However, I assume there is some concept of a work which has passed out of copyright (due to time limitations). What is that called? What are the rights of individuals with respect to that work? It is useful to have explicit permission to use freely for commercial/governmental/not for profit and personal and private use for example. Is use actually restricted by copyright? If you receive a copy of software lawfully, are you not free to copy, run, modify, or reverse-engineer it? See the 1991 European Software Directive, for example. -Peff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: The Netherlands is one. Well, we do have a public domain, but it only contains works that by law have no copyright and works whose copyright has expired. So what's wrong with a license like: You may do anything with this work that you would with a work in the public domain. _Probably_ a Dutch judge would treat the above statement as a license that means do whatever you want, since he's supposed to reconstruct the intention of the author from such a vague statement. And do whatever you want seems the intention. Yes, it is the intention. How about a license like: Do whatever you want. The only argument I have heard against this is that you (or your heirs) may later say Oh, but I didn't really mean *anything*. Which seems silly to me, but perhaps that's why I'm a programmer and not a lawyer. Is there a legal way to say No, really, ANYTHING without resorting to listing all of the things (which can get quite long)? But would name ever bring a lawsuit asserting copyright infringement? It seems like it's not possible to prevent the author from bringing a suit at all (even with a public domain dedication). However, you can ideally make the suit trivially lose-able with a sufficient license. -Peff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Netbiff license
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote: You want a public-domain-equivalent license. There are several ways to do this. Since you really do want it to be public domain, I personally suggest: I place Netbiff in the public domain. If this is legally impossible, then I grant irrevocable, perpetual permission to everyone to treat Netbiff exactly as if it were in the public domain. Netbiff comes with NO WARRANTY. That's more or less what I'm looking for. Is that language sufficient? Is the term public domain unambiguous enough to use in this setting? In all countries? -Peff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
