Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Steve wrote: Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. In source code form, such derivative works are subject to BSD and only the BSD -- you simply can't modify/extend/etc. original license (unless you're the copyright owner in original works). Are you saying that if one creates a derived work from BSD-licensed software, they can apply any additional licensing terms they wish to the compiled binary output... but those terms would not apply to the source code itself? I must say, that's an extremely BIZARRE distinction to wrap my head around! I see nothing bizarre here. Apart from the (lack of) obligation to disclose source code of derivative works, it works similar to the CPL, for example. A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement... See CPL section 3. REQUIREMENTS. Eh, as long as he didn't modify any BSD'd code, all his works are GPL'd and they are separate (literary) works from BSD'd (literary) works from A. And a combination (compilation) of all those works is another non-derivative (under copyright law, not metaphysically) work and it is subject neither to GPL nor BSD. You've lost me on this point as well. Are you trying to say that incorporation of another project's code into your own project does not constitute a derived work so long as you don't modify the code you've incorporated? It doesn't constitute a derivative work under copyright law. Why is it then that if I build an application on MS-Windows using the Cygwin port of GCC, even though I haven't altered a single line of GPL'ed code, I am still forced to license my work under the GPL... because Cygwin dynamically links my code to a GPL'ed DLL. No. That's because you've been fooled (not really forced) by the FSF's baseless propaganda regarding linking, I suppose. I understand that compilations are not subject to the GPL or BSD (i.e. I could create a proprietary IDE by packaging a BSD'ed text editor and the GCC compiler). However, it's always been my understand that LITERALLY embedding someone else's code in your own software (including static or dynamic linking) subjects you to the GPL. That's the entire purpose behind the LGPL, isn't it? See http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf and also nice review of that book at http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html. Here's what Rosen had to say about the LGPL: The LGPL, therefore, is an anomalya hybrid license intended to address a complex issue about program linking and derivative works. It doesnt solve that problem but merely directs us back to the main event, the GPL license itself. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
What does the FSF advocate regarding non-free software
I'm thinking through my opinions about the FSF and am trying to figure something out. I know the FSF believes that free software is the correct form of licensing, but does the FSF formally advocate the elimination of copyright laws that allow for non-free software? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: What does the FSF advocate regarding non-free software
beirne == beirne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: beirne I'm thinking through my opinions about the FSF and am trying to beirne figure something out. I know the FSF believes that free beirne software is the correct form of licensing, but does the FSF beirne formally advocate the elimination of copyright laws that allow beirne for non-free software? No. It is copyright law that allows the FSF to enforce the GNU GPL. -- --- Eric Eide [EMAIL PROTECTED] . University of Utah School of Computing http://www.cs.utah.edu/~eeide/ . +1 (801) 585-5512 voice, +1 (801) 581-5843 FAX ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: What does the FSF advocate regarding non-free software
beirne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm thinking through my opinions about the FSF and am trying to figure something out. I know the FSF believes that free software is the correct form of licensing, but does the FSF formally advocate the elimination of copyright laws that allow for non-free software? The copyright laws protecting non-free software are the same laws as those protecting free software. The FSF cooperates with several other organizations trying to limit the overreaching extent of copyright laws. This sort of lobbying affects both free and non-free software. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: What does the FSF advocate regarding non-free software
beirne wrote: I'm thinking through my opinions about the FSF and am trying to figure something out. I know the FSF believes that free software is the correct form of licensing, but does the FSF formally advocate the elimination of copyright laws that allow for non-free software? http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f3dc297fc150be05 lunacy AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would be that you wouldn't get the sources. RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to sell copies of the software to the public the source code must be deposited somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So it could be deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, and I think other countries have similar institutions where copies of published books get placed, and they could also received the source code and after three years, publish it. And of course, if the source code didn't correspond to the executable that would be fraud, and in fact if it really corresponds then they ought to be able to check that very easily when the work is published initially so you're publishing the source code and somebody there says alright dot slash configure dot slash make and sees if produces the same executables and uh. /lunacy regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Drivative works of BSD'd code (derivative literary works [modulo the AFC test] under copyright law) are subject to BSD. That's really interesting. What legal jurisdiction are you in? U.S. law is different. Here, derivative works have separate copyrights independent of copyrights on the material they're derived from. Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a different license is allowed. Material contributed by the author of the derivative work would not be subject to the BSD license. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] Since the BSD license allows code to be used for any purpose, the purpose of creating a derivative work and distributing it under a different license is allowed. Use is irrelevant because as far as copyright is concerned, it is permitted per 17 USC 117 and the BSD doesn't seek to override 17 USC 117 user rights in contractual manner. Regarding derivative works beyond the scope of 17 USC 117 adaptations (note that 17 USC 117 adaptations may be transferred/distributed only with the authorization of the copyright owner), the modified source code must retain the BSD license: different license is not allowed. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
$B$*Ajj$O%-%c%j%%!%^%s$N$_$G$9(B?
$B!y%*!%k%-%c%j%M!!(Bhttp://www.awg1.net/?carrier1 $B'X(B $B5U1gAjj$O%-%c%j%[EMAIL PROTECTED](B $B(87A*$7$?F/$/[EMAIL PROTECTED]!K$H5U1g4uK[EMAIL PROTECTED])(B $B(G($l$KG($l$^$/[EMAIL PROTECTED]1J5WE*$K2?;~$G$b2?=h$G$b40A4L5NA$G$NR2pCW$7$^$9!#(B $B($J$[EMAIL PROTECTED]@-$NJ}$+$iNA6b$rD:[EMAIL PROTECTED](B $B!y8xL30wM!!(Bhttp://www.awg1.net/?carrier2 $B!y9R6u2qRM!!(Bhttp://www.awg1.net/?carrier3 $B(5U1g%5%$%H$,?dACW$7$^$9!#(B $B!y309q?M!Hk=q!J0lN.4k6H!K!2qR7P1D$J$IM!!(Bhttp://www.awg1.net/?carrier4 $B!y!y!yB:]$K$$C$?H~L#$7$$=PMh;v!%3%a%s%H!$J$I$,7G([EMAIL PROTECTED]@$/$5$s!@'Hs!*FI$s$G$_$F$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B $B(!Z(B18$B6X![((B =$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B= $B((BI don't veceive your mail$B!!M!!([EMAIL PROTECTED] $B(%a!%kITMW!!M!!([EMAIL PROTECTED] =$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B=$B#(B= ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
