Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050613 21:21]: On 6/13/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, I am not at all comfortable with your characterization of opinions different from your own as crack-smoking. C'mon, Raul. The crack-smoking GPL refers to an interpretation (non-contract license, functional use results in a derivative work) that I and others have demonstrated to have no basis in law [...] You have expressed this your opinion multiple times. I think your increasing use of words like words and phrases like crack-smoking, deceitful etc make a good point about how 'convincing' your demonstrations were. It wouldn't be the first time that a much-needed reform got put off for an extra century because the people carrying the banner of reform behaved in a manner repugnant to those who understood that the existing system, while flawed, was better than anarchy. Ah, so we are not only crack-smoking but also targeting anarchy? Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/14/05, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050613 21:21]: C'mon, Raul. The crack-smoking GPL refers to an interpretation (non-contract license, functional use results in a derivative work) that I and others have demonstrated to have no basis in law [...] You have expressed this your opinion multiple times. I think your increasing use of words like words and phrases like crack-smoking, deceitful etc make a good point about how 'convincing' your demonstrations were. Increasing? Not particularly. If it really bothers you, I'm happy to drop crack-smoking, and say I am pro-GPL-as-an-instrument-of law. But with respect to deceit: Eben Moglen has engaged for years in deceit about the nature of copyright law and licenses. I see no reason not to call it by its name. I'm not sure what point you think you're making about what is or isn't convincing. If you're not convinced, that's fine; I don't feel compelled to convince everyone. It wouldn't be the first time that a much-needed reform got put off for an extra century because the people carrying the banner of reform behaved in a manner repugnant to those who understood that the existing system, while flawed, was better than anarchy. Ah, so we are not only crack-smoking but also targeting anarchy? Are you not acquainted with Mr. Moglen's essay Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright? You personally may not be advocating anarchy, but that is precisely what Mr. Moglen professes to favor. - Michael
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
-- []s, Massa // First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me - and by then there was no one left to speak out for me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
How can a text get lost? Hmpf. * Michael :: On 6/14/05, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050613 21:21]: C'mon, Raul. The crack-smoking GPL refers to an interpretation (non-contract license, functional use results in a derivative work) that I and others have demonstrated to have no basis in law [...] You have expressed this your opinion multiple times. I think your increasing use of words like words and phrases like crack-smoking, deceitful etc make a good point about how 'convincing' your demonstrations were. Increasing? Not particularly. If it really bothers you, I'm happy to drop crack-smoking, and say I am pro-GPL-as-an-instrument-of law. But with respect to deceit: Eben Moglen has engaged for years in deceit about the nature of copyright law and licenses. I see no reason not to call it by its name. You know I agree with you in many things, but I see one reason: Diplomacy. With a capital D. The FSF holds the copyright interest and is responsible for developing and publicizing of a lot of free software; even if your (harsh) word is accurate, IMHO it would be more polite any of: error, mistaken position, propaganda euphemisms. -- HTH, Always, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/13/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I'd done rather well in responding politely to a polite inquiry as to whether I might be a Tentacle of Evil. I think of myself as representing forthright radicalism within the system, and if you think about it you'll realize why the FSF's deceitful (and, in my opinion, rather amateurish) misrepresentations of the law annoy me so much. I think you are correct in identifying this as the crucial issue. However, I disagree with you about your characterization of this issue. For one thing, you've used this kind of language in a number of contexts -- not simply when someone questions your motives. I can understand that having yourself be questioned leads to all sorts of implications about you as a person, but I guess that's not really what I was concerned about. I don't see FSF as being deceitful. I see them as honestly having a difference of opinion from you about the nature of the legal issues at stake. Characterizing this difference of opinion as deceitful implies to me that you don't think that people disagreeing with your opinion are being honest. But that would also mean that you are not being honest when you appear to be debating these issues: you'd only be providing the appearance of logical reasoning, because you would've assumed the question. I wouldn't mind so much if when you made these kinds of assertions you provided a reference to some page which clearly spells out the issues you're talking about. That way, people inclined to thinking that agreeing or disagreeing with you is important could see for themselves what it is that you're trying to say. [I'd probably mind somewhat, because I'm one of the people who thinks that agreeing or disagreeing with you on this issue is important, but presumably I'd also have factual issues that I could debate if I felt the need.] I also wouldn't mind so much if you instead simply spelled out the issue(s) on which you have a difference of opinion. But, instead, you seem to imply that your opinion has more weight than those of legal professionals, which is totally at odds with some of your disclaimers. Granted, this is merely an implication -- not something you've stated outright -- but you have indicated that you're concerned about analogous implications. If you want to be dismissed as an unthinking radical, I guess I can be talked into describing you that way, but I was under the impression that that was not at all what you are trying to achieve. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
* Bernhard :: * Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]: The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about the law. Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and hope you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask: Are you sponsored by, employed by or otherwise related to Microsoft or any other large company selling non-free software? While I can't speak for Michael, I tought you should know other people (such as myself) agree with him in many of his points, including that one above. And *I* am employed by the Legislative branch of the government of Minas Gerais, Brasil, which is conducting a massive migration to Free Software, and I do not have any financial interest whatsoever involving proprietary software. Furthermore, while IANAL, I *try* to base things I put on d-l in my reasonable knowledge of Brazilian law and legal research (I worked two years as a paralegal, and I have another two years of legal training). -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/12/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and just to remind you: I am pro-non-crack-smoking-GPL, and have even been known to advocate that it be required as a matter of law For the record, I am not at all comfortable with your characterization of opinions different from your own as crack-smoking. That's fine if you aren't intending to seriously debate those points of view, but you seem to be rather interested in that kind of debate. I recognize that a specific legal case will proceed in a specific and logical fashion, but it's presumptious to assume too much about how a judge will decide on any particular dispute. -- Raul
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/13/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the record, I am not at all comfortable with your characterization of opinions different from your own as crack-smoking. C'mon, Raul. The crack-smoking GPL refers to an interpretation (non-contract license, functional use results in a derivative work) that I and others have demonstrated to have no basis in law and to be a deliberate attempt to subvert the legal regime surrounding software copyright. As such, it's intended as a bit of humorous hyperbole to lighten the atmosphere surrounding a quite serious topic. I hardly refer to general differences of opinion as crack-smoking. I thought I'd done rather well in responding politely to a polite inquiry as to whether I might be a Tentacle of Evil. I think of myself as representing forthright radicalism within the system, and if you think about it you'll realize why the FSF's deceitful (and, in my opinion, rather amateurish) misrepresentations of the law annoy me so much. It wouldn't be the first time that a much-needed reform got put off for an extra century because the people carrying the banner of reform behaved in a manner repugnant to those who understood that the existing system, while flawed, was better than anarchy. Cheers, - Michael
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]: The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about the law. Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and hope you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask: Are you sponsored by, employed by or otherwise related to Microsoft or any other large company selling non-free software? Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
On 6/12/05, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050611 20:05]: The FSF is not in the business of giving truthful advice about the law. Sorry to ask the following, but I am getting really curious and hope you do not feel insulted. But I really have to ask: Are you sponsored by, employed by or otherwise related to Microsoft or any other large company selling non-free software? I happen to work for a company which sells both hardware and software (not Microsoft or any close relative), but not in any legal (or polemical) capacity, and my opinions are my own. I've gotten so deeply involved in this debate, and spent so much time on it, that I gave a company lawyer of my acquaintance a heads-up last week; but he's more likely to be horrified by the possibility of the company becoming the target of a free-software-enthusiast vendetta than to approve. Cheers, - Michael
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
Oh, and just to remind you: I am pro-non-crack-smoking-GPL, and have even been known to advocate that it be required as a matter of law that software other than e-toys be offered substantially under the GPL terms. In most circles I would be seen as a radical free software enthusiast. I just don't approve of attempts to subvert the legal system by deceit about the nature of the law. Cheers, - Michael
Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
Joachim Schrod wrote: Jonathan Fine wrote: I am not a license expert, but here is my take at this question: I don't think that the passage quoted above is relevant here. We are not talking about distributing a `Derived Work'. The question whether or not source less distribution is allowed is IMO concerned with a `Compiled Work'. Concerning that, we find in the LPPL: A translation is an example of a derived work. In my opinion (I'm not a lawyer), latex.fmt is a derived work A derived work is a work where the source has been changed, not where the source has been processed. Go and ask your lawyer. I think the FSF may have already asked a lawyer this question. In the LGPL we read: === When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library. === This is an example of a derived work, where no change is made to the source. This seems to contradict your broad statement: A derived work is a work where the source has been changed, not where the source has been processed. Of course, showing that you are wrong does not show that I am right. You may also ask on debian-legal@lists.debian.org, they have lots of patience to discuss all kinds of license legalese with you. I've copied this message to that list, and asked that followup go to that list. For the benefit of that list, 'latex.fmt' is a dumped execution state of a program, namely TeX, which can be reloaded at high speed. Inputs to the creation of latex.fmt include program files, such as latex.ltx, font metric files, and hyphenation tables. -- Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
