Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
What I trying to say is there ARE some intelligent properties in the patch which we want to keep under our control, but we never want to put any restriction on any one else. So can we protect our own tiny patch not to be public? As long as those intelligent properties in your patch don't contain any protected expression (google the AFC test) from the GPL'd work you can license those portions of your patch under any terms you like. This is true. But as long as you incoperate those `intelligent properties'[0] with a GNU GPLed work, in which case you must license them under the GNU GPL. As such, a patch (a patch by definition is something that is used to modify an already existing work, and in this case a GNU GPLed work) is based on another work, and thus forms a modification to an already GNU GPLed work, and thus the modifications must be licensed under the GPL GPL (see section 2). I.e. once again you are simply wrong and blabbering. [0]: Now, what `intelligent properties' really means can be guessed, but I will assume anything that can be copyrighted since that is the only thing that makes sense. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
NYC LOCAL: Monday 15 May 2006: New York City Council Hearing on Wireless in Parks
blockquote what=official NY City Council Committee on Technology in Government notice Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:59:42 -0400 From: Bruce Lai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: E-Update for the Committee on Technology in Government of New York City Council (May 12, 2006). Hello All, I just wanted to remind everyone of our upcoming hearing on wireless Internet access in New York City parks on Monday, May 15 at 1 PM in the Committee Room, City Hall. Apologies for the lateness of this reminder. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED] / 212-788-9193), Counsel to the Committee on Technology in Government, or Colleen Pagter ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]), Policy Analyst to the Committee on Technology in Government. On Monday, May 15, 1:00 to 4:00 PM in the Committee Room, City Hall, the Committee on Technology in Government, chaired by Council Member Gale Brewer, will be holding a joint oversight hearing with the Committee on Parks, chaired by Council Member Helen Foster of the Bronx, on the topic of wireless Internet access in New York City parks. The Parks Department, the Central Park Conservancy and several private technology providers are expected to testify. On Thursday, May 18, 1:00 to 2:00 PM, the Council Chambers, City Hall, the Committee on Land Use and the Committee on Technology in Government will hold the Executive Budget Hearing with the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. As always, the public is welcome. No RSVP is necessary. * The following are some events that might interest you: -- Personal Democracy Forum 2006 Conference http://www.personaldemocracy.com/conference/2006 The third annual Personal Democracy Forum will take place Monday, May 15, 2006 and will feature leaders from all segments of the political, business, technology and blogosphere arenas. This is where the latest cutting-edge developments in political technology hits the ground. If you want to learn how to optimize the use of technology in your campaigns, how to master the new media system of blogs, podcasting, mobile phones and online video; and how to raise money, move messages and impact voting more effectively, PDF 2006 is the place to be. We're excited to announce that Eliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General, will be keynoting. We'll be focusing on four emerging trends this year: * The maturing of blogs as powerbrokers and media-makers. * Promising new experiments in tuning social networking tools for political communities. * New tools for political communication, including podcasting, videoblogging, mobile phones and word-of-mouth. * Why increasing traffic to your own website is not enough; taking advantage of the Internet as a platform. We'll also feature an intensive set of workshops where you can learn from a cross-spectrum of expert practitioners how to optimize your online list-building and fundraising, how to best spend scarce online advertising dollars, how to make bloggers your allies, and what kinds of tools campaigns need and want. For details on the conference program, go here http://www.personaldemocracy.com/conference/2006/program. -- Council Member Gale Brewer will be speaking at the following event. The South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation (SoBRO) would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a ribbon cutting ceremony Thursday May 25, 2006 at 12:00 pm in the HUB commercial area of the South Bronx. At this time we would ask you to help us inaugurate SoBRO and Urban Communication Transport Corp.'s official launch of its first, of what we plan to be many Wi-Fi Hot Spots, throughout the Borough of the Bronx. This initial Hot Spot will broadcast from the roof top of our corporate headquarters located at 555 Bergen Avenue. Through this initiative, SoBRO and its partner Urban Communications Transport Corp. , a New York City broadband Internet service provider located in the South Bronx and dedicated to serving all communities of color, will make available free internet access for South Bronx residents throughout a four square block area in the heart of the new Downtown Bronx. This partnership between a non-profit economic development corporation and a for profit ISP corporation affirms that broadband internet access is a critical necessity for all families, particularly low-income households that need the same access to information and leading edge technology as every American family. During the ceremony, we will be broadcasting a live feed of the activities through the internet. -- Building the Broadband Economy 2006 June 8-9, 2006 - New York City The 2006 edition of the Intelligent Community Forum's Building the Broadband Economy conference will take
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes: Now, I, Evil Bill Fence Door, copyright this patch, sell it with onerous copy protection, and for $1,000,000 a copy. The license that comes with it prohibits re-distribution of the patch. Note that I'm *not* re-distributing any GPL-licensed software. It's up to the customer to get it himself. But the recipient has no need to re-distribute the patch. Applying the patch generates a derived work of the software being patched. So, if the original software is licenced under the GPL then the derived work will be as well. Therefore the recipient of the patch is allowed, under the terms of the GPL, the distribute the patched software. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
On 2006-05-13, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, I, Evil Bill Fence Door, copyright this patch, sell it with onerous copy protection, and for $1,000,000 a copy. The license that comes with it prohibits re-distribution of the patch. Note that I'm *not* re-distributing any GPL-licensed software. But you _modified_ a GPL licensed work (section 2 of the GNU GPL), and now are distributing the modifications to this work. It is completely irrelevant what the form of the patch is, your patch does not work without the GPLed work, and cannot be used without it so it is a deriviate work. If I distribute the modifications, then yes. In this example only *instructions* are provided. Saying crop the photo so you see only the face, then put it in a red frame is not a derivative work of that photo. To create the patch you modified a GPLed work, so it is clearly a modification in anyway of the word, how you represent these modifications are once again completely irrelevant. Then there is the fact that your patch requires the GPLed work to be useful. That's not the copyright law criterion for a derivative work. The derivative has to *contain* all or part of the pre-existing work. And that is actually what the section of the GPL you quoted is referring to. If your original code is not derived from the GPL code, it's a separate independent work. It may _need_ the GPL code to actually do something. That does not make it a derivative work. An application is not a derivative work of the operating system, although you need an OS to run the application. What the GPL says in section 2 is that if you combine your own work with the GPL work, the GPL applies to the whole. That's logical: such a combination is a derivative work. This paragraph of text is my original work. The combination of my paragraphs with the parts of your message that I cited above is a derivative work of your message. (I'm allowed to make that derivative work because of fair use). Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Gordon Burditt wrote: [...] can the customer distribute the *modified version*, but not Evil Bill's patch used to create it, and satisfy the GPL? I think the answer is yes. If the license on patch imposes forbearance from first sale right under 17 USC 109, then the answer is no, or else Failure to fulfill this covenant will breach license agreement and entitle the lisensor to damages. Customer may still do it though. The contract laws recognize a concept called efficient breach which encourages breach of a contract if it's economically efficient to do so. Compliance with a contract is almost always voluntary -- if you choose not to comply, then you don't have to. You merely have to compensate the non-breaching party for his expectancy interest. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: What I trying to say is there ARE some intelligent properties in the patch which we want to keep under our control, but we never want to put any restriction on any one else. So can we protect our own tiny patch not to be public? As long as those intelligent properties in your patch don't contain any protected expression (google the AFC test) from the GPL'd work you can license those portions of your patch under any terms you like. This is true. But as long as you incoperate those `intelligent properties'[0] with a GNU GPLed work, in which case you must license them under the GNU GPL. Sez who? (Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on record: quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. /quote http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf See also http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf (If identifiable sections of that work are not derived...) regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Graham Murray wrote: [...] But the recipient has no need to re-distribute the patch. Applying the patch generates a derived work of the software being patched. So, if the original software is licenced under the GPL then the derived work will be as well. Therefore the recipient of the patch is allowed, under the terms of the GPL, the distribute the patched software. Derivative work portion of patch (if any) come under the GPL. But the license of non derivative work portion of patch may prohibit redistribution of patched software in aggregate as a whole compilation. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes: Sorry, FSF, there's nothing you can do about this. I don't need a license from you to distribute the patch. It's not derived [hint: this is a term defined specifically for copyright law] from your software, so I don't need your license. The fact that the patch is useless without GPL software is irrelevant - that's not the way copyright law works. Gas engines are useless without gas, but that doesn't mean I need a license from an oil company to sell engines. Because oil is a substance, not a medium with copyable content. -- 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: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] What the GPL says in section 2 is that if you combine your own work with the GPL work, the GPL applies to the whole. That's logical: such a combination is a derivative work. This paragraph of text is my original work. The combination of my paragraphs with the parts of your message that I cited above is a derivative work of your message. Not at all. It's a compilation. Now, this work is a derivative work of your message: What the GPL says in section 2 is that if you combine your own independent work under copyright law with the GPL work, the GPL doesn't not bring the other work under the scope of the GPL. This combination of paragraphs with the parts of your message that I cited above is a compilation and not a derivative work of your message. And only this work is a derivative work of your message. Please bare in your mind that quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. /quote http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on record: quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program together with does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins. And what's the relevance of that remark? Under Berne Convention software is protected as literary works. The mechanism of linking is irrelevant. http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html quote consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other. The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are defined in 17 USC as literary works /quote regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on record: quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program together with does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins. And what's the relevance of that remark? Under Berne Convention software is protected as literary works. The mechanism of linking is irrelevant. Except that it isn't because you don't link unrelated pieces of software (well, you can, but that is just aggregating them in one library). They have to interface. -- 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: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] What the GPL says in section 2 is that if you combine your own work with the GPL work, the GPL applies to the whole. That's logical: such a combination is a derivative work. This paragraph of text is my original work. The combination of my paragraphs with the parts of your message that I cited above is a derivative work of your message. Not at all. It's a compilation. You are confusing compilation in the literary (and legal) and in the computer sense. A compilation is a collection of independent works only related by topic. You can throw out parts and retain a compilation. -- 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: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on record: quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program together with does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins. And what's the relevance of that remark? Under Berne Convention software is protected as literary works. The mechanism of linking is irrelevant. Except that it isn't because you don't link unrelated pieces of software (well, you can, but that is just aggregating them in one library). They have to interface. So what? By that standard, a GPL incompatible (whatever that means) email program would violate the copyright law if it downloaded or send mail from/to a GPL'd mail server. That may well be true in the GNU Republic, but only in 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: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] What the GPL says in section 2 is that if you combine your own work with the GPL work, the GPL applies to the whole. That's logical: such a combination is a derivative work. This paragraph of text is my original work. The combination of my paragraphs with the parts of your message that I cited above is a derivative work of your message. Not at all. It's a compilation. You are confusing compilation in the literary (and legal) and in the computer sense. And how am I confusing it? A compilation is a collection of independent works Yes. only related by topic. A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term compilation includes collective works. A collective work is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. You can throw out parts and retain a compilation. And? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on record: quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program together with does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins. And what's the relevance of that remark? Under Berne Convention software is protected as literary works. The mechanism of linking is irrelevant. Except that it isn't because you don't link unrelated pieces of software (well, you can, but that is just aggregating them in one library). They have to interface. So what? By that standard, a GPL incompatible (whatever that means) email program would violate the copyright law if it downloaded or send mail from/to a GPL'd mail server. Uh, no. Because they communicate through a standardized interface not particular to those programs. If I pack a statue in a standard rectangular box, I can sell that box on Ebay afterwards without problems. If I pack a statue in expanding molding foam, I can't sell the molds afterwards on Ebay without problems. That may well be true in the GNU Republic, but only in the GNU Republic. Which happens to be pretty much every civilized country outside of Terekhov-lala-land. But I am being redundant. -- 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: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Uh, no. Because they communicate through a standardized interface not particular to those programs. Yeah, and since most of Microsoft's interfaces are not standardized, folks at samba (customers aside for a moment) and other projects that rely on interoperation with and interfacing to MS stuff may well end up in jail for massive copyright infringement. In the GNU Republic, that is. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
On 2006-05-13, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] What the GPL says in section 2 is that if you combine your own work with the GPL work, the GPL applies to the whole. That's logical: such a combination is a derivative work. This paragraph of text is my original work. The combination of my paragraphs with the parts of your message that I cited above is a derivative work of your message. Not at all. It's a compilation. No, it is not. I take parts of someone's message and add my own message. That is a derivative work. Google Groups is a compilation. By selectively quoting parts of another message, I am creating a derivative. That follows from the literal wording of 17 USC 101: A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.' My reply is an original work of authorship. I provided annotations and other modifications to the message I replied to. Therefore my reply is and only can be a derivative work. Please bare in your mind that quote In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with Am I distributing my message together with another? No, I am modifying your message, by retaining parts and rejecting others. I add to lines of your text and add my own annotations, criticisms, responses and other creative expressions. So your quote on the mere aggregation is beside the point. This message is a derivative of yours. You are now going to make a derivative once more, no doubt extensively incorporating fair use quotations into the mix. And what's more, a compilation consists of a collection of preexisting works _without creative additions by the collector_. The creativity required for copyright protection of the compilation lies in the selection, coordination or arranging of the preexisting works. The ten best postings of Alexander Therekhov is a compilation, because the criterion the best represents creativity on my part. Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?
Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] By selectively quoting parts of another message, I am creating a derivative. That follows from the literal wording of 17 USC 101: A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.' My reply is an original work of authorship. I provided annotations and other modifications to the message I replied to. Therefore my reply is and only can be a derivative work. You simply don't grok it. This is a derivative (annotated) work: Annotation of General Prologue for Canterbury Tales Whan that [When] Aprill with his shoures soote [sweet showers/rain] The droghte [drought] of March hath perced [pierced] to the roote [root], And bathed every veyne in swich licour [fluid such that] Of which vertu engendred [by virtue of which is caused] is the flour [flower] Whan Zephirus [Zephir, the West Wind] eek [also] with his sweete breeth [sweet breath] Inspired hath in every holt and heeth´... But this message as a whole is not a derivative work. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
