Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 09:23:22AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote: In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another program to de a derivative work. In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments. At first glance, that's a good point. However, do you really mean to say that all the git-* tools written by others should be considered derivative works then? Things like git-svn, git-cvs (oookay, so there might be some doubt about those), things like git-buildpackage and git-annex? Would that mean that the GPL-3+ git-annex is in violation, since most of the base Git is under a GPL-2 (no +) license? :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org pe...@packetscale.com PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn't! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote: In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another program to de a derivative work. In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments. It happens (to me) to be as simple as this: If the parsed program is susbtituted by a clone will the parsing program continue working? If the answer is yes, since it is absurd that the parsing program is a derivative work of all possible clones at the same time, then clearly it is not a derivative work. If the answer is no, then clearly the parsing program depends on the parsed one 'in an intimate way'. Can a clone or sucessor of nmap be used with gnetworktester? Regards Noel er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Le mercredi 09 mars 2011 à 11:27 +, Noel David Torres Taño a écrit : Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote: In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments. It happens (to me) to be as simple as this: If the parsed program is susbtituted by a clone will the parsing program continue working? If the shared library is substituted by a clone reimplementing the same API/ABI, will the program linking to it continue working? If the answer is yes, since it is absurd that the parsing program is a derivative work of all possible clones at the same time, then clearly it is not a derivative work. If the answer is no, then clearly the parsing program depends on the parsed one 'in an intimate way'. Can a clone or sucessor of nmap be used with gnetworktester? I agree that if such clone exists (and that holds for libraries too), it is not a derivative work. Nothing specific to parsing the output of another program here. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299680294.21760.94.camel@meh
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/06/2011 11:51 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 06 mars 2011 à 12:04 +0100, W. Martin Borgert a écrit : (out of curiosity moved to debian-legal) On 2011-03-05 23:46, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: gnetworktester seems to parse the output of nmap and nmap upstream at http://insecure.org/nmap/data/COPYING gives me the impression that gnetworktester would thus be derivative work. IANAL, but since when parsing the output of another program constitutes a derivative work? The distinction between a derivative work and a separate work is not based on technology but on functionality. Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a court, there wouldn’t be any. Thanks for CCing to debian-legal anyway, i'm really confused for this packages, but i'm open for input for a best solutions as i know, gnetworktester parsing nmap output by running nmap (see src/nmap.py). Any suggest? thanks before - -- [ Mahyuddin Susanto ] http://tripledin.wordpress.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk12NIMACgkQdr7GbwjmqKXa6gEAvBKeLR9Xv9N4pag+cHgDIHRR PYQcLEJhnwG1rm6zab8BANztIkFef+hdvdsucWs8XZNtEbcz70gn8b5VkYzBPTpG =7x4x -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d763486.4050...@ubuntu.com
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
2011/3/8 Mahyuddin Susanto udi...@ubuntu.com: Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a court, there wouldn’t be any. Thanks for CCing to debian-legal anyway, i'm really confused for this packages, but i'm open for input for a best solutions In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another program to de a derivative work. According to the GPL FAQ [1]: Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTik7=pd+jz77tutb1knxfgfiwc-4gb89vjcod...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a court, there wouldn’t be any. By this reasoning, if I write a program which converts another word processor's output to Microsoft Word format, then that program is a derivative of Microsoft Word, at least until Open Office gets a filter good enough to read it. This is a completely unrelated case. Functionally, such a program can work without Microsoft Word. Moreover, by this reasoning, if I write a program that runs only on Windows, or which interfaces with some proprietary Windows protocol, Microsoft can legitimately claim that I am violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized derivative of their work. Microsoft gives you explicit permission to link to the system libraries provided with Windows. This definition of derivative work is something which the FSF claims, but which many people outside the FSF are skeptical of precisely because of absurd consequences like these. If you want to prove something is absurd, please point to absurdities first. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299598463.18970.8.camel@meh
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
The distinction between a derivative work and a separate work is not based on technology but on functionality. Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a court, there wouldn’t be any. By this reasoning, if I write a program which converts another word processor's output to Microsoft Word format, then that program is a derivative of Microsoft Word, at least until Open Office gets a filter good enough to read it. Moreover, by this reasoning, if I write a program that runs only on Windows, or which interfaces with some proprietary Windows protocol, Microsoft can legitimately claim that I am violating their copyright by creating an unauthorized derivative of their work. This definition of derivative work is something which the FSF claims, but which many people outside the FSF are skeptical of precisely because of absurd consequences like these.
Re: Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org wrote: In general, I wouldn't consider parsing the output of another program to de a derivative work. In general, I do agree with Miriam that parsing the output of another program does not make a derivative work. But just to give an example of where it does happen, git is largely comprised of many small utilities that communicate over pipes and command-line arguments. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110308.092322.148477719412830956.wal...@geodynamics.org
