Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then >becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied? > > CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks. You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy. -- 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: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >A company employee is not free to do whatever he wants with company >property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job. > >He is not the rightful owner. > >If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my >possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to make >copies for your private use. > > If the license explicitly states so, yes. Wrong. You are not the licensee. The licensee is the company. The license is completely irrelevant for you. > This is where our opinions differ I think. You just don't understand "internal use". That's all. >A tangible copy _is_ property, and getting company-internal access >to it does not grant you the rights connected with owning this >property: namely copying its contents. > > But the content isn't property! The _medium_ that the content resides > on is. But you have no license to do whatever you want with the content if you just have a copy that is the property of the company you are working for. -- 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: GPL and other licences
The day I can copy property is the day when you will have a point. But in todays world, you cannot copy property. If I could copy proeprty, then the first thing I would do is copy my house so that the homeless could have homes. You obviously do not know the difference between intangible objects and tangible objects. Once again you resort to petty name calling. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
> If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of > internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is > internal for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source > to anyone, since it is `internal use', if one would follow your > thread. Yes, Alfred, but a company is _one_ entity. If that company gives a copy to a worker for _his_ private use then that would be distribution. The world is one entity. Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to "agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license". But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant. This is simply not true. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >You mean, if I am using a company's car, the car becomes my own >property for the duration of use? > > If you have a replication machine that can copy cars like a computer > can copy programs, yes. And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied? >> I can claim that the whole world is internal for my use, and then >> simply refuse to release the source to anyone, since it is >> `internal use', if one would follow your thread. > >Tell that to the FSF and to judges and lawyers in general. > > Maybe I will. :-) Good luck. -- 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: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not >> duplicating the software. If you can show me a method to >> duplicate a CD that contains GNU hello, N times, then you have a >> point. And you will get the Nobel price at the same time. > >So what? If you use a company CD burner to move company software >to a company CDR which you then use on a company computer in the >field, how does this CD or its contents magically become the >property of the company worker? > > Software cannot ever become property. What the heck are you arguing > about? You have already claimed things like `stealing' software. If > you give me a CD with software on it (legally), then I am entitled to > making a copy of the software, keep it on my box, and distribute it > under the license that the software is licensed under. A company employee is not free to do whatever he wants with company property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job. He is not the rightful owner. If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to make copies for your private use. >Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about? > > Yes, do you? You have already made claims that one `steals > software', and now that `software is property'; I'd really you of > all people to know the differenence between these things. A tangible copy _is_ property, and getting company-internal access to it does not grant you the rights connected with owning this property: namely copying its contents. -- 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: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I meant to write exactly what I did. Somebody who admits to being >incapable of grasping the concept of "internal use" should not go >reinterpreting the words of someone else. > > Can you please stop your condesending tone? It will make for a more > pleasent discussion. > >> If the license isn't relevant to me, then the whole discussion is >> quite pointless. :-) > >Wrong. The whole point of "internal use" is that the license is >not relevant to a company employee. > > I cannot take a non-free program (legally), install it on all internal > machines, and then pretend that I do not have to abide by the license. > I am still bound by copyright law. It doesn't matter if it is > internal use or not. You just don't get it. You can't do _anything_, period, with company property without company permission. You are not the owner. The license does not apply to you. Neither does copyright. Your rights are restricted to what the company allows you to do with its property. The physical copy of the software that the company acquired is its property. Having to work with that copy does not make you the owner of it, so you are not allowed to access its contents other than directed. In a similar way, driving a company car does not make you the owner of the car, and you are not free to drive it into a drive-in movies unless you get special permission. Even though every car owner has permission to drive into drive-in movies. >> The license obviously does apply to me. Otherwise one could simple >> do what the heck one wants. > >Oh sure. Like you can just take a car and drive it away when its >purchase contract does not apply to you. > > Why are you comming up with such silly examples? A car is not > software, copyright laws do not apply to property. Copyright law applies to tangible, physical copies. > Please, stop it David, you are far to intelligent to troll like > Alexander. > >> Since I legally aquired the content, > >Look up "acquire" in a dictionary of law. You did no such thing if >the software is work material of your company. You don't acquire a >company car, and you don't acquire company software. > > Stop confusing physical objects with non-physical objects. You gave > me as an employee of your company a CD, legally, to me, A CD is a physical object. > I can take the content of the CD and redistribute it _IF_ the > license of the software allows me to. Wrong. Only the licensee of the software is allowed to make use of the license. You are not the licensee of the software in this situation. The company is. > Please, David, I'm all for discussing things, but you are going down > the spiral of Alexander with your totally irrelevant comments, > comparisons that have nothing to do with the disucssion at hand, and > these silly accusations. And you don't understand the difference between software and software media, and don't understand "internal use". You are either not willing or incapable of understanding the issues at hand. I will point out when you tell falsehoods to posters on this list and revert them to the GPL FAQ from the FSF for more details, but I will not further "discuss" this with you since you show absolutely no inclination to even consider anything apart from your predetermined views that are in flat contradiction to how the law operates, and consequently also to what the FSF states. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 03:27 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of >> internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is >> internal for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source >> to anyone, since it is `internal use', if one would follow your >> thread. > >Yes, Alfred, but a company is _one_ entity. If that company gives a >copy to a worker for _his_ private use then that would be >distribution. > > The world is one entity. Not legally. >Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to >"agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions >like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license". > > But according to David (and yourself?) the license does not apply in > this entity, so such restrictions are not relevant. This is simply > not true. Of course it's not true. What happens is that those licenses add restrictions upon copyright. That's one of the reasons you have to agree: they add restrictions on what you can do as if in a contract (and thus many confuse copyright licenses with contracts, unfortunately). Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing >> the program to anyone who uses it. > >Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF. > > I fail to see how it differs. Then I recommend you actually _read_ the FAQ. > You are still required to follow the license even if you are only > using it internally. I never claimed that you are forced to > distribute your changes to everyone. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution> Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution. -- 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: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in >>my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to >>make copies for your private use. >> >> If the license explicitly states so, yes. > >Wrong. You are not the licensee. The licensee is the company. >The license is completely irrelevant for you. > > You obviously didn't mean to write that in that form. I meant to write exactly what I did. Somebody who admits to being incapable of grasping the concept of "internal use" should not go reinterpreting the words of someone else. > If the license isn't relevant to me, then the whole discussion is > quite pointless. :-) Wrong. The whole point of "internal use" is that the license is not relevant to a company employee. > The license obviously does apply to me. Otherwise one could simple > do what the heck one wants. Oh sure. Like you can just take a car and drive it away when its purchase contract does not apply to you. You are completely confused. _Without_ a license and _without_ properly acquired ownership of a copy (and acting on behalf of a company does not form a requisition of ownership for you), your rights are exactly squat. >But you have no license to do whatever you want with the content >if you just have a copy that is the property of the company you >are working for. > > Since I legally aquired the content, Look up "acquire" in a dictionary of law. You did no such thing if the software is work material of your company. You don't acquire a company car, and you don't acquire company software. > the license applies, and if the content contains GPLed software, I > am free to distribute it. As long as you are not living in a communistic state, company and worker property remain separate. Even if you are living in a communistic state, the unity is merely theoretical. -- 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: Intellectual Property II
When ICE Miller stated in Wallace V FSF that "contract terms apply" it made me go back and see what are the contract terms. The following, like all GPL things, is quite complicated, and raises some interesting questions. Remember, though, the plain language of the contract applies now, so this is literal. With that, I look only at section 1 of the GPL for literal interpretation. Section 1 of the GPL applies to distribution of source code (not object code nor executable). Each licensee is addressed as "you". We will start with a simple premise. Joe puts his original source code on sourceforget.net under the GPL and I want to copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code. For simplicity, I modified GPL section 1 (below) to replace "You" with "I" meaning me. It just makes it easier to read the paragraph. 1. I may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as I receive it, in any medium, provided that I conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program. First, note that I must "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty". So, when I distribute a verbatim copy to Jane, I have already provided her with the License as part of the verbatim copy I sent her (after all, I got the code with a copy of the License). Next, note the part that states "and give any other recipients of the Program". a) It does not state "my recipients" or my licensees, it clearly and unambiguously uses the phrase "and give any other recipients of the Program." b) it does not state recipient's of the "Program source code". It clearly and unambiguously uses the phrase "Program". Thus it is not limited to recipients of source code, but to object code representations (as permitted by section 3 of the GPL which I will describe in a subsequent posting) as well as derived representations (see GPL defines Program). It is not limited to recipients from me. It also includes "any other recipients of the Program" which would now include those who receive the Program from me (distributed by me) and anybody who gets it upsteam or downstream from any other distributor, in any form, and any version (described below) So, simply because I want to distribute the verbatim copy of Joe's work, I am now obligated (by contract terms) to give something to anybody who receives the Program (including any derivative) from anybody else upstream and/or downstream from me. But what do I have to give them, and how do I know who they are? What is the purpose of my having to give any other recipient the Program a copy of the License? I have not changed the source code in anyway. I am merely distributing Joe's original copy. This obligation is not limited to giving "any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License" It also places a burden that I must give "a copy of this License along with the Program". The phrase "along with the Program" is really interesting. What does this mean? Does this mean that I have to give "a copy of this License" as part of the distribution from which the recipient received the Program? For example, I distributed the source code to Jane, and she created a binary distribution (allowed under section 3 of the GPL) which she distributed to Dick. Does this mean that I have to provide a copy of this license to Dick as part of Jane's distribution? Or do I have to give a copy to Dick directly? How do I do that? Is Jane obligated to include my copy of the license (as distinguished from any other copy, such as Jane's copy, and all the other copies in the case of a modification)? How do I impose this requirement on Jane, or will Jane provide me with her distribution list so that I can fullill this obligation? What if Jane is providing a binary distribution over the Internet where anybody can download a copy? Note that it does not state I have to do this on demand from Jane's licensees. So to fullfill my obligation there must be some way for me (not Jane) to provide a copy of this License to Jane's recipients as it is my obligation. Does it mean that I literally have to give "a copy of the Program" as well?For example, do I have to give a copy of the License along with a copy of the Program, or just a copy of the License along with the Program that Dick received from Jane? If it means that I have to give a copy of the program, then what version do I have to provide, in what format, and how do I do this? The definition of "Program" includes "any such program or work". Does this mean the copy of the Program must include "any such program or work" as in "any one of" or does it mean any as in "any and all"? The GPL describes: "This License applies to any program or other work whic
Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an >> extended version of that program. The GPL says that any >> extended version of the program must be released under >> the GPL if it is released at all. > >And it is not released. That's the key. Internal use. > > If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of > internal `use' is bogus. You mean, if I am using a company's car, the car becomes my own property for the duration of use? > I can claim that the whole world is internal for my use, and then > simply refuse to release the source to anyone, since it is `internal > use', if one would follow your thread. Tell that to the FSF and to judges and lawyers in general. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 23:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] > > Two copies under fair use. > > Wrong again. No fair use at all. > > > But that's not what happens when you link software. :) > > Ah that. Well, copying and distribution under 17 USC 117 aside for a > moment, suppose that downloaded copies contain stuff already linked. > Think outsourcing. Suppose it's simply cheaper to link in China. > > Another legal person does it. I merely distribute. You realize all this emails could probably be proof of your scheme to break copyright law? A never ending search for ways to break it in your profit? What you just said could be quickly read as accessory to crime... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
The license _does_ apply. It is you who don't get it. You are saying that all companies that have illegal copies of Windows, are not breaking the law, since they are `for internal use' and no rules apply. You are also speaking about some kind of owner of the software, you cannot own software! I don't know where you got that idea. You are obviously confusing property law and copyright law. If you give me a copy of a program on a CD, then I cannot do what I want with the _CD_, this is perfectly true. But I can do whatever I want with the _CONTENT_ on the CD _if_and_only_if_ the license allows me to do this. You cannot go and say that the license is void because of this or that reason; no judge in the world will agree with you nor will any lawyer. The GPL has _NO_ clause that allows you to `violate the license for internal use'. Copyright law still applies within the walls of a company; always has and always will. Go look up how succesfull evil companies like the BSA are in suing the hell out of companies for violating copyright laws, where they have used software that was legally aquired and then copied several times in breach of the license that the copyright holder granted to the company. Infact, the BSA has succesffully sued _PRIVATE_ people for copyright violations. But according to you, this is simply impossible since you can do whatever you want with a private copy of something; this is obviously completely false since there is already a legal precendet of that this is completely and utterly bogus. Copyright law has no concept of `internal use'. That some FAQ says this or that is completely and utterly irrelevant. The only person who doesn't understand how law operates is you, you have also shown complete and utter lack any candor, and have resorted to name calling on several ocassions. The only person spreading falsehoods is you David. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: ... Dak, dak, dak. You are losing it. To comrade ams: in recognition of this event I'm unplonking you right now (many months before scheduled unplonk), congrats. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
I meant to write exactly what I did. Somebody who admits to being incapable of grasping the concept of "internal use" should not go reinterpreting the words of someone else. Can you please stop your condesending tone? It will make for a more pleasent discussion. > If the license isn't relevant to me, then the whole discussion is > quite pointless. :-) Wrong. The whole point of "internal use" is that the license is not relevant to a company employee. I cannot take a non-free program (legally), install it on all internal machines, and then pretend that I do not have to abide by the license. I am still bound by copyright law. It doesn't matter if it is internal use or not. > The license obviously does apply to me. Otherwise one could simple > do what the heck one wants. Oh sure. Like you can just take a car and drive it away when its purchase contract does not apply to you. Why are you comming up with such silly examples? A car is not software, copyright laws do not apply to property. Please, stop it David, you are far to intelligent to troll like Alexander. > Since I legally aquired the content, Look up "acquire" in a dictionary of law. You did no such thing if the software is work material of your company. You don't acquire a company car, and you don't acquire company software. Stop confusing physical objects with non-physical objects. You gave me as an employee of your company a CD, legally, to me, I can take the content of the CD and redistribute it _IF_ the license of the software allows me to. As long as you are not living in a communistic state, company and worker property remain separate. Even if you are living in a communistic state, the unity is merely theoretical. What next? Godwin's law? Are you really this silly that you cannot keep a level headed discussion without resorting to Alexanders methods of sillyness? Please, David, I'm all for discussing things, but you are going down the spiral of Alexander with your totally irrelevant comments, comparisons that have nothing to do with the disucssion at hand, and these silly accusations. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
What user? I am the only one who uses this computer? I'm not putting any restrictions on anyone. Are you suggesting that you are free to drop by and help yourself to GPL software on my computer? Huh? How can I license anything under the GPL that I didn't write? What are you talking about? >Is software on my home system that I never distribute >proprietary? > > How should I know what license your software at home is licensed > under? Are you deliberately being obtuse? No, but you are obviously mixing up lots of things, and cannot give clear explanation to why you write what you write. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that someone can drop by your house and start relicensing software under the GPL. I have no clue what your software is licensed under, so making _any_ claim about it is silly. If you are to obnoxious to even answer such a simple question, then it would do everyone good if you stopped replying to this thread. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL 3 and patents question
Barry Margolin writes: > Are you saying that this section of the GPL, which says he needs to do > so, is meaningless? Or are we just misinterpreting it? It doesn't say he needs to do so. It says he _may_ do so. From the GPL: 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding ^^^ those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >A company employee is not free to do whatever he wants with company >property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job. > >He is not the rightful owner. > >If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my >possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to make >copies for your private use. > > If the license explicitly states so, yes. The license is relevant to the licensee. That's not you. > But the GPL does not, so I am allowed to make copies of GPLed > software for my own private use. Wrong. You can't go around copying the property of other people without their explicit permission. Only when you _acquire_ a copy yourself (instead of merely using another person's physical copy with their permission) do you gain the rights from copyright and possibly the license text. As long as you are not the licensee (by proper acquisition, and acting on behalf of a company is not acquisition), the license is a piece of paper or a jumble of bits. Completely irrelevant to you. > This is where our opinions differ I think. You think that the GPL magically spreads possession around like a contagious disease or something. You have been reading too much FUD from SCO, I guess. >A tangible copy _is_ property, and getting company-internal >access to it does not grant you the rights connected with owning >this property: namely copying its contents. > > But the content isn't property! The _medium_ that the content > resides on is. But you have no right whatsoever to access the content without acquiring a physical copy of it into your possession. -- 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: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 19:45 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: >> A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an >> extended version of that program. The GPL says that any >> extended version of the program must be released under >> the GPL if it is released at all. > >And it is not released. That's the key. Internal use. > > If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of > internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is internal > for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source to anyone, > since it is `internal use', if one would follow your thread. Yes, Alfred, but a company is _one_ entity. If that company gives a copy to a worker for _his_ private use then that would be distribution. If it's use inside that company, then it hasn't left the entity at all. Sad, but not recognized as distribution. That's why you have to "agree" with the common proprietary licenses. They add restrictions like "you can only install on one computer, or else no license". Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
So if I go into Staples and five finger discount some copies of Turbo Tax I have not stolen some software? I don't know what Staples is or what Turbo Tax is. But you cannot steal software. Period. You can infringe on the copyright license. You can steal the CD, you can steal the harddisk, but you cannot steal software. Software is not a physical entity, so the only thing you can do is steal the _medium_--which is a physical entity--that the software is located on. In the end, you might be violating two laws, theft and copyright. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
A company employee is not free to do whatever he wants with company property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job. He is not the rightful owner. If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to make copies for your private use. If the license explicitly states so, yes. But the GPL does not, so I am allowed to make copies of GPLed software for my own private use. This is where our opinions differ I think. A tangible copy _is_ property, and getting company-internal access to it does not grant you the rights connected with owning this property: namely copying its contents. But the content isn't property! The _medium_ that the content resides on is. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
There is nothing unusual about copyright law distinguishing between groups of people. You can show a movie at home and let your wife/SO watch it with you without the copyright holder have a claim that you are having an unauthorized public display. Do you think that if you showed the movie at a public event you could say that all the viewers were part of the family of man? Once again, people are starting to compare apples to rocks. The distribution terms for movies are different than to software. So please stop comparing two different things that have nothing in relation. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes: > You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not duplicating the > software. Copies are physical entities. Copyright law is about copies. Then copyright law doesn't apply to software, since software isn't physical. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] > Two copies under fair use. Wrong again. No fair use at all. > But that's not what happens when you link software. :) Ah that. Well, copying and distribution under 17 USC 117 aside for a moment, suppose that downloaded copies contain stuff already linked. Think outsourcing. Suppose it's simply cheaper to link in China. Another legal person does it. I merely distribute. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
> You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not > duplicating the software. If you can show me a method to > duplicate a CD that contains GNU hello, N times, then you have a > point. And you will get the Nobel price at the same time. So what? If you use a company CD burner to move company software to a company CDR which you then use on a company computer in the field, how does this CD or its contents magically become the property of the company worker? Software cannot ever become property. What the heck are you arguing about? You have already claimed things like `stealing' software. If you give me a CD with software on it (legally), then I am entitled to making a copy of the software, keep it on my box, and distribute it under the license that the software is licensed under. Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about? Yes, do you? You have already made claims that one `steals software', and now that `software is property'; I'd really you of all people to know the differenence between these things. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU General Public License?
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:38:10 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fung writes: >> Assumption: commoncpp library is licensed under GPL > > What do you mean by "commoncpp"? Are you trying to refer to the gcc > runtime code? From the relevant copyright file: A google search reveals that commoncpp is a c++ programming framework/library that is under the GPL with no special exceptions. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 22:20 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [...] > > _your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_ > > Rue, Rue. You are a clinical case. > > Given: initially no copies at all (t0) > > t1: download a copy > t2: distribute that particular copy > t3: download a copy > t4: distribute that particular copy > > Q) How many _copies_of_your_copy_ do we have here? Two copies under fair use. But that's not what happens when you link software. :) Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL 3 and patents question
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Murray writes: > > But the problem with the situation wrt the OP is that in his country > > there are no software patents... > > And therefor he cannot infringe any. > > > ...and he does not know if the work he produces and licenses under GPL > > would violate any patents in any other country. > > Not his problem. > > > So how is he supposed to put a geographical restriction on distribution > > without the knowledge of the patent status in *every* other country? > > I don't believe that he has any obligation to do so. Are you saying that this section of the GPL, which says he needs to do so, is meaningless? Or are we just misinterpreting it? -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>And if I let you run a program from a CD of mine, the CD then >>becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied? >> >> CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks. > >You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy. > > You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not duplicating > the software. If you can show me a method to duplicate a CD that > contains GNU hello, N times, then you have a point. And you will get > the Nobel price at the same time. So what? If you use a company CD burner to move company software to a company CDR which you then use on a company computer in the field, how does this CD or its contents magically become the property of the company worker? Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about? -- 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: GPL and other licences
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes: > You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not duplicating the > software. Copies are physical entities. Copyright law is about copies. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:54:28 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free >> work with a GPLed program? > >Yes. > > Then you really ought to read the GPL. Specially the clauses about > not being able to put restrictions on a user, i.e. making the software > non-free. What user? I am the only one who uses this computer? I'm not putting any restrictions on anyone. Are you suggesting that you are free to drop by and help yourself to GPL software on my computer? >Is software on my home system that I never distribute proprietary? > > How should I know what license your software at home is licensed > under? Are you deliberately being obtuse? Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:45:01 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an >> extended version of that program. The GPL says that any >> extended version of the program must be released under >> the GPL if it is released at all. > >And it is not released. That's the key. Internal use. > > If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of > internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is internal > for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source to anyone, > since it is `internal use', if one would follow your thread. You can claim whatever you want. Some claims will be listened to and respected, while others would be considered by a court to be frivolous. There is nothing unusual about copyright law distinguishing between groups of people. You can show a movie at home and let your wife/SO watch it with you without the copyright holder have a claim that you are having an unauthorized public display. Do you think that if you showed the movie at a public event you could say that all the viewers were part of the family of man? Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
>If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in >my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to >make copies for your private use. > > If the license explicitly states so, yes. Wrong. You are not the licensee. The licensee is the company. The license is completely irrelevant for you. You obviously didn't mean to write that in that form. If the license isn't relevant to me, then the whole discussion is quite pointless. :-) The license obviously does apply to me. Otherwise one could simple do what the heck one wants. But you have no license to do whatever you want with the content if you just have a copy that is the property of the company you are working for. Since I legally aquired the content, the license applies, and if the content contains GPLed software, I am free to distribute it. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:28:17 +0100, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that this concerns modification _and_ distribution. It talks > about the requirements that have to be met towards users and > recipients of the software. That is, when there _is_ such a third > party. If the only user is the company itself, the paragraph is > pretty irrelevant. > > And indeed, copyright law permits you to mutilate your physical copy > of any content to your heart's content. You are allowed to burn books > or cut and paste them together as you like once you acquired them. > The restrictions of copyright come into play only when copying and > redistribution come into play. Maybe not. Copyright law gives to copyright owners the exclusive right to authorize the creation of derivative works. Creating a derivative work even without distributing it or even displaying it publicly can be infringement. Of course doing either with the copyright holder's permission is not infringement. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL 3 and patents question
Graham Murray writes: > But the problem with the situation wrt the OP is that in his country > there are no software patents... And therefor he cannot infringe any. > ...and he does not know if the work he produces and licenses under GPL > would violate any patents in any other country. Not his problem. > So how is he supposed to put a geographical restriction on distribution > without the knowledge of the patent status in *every* other country? I don't believe that he has any obligation to do so. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL 3 and patents question
Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No: This was even covered in GPL2: > > 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in > certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the > original copyright holder who places the Program under this License > may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding > those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among > countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates > the limitation as if written in the body of this License. But the problem with the situation wrt the OP is that in his country there are no software patents, and he does not know if the work he produces and licenses under GPL would violate any patents in any other country. All he knows is that his writing and using the code does not violate any patents which apply to him (as his country has no software patents). So how is he supposed to put a geographical restriction on distribution without the knowledge of the patent status in *every* other country? ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
[... "derived work" (i.e. "derivative work" under GNU law) ...] I suppose that id "lrosen" belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm. Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU definition of "derivative work".) - comment 637: Derivative works Regarding the text: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either modified or unmodified. In section: gpl3.definitions.p0.s2 Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST comments: The statement beginning "that is to say..." is not an accurate description of "derivative works" under US copyright law. If you want the copyleft provisions of GPLv3 to apply to "collective works" then you should say so explicitly, rather than use language reminiscent of the definition of collective works when trying to describe derivative works. The current draft, in this respect, is both ambiguous and potentially very misleading. See 17 USC 101. noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST comment 635: Derivative works Regarding the text: In section: login Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST comments: The "that is to say..." provision following the colon in section 0.A is not a correct summary of what a derivative work is under copyright law. See 17 USC 101 ["Definitions"]. In fact, it is an inaccurate way of describing derivative works. This makes the license ambiguous and potentially unenforceable in some circumstances. If you wish the reach of the GPL copyleft provision to include collective works, say so explicitly. noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST - AFAICS the GPLv3 is quite explicit in regards of manifesting blatant misuse of copyright by trying to extract rights to non-derivatives (see the definition of "Complete Corresponding Source Code). regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Intellectual Property II
Lee Hollaar wrote: > > In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain > >within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, > >but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the > >license permits." [quoting Eben Moglen] > > That might be true IF "she doesn't have any right to act at all except > as the license permits." But as I have pointed out here and in my > comments to the FSF regarding the new GPLv3, that is not the case. > United States copyright law provides a number of exceptions to the > exclusive rights of the copyright owner, including "first sale" as > covered in 17 U.S.C. 109 and the right in 17 U.S.C. 117 of the owner > of a copy of a computer to reproduce or adapt it if necessary to use > it. > > The convenient redefinition of things in the GPL reminds me of a > quote from Abraham Lincoln: > How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? > Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117?tid=123 (Professor Eben Moglen Replies) - 5) PHB opinions by Eric Seppanen My boss' boss (who is quite sharp technically as well as an attorney) thinks that the GPL is stupid because it doesn't read like it was written by a lawyer. He doesn't object to the principles and methods involved-- he's just disgusted by the unlawyerly writing. He says it was written by an amateur, not a lawyer, giving the impression that everyone using it is an amateur, and not serious about their work. What would you say to that? Eben: With all due respect to your boss' boss, he may not have appreciated the context in which the GPL is drafted. Most distributors of copyrighted material use a different copyright license for each country in which their work is distributed. That's not feasible for the free software movement: we have no control over the international path that any given piece of code may take, as it is copied and redistributed by its users, and we must therefore do business all over the world on a single license. What would seem good lawyerly drafting to a lawyer in one country might seem like officious or loquacious nonsense to a lawyer in another. Moreover, unlike the licenses written by the legal departments of proprietary content companies, our licenses are meant to be read by individual programmers, who we hope will choose to use those licenses to distribute their own programs. So the GPL is not addressed to lawyers in a single legal system, but to developers in every legal system around the world. Doing optimal drafting for that rather unusual set of needs is plenty serious business, I will say. It isn't work for amateurs. Whether we have been successful in achieving our intentions can only be judged by the results. -- Got it now? It was written for GNUtians and only GNUtians. And the only legal system where that license-not-a-contract fiction is not a fiction is the legal system of the GNU Republic. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
[... jar ...] And here comes bloby Eben. http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123 (Professor Eben Moglen Replies) 2) Clarifying the GPL by sterno One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package. Eben: The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. IBM: (Tenth Defense) SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. s/SCO/FSF regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
GNUtian logic in action. Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: [...] > You can combine software to create both a plain compilation and a > derived work. Only in the GNU Republic. > I shall not try to draw the line, but I'd put my money on there being more > derived works than you seem to think. Yeah, I know. http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html [begin textual copying] July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes Legal notes Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library Still a derivative work: Dynamic linking Distributing only the executable (testtriangle) Still a derivative work: Distributing the source code of software which links to a library when that library is the only software to provide that interface - Copyright (C) 2004, Free Software Foundation. Verbatim copying permitted provided this notice is preserved. [end textual copying] I suppose that "through textual copying", this message and all archives (google's, etc. that now contain and combine it), constitute unauthorized (note that only verbatim copying was permitted and no right to prepare derivatives was conveyed) "derived work" (i.e. "derivative work" under GNU law) of the FSF's "legal notes". I've thoroughly contaminated the Internet. Oh my bad. > > > When you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF), > > you're not creating a derivative work. > > Exactly. There is no creative effort on my part in just putting one after > the other (except perhaps if the selection of stories in itself has artistic > merit). > > > And the same goes when you put several > > pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. Think > > tarball. > > Intentions matter. Putting things in a tar file is usaually with the > intention of moving them together. Putting them in the same jar file > usually means using them together. So what? Copyright protects software as literary works (subject to the AFC test). Functional and environmental aspects like "using together", address spaces, enclaves, kernel/user space, and etc. are all totally irrelevant. >A jar file can be a single program, > combining different works into one derived work. The copyright law outside the GNU Republic doesn't concern itself with "single programs". Whatever that is. It's just a bunch of literary works to be used in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. And a jar is just an archive (apart from optional META-INF), my GNUtian friend. http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/jar/jar.html regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL and other licences
David Kastrup wrote: (to uber GNUtian ams) [...] > Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about? Property is theft. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
