Re: Licensing question about the BSD
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:57:00 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Bruce Lewis wrote: >> [...] >>> GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very >>> likely to make it a derivative work. >> >> "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies >> with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and >> do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when >> exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, >> notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written >> does not compel the release of source code for independently >> authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs >> through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the >> software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this >> basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the >> assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front >> ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." >> >>-- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, >> unpublished draft 10th June 2005. > > Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like Which court decisions are in disagreement with Mr. Edward's position? Isaac ___ 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
On 05 Aug 2005 09:04:01 -0400, Bruce Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Yeah, I should have said that copyright doesn't establish exclusive >> right to "designed to fit". Ok now? > > Just from your words: "To fit" is one definition of "adapt". Adaptation > is one form of derivative work. Derivative work is an exclusive right > of copyright. > > Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software > could be described by any of the three verbs in "or any other form in > which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion adapting requires making at least some change to fit. Yet you've expressly stated that the original software has not been modified. Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the statute is going to support the argument. I'd want to see some case law. Isaac ___ 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 wrote: [...] > "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies > with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and > do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when > exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, > notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written > does not compel the release of source code for independently > authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs > through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the > software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this > basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the > assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front > ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." > >-- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, > unpublished draft 10th June 2005. Edwards says that here are a couple of messages you might point him [plonked GNUtian dak] to, regarding his "courts and legal departments don't agree": http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00524.html (that's Humberto's) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00525.html and especially the LPF amicus brief linked there, from which I like the paragraph quoted at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00545.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00582.html (reasonably concise "why did the FSF effectively lose in Progress v. MySQL") and on NeXT and MCC, http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00921.html and several comments elsewhere in that thread (or of course you can use the summary in the draft) If he's more or less sincere, you can suggest that it's worth following those threads back and forth to see rebuttals to rebuttals and then not bothering to make those arguments that turn out not to be defensible. I have never yet seen that cause someone from budging from a "but Eben Moglen said so and the protection racket works" position, but there's a first time for everything. :-) 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
Bruce Lewis wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You must be reading something that isn't there. The "independent" > > status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) > > in the sense that it "does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, > > ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the > > preexisting material" is the same in both cases. > > All I'm reading is that in both cases a new copyright exists, Sure it exists. > contrary to your statement: > > > A non-derivative compilation (i.e. "not based" in the > > derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have > > its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. In the case of a non-derivative compilation, the new copyright that covers that work (as a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged) is indeed "its own" and just can't be preempted by the copyrights in the constituent works (there's no exclusive right to prepare [non-derivative] compilations). OTOH, derivative works can't be prepared without permission (that's apart from 17 USC 117 adaptations) and are under multiple copyrights: new copyright plus copyright(s) covering all those protected elements from the preexisting work. So it's not "its own" copyright. Got it now? 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: > Bruce Lewis wrote: > [...] > > "Rarely" implies it is possible. > > That mild and polite wording doesn't subvert the clear message. It subverts yours. ___ 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: > You must be reading something that isn't there. The "independent" > status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) > in the sense that it "does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, > ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the > preexisting material" is the same in both cases. All I'm reading is that in both cases a new copyright exists, contrary to your statement: > A non-derivative compilation (i.e. "not based" in the > derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have > its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. I think I'm getting past the "expose fallacies for the benefit of newcomers" stage and getting into a "feeding the troll" stage. You won't read much more of me in this thread. ___ 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: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing > > derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each > > constituent work can be under its own license. > > You'll have to lobby congress to change "compilation or derivative work" > to just "compilation" in Title 17 chapter 1 section 103(b). Until then > I will remain "confused". You must be reading something that isn't there. The "independent" status of the new copyright with respect to preexisting copyright(s) in the sense that it "does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material" is the same in both cases. 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: > It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing > derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each > constituent work can be under its own license. You'll have to lobby congress to change "compilation or derivative work" to just "compilation" in Title 17 chapter 1 section 103(b). Until then I will remain "confused". ___ 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: [...] > Now you are citing someone who says "Such innovations rarely will > constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act." Someone == United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. > > "Rarely" implies it is possible. That mild and polite wording doesn't subvert the clear message. (Hint: "See generally Nadan, supra, at 1667-72.") 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: > Bruce Lewis wrote: > [...] > > Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software > > could be described by any of the three verbs in "or any other form in > > which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." > > Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like "builds on" > are irrelevant because they don't constitute creation of derivative > literary works under copyright law. It's not that hard to grasp, stupid. Sorry I was so stupid as to read the actual law instead of simply believing what you say. You can have software that "builds on" other software but does not recast, transform or adapt it. You can have software that "builds on" other software and does recast, transform or adapt it. In the latter case it's a derivative work. Embedded spell checkers and Game Genie notwithstanding, there is still plenty of water that courts haven't tested. I would look at specifics and not just assume that because the original source code is unmodified, that there's no derivative work. ___ 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: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives > > like human translations from one programming language to the other > > with the same set of protected elements in both original work and > > derivative work (which falls under "modifications" in the BSD case) > > Even in this case the derivative work can have its own copyright > statement Not "its own". A non-derivative compilation (i.e. "not based" in the derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. Derivative works are under copyright of both its (lawful) creator(s) and the owner(s) of the original work. > and license. It must retain the BSD copyright statement and > license, but that still only applies to the original work. It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each constituent work can be under its own license. 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:
> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
> > brush strokes are all mine, but it may be considered a part of the work
> > in which the Mona Lisa was used, if it is dependent on lining up with
> > the Mona Lisa for its value.
>
> http://groups.google.de/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/8c98fb4bd0d6a15e
> ("The Game Genie is useless by itself")
You have been arguing that if the original software is unmodified, any
software built upon it is a compilation, not a derivative.
I have been arguing that there may be cases where this is not true.
Now you are citing someone who says "Such innovations rarely will
constitute infringing derivative works under the Copyright Act."
"Rarely" implies it is possible. Are you conceding? Or are you arguing
against a straw man who says that such software is always a derivative?
___
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: > Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives > like human translations from one programming language to the other > with the same set of protected elements in both original work and > derivative work (which falls under "modifications" in the BSD case) Even in this case the derivative work can have its own copyright statement and license. It must retain the BSD copyright statement and license, but that still only applies to the original work. ___ 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: > Bruce Lewis wrote: > [...] >> GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very >> likely to make it a derivative work. > > "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies > with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and > do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when > exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, > notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written > does not compel the release of source code for independently > authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs > through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the > software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this > basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the > assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front > ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." > >-- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, > unpublished draft 10th June 2005. Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like NeXT and MCC don't agree with Mr. Edwards' unpublished draft. GPL "enforcement" actions tend to work rather reliably in the real world, reliably enough that it would not seem prudent to test the legal fantasies of a Mr. Terekhov at the receiving end of a law suit. -- 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: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote:
[...]
> brush strokes are all mine, but it may be considered a part of the work
> in which the Mona Lisa was used, if it is dependent on lining up with
> the Mona Lisa for its value.
http://groups.google.de/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/8c98fb4bd0d6a15e
("The Game Genie is useless by itself")
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
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] > GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very > likely to make it a derivative work. "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written does not compel the release of source code for independently authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses." -- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, unpublished draft 10th June 2005. 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
Bruce Lewis wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Bruce Lewis wrote: > > > > [... BSD ...] > > > > > A different license is allowed for the derivative. > > > > The BSD states that you should retain the BSD license in source code of > > derivatives: different license is not allowed. > > The boy scouts state that you should bring a compass when you go into > the woods: bringing bug spray is not allowed. Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives like human translations from one programming language to the other with the same set of protected elements in both original work and derivative work (which falls under "modifications" in the BSD case) or when a derivative work is a mere subset (with respect to protected elements). In source code form, derivative works of BSD code must remain under the BSD: 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
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Bruce Lewis wrote: [...] > Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software > could be described by any of the three verbs in "or any other form in > which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." Copyright protects software as literary works. Things like "builds on" are irrelevant because they don't constitute creation of derivative literary works under copyright law. It's not that hard to grasp, stupid. 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: > Yeah, I should have said that copyright doesn't establish exclusive > right to "designed to fit". Ok now? Just from your words: "To fit" is one definition of "adapt". Adaptation is one form of derivative work. Derivative work is an exclusive right of copyright. Furthermore, software that builds on but does not modify other software could be described by any of the three verbs in "or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." ___ 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: > Bruce Lewis wrote: > > [... BSD ...] > > > A different license is allowed for the derivative. > > The BSD states that you should retain the BSD license in source code of > derivatives: different license is not allowed. The boy scouts state that you should bring a compass when you go into the woods: bringing bug spray is not allowed. The above statement doesn't make any sense, but maybe if I repeat it verbatim every time someone refutes it, they'll eventually give up and be quiet. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
