Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/10/2010 6:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separate unique whole) project is not a joint work although it produces a (single) (combined) larger program??? Correct. A joint work is created only when all of its authors agree and intend to do so. Otherwise, as each author makes revisions, he creates a derivative work (doing so without infringement only with permission of all the rights holders). If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html (The static linking whole aside for a moment, that is.) Please elaborate, Hyman. As we know from both your opinions and the FSF's opinions, just because someone thinks something is true doesn't make it true. You both say things that you would like others to believe in order to get them to behave in certain ways. In any case, the actions of a single author cannot cause a work to become a joint work because a joint work can only be created through the intentions of all of its authors. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: Every lawsuit filed by the SFLC has ended successfully with the defendants coming into compliance with the GPL. I can only imagine how much more could accomplished by competent attorneys! Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys? THAT'S HERESY HYMAN You shall not take the name of the LORDS your Gods in vain, for the LORDS will not leave him unpunished who takes Their names in vain. Exodus 20:7 The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/11/2010 11:36 AM, RJack wrote: Surely you are not referring to the SFLC's attorneys? THAT'S HERESY HYMAN ` I shouldn't be surprised that irony is lost on you too. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: They are copyrighted so I can't provide the text but you can easily access them at your favorite local law library or purchase them online: I haven't read them yet, but they're available for free: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID966338_code410303.pdf?abstractid=957377rulid=10853827mirid=1 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID987294_code410303.pdf?abstractid=951842mirid=1 They are both by the same author, Douglas A. Hass. Nothing wrong with that, except that they will not represent independent points of view. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 1) 2007-01-15 - ABA IP Journal Publishes Article by Skye Group Managing Director: The American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Newsletter has published an article by Managing Director Doug Hass entitled The Myth of Copyleft Protection: Reconciling the GPL and Linux with the Copyright Act. Read the article starting on page 22 in the Fall 2006 issue. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1261628_code372661.pdf?abstractid=1261628mirid=1 The FSF and the Linux community should embrace closed source code So we see where this author is coming from. Thanks, but no thanks. The rest of this paper is useless. It spends a bunch of time pointing out that the issue of whether separately loadable Linux kernel modules fall under the GPL could be complicated, but it's most likely that they don't. Um, OK. I think we all already know that. It's only the FSF that thinks otherwise, with their expansive and wrong view of what a derivative work is. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Sorry, wrong link to the paper. It's http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID966338_code410303.pdf?abstractid=957377rulid=10853909mirid=1 On 2/11/2010 12:03 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 1) 2007-01-15 - ABA IP Journal Publishes Article by Skye Group Managing Director: The American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Newsletter has published an article by Managing Director Doug Hass entitled The Myth of Copyleft Protection: Reconciling the GPL and Linux with the Copyright Act. Read the article starting on page 22 in the Fall 2006 issue. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1261628_code372661.pdf?abstractid=1261628mirid=1 The FSF and the Linux community should embrace closed source code So we see where this author is coming from. Thanks, but no thanks. The rest of this paper is useless. It spends a bunch of time pointing out that the issue of whether separately loadable Linux kernel modules fall under the GPL could be complicated, but it's most likely that they don't. Um, OK. I think we all already know that. It's only the FSF that thinks otherwise, with their expansive and wrong view of what a derivative work is. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID987294_code410303.pdf?abstractid=951842mirid=1 Existing case law surrounding shrinkwrap and browsewrap licenses that use a notice-plus-conduct model suggests that courts would find that the GPL creates an enforceable contract, if a party challenged this point directly. ... However, as long as the requirement of the GPL is clear to both licensor and licensee before contract formation, then the notice-plus-conduct model contemplated by the GPL operates successfully despite the lack of formal notice in practice. Courts will likely hold Linux developers to the same standard as parties who receive printed forms and choose not to read them. ... Regardless of the interpretation of the GPL as a license or as a contract, the text of the GPL helps to determine its enforceability. Thanks for the reference. The paper has a lot of analysis of GPL-related stuff, such as license vs. contract and the status of Linux kernel modules, but doesn't say anything terribly profound. As in the other paper, the author states his wish for the FSF and Linux to embrace non-free software, to which I'm sure the response will be no, thanks. Otherwise, it's actually quite supportive of the GPL. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 1) 2007-01-15 - ABA IP Journal Publishes Article by Skye Group Managing Director: The American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Newsletter has published an article by Managing Director Doug Hass entitled The Myth of Copyleft Protection: Reconciling the GPL and Linux with the Copyright Act. Read the article starting on page 22 in the Fall 2006 issue. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1261628_code372661.pdf?abstractid=1261628mirid=1 The FSF and the Linux community should embrace closed source code So we see where this author is coming from. Thanks, but no thanks. The rest of this paper is useless. It spends a bunch of time pointing out that the issue of whether separately loadable Linux kernel modules fall under the GPL could be complicated, but it's most likely that they don't. Um, OK. I think we all already know that. It's only the FSF that thinks otherwise, with their expansive and wrong view of what a derivative work is. Your link addresses EC competition law. I have no working knowledge of European law concerning these matters. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID987294_code410303.pdf?abstractid=951842mirid=1 Existing case law surrounding shrinkwrap and browsewrap licenses that use a notice-plus-conduct model suggests that courts would find that the GPL creates an enforceable contract, if a party challenged this point directly. That's simply nonsensical since the GPL is not on software wrappings and not clickthrough and not notice-plus-conduct. It would appear that the author of the paper is not familiar with the usual distribution forms. There is no by opening this package you signify your acceptance or by clicking this button you signify your acceptance or similar. ... However, as long as the requirement of the GPL is clear to both licensor and licensee before contract formation, then the notice-plus-conduct model contemplated by the GPL operates successfully despite the lack of formal notice in practice. Courts will likely hold Linux developers to the same standard as parties who receive printed forms and choose not to read them. ... Regardless of the interpretation of the GPL as a license or as a contract, the text of the GPL helps to determine its enforceability. In a way. The text of the GPL states that it is your own choice whether you accept it or not. So the determination is no. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 1:01 PM, RJack wrote: Your link addresses EC competition law. I have no working knowledge of European law concerning these matters. Yeah, sorry about that - a Google search for the paper turn up that one first. I've posted the correct link elsewhere. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
David Kastrup wrote: Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com writes: On 2/11/2010 11:26 AM, RJack wrote: 2) A Gentlemen's Agreement: Assessing the GNU General Public License and its Adaptation to Linux. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 6, p. 213, 2007. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID987294_code410303.pdf?abstractid=951842mirid=1 Existing case law surrounding shrinkwrap and browsewrap licenses that use a notice-plus-conduct model suggests that courts would find that the GPL creates an enforceable contract, if a party challenged this point directly. That's simply nonsensical since the GPL is not on software wrappings and not clickthrough and not notice-plus-conduct. It would appear that the author of the paper is not familiar with the usual distribution forms. I stated the papers were interesting to read for legal perspective. I disagree totally with the author that the courts would find the GPL to be an enforceable contract. I have forever claimed that the GPL is a preempted contract (by 17 USC sec. 301(a)). Scholarly legal speculation is very interesting and may provide insights into how a court might rule. Until the federal judiciary rules on the enforceability of the GPL we shall continue to argue our positions. The man in the flowing black robes is the only guy whose opinion counts -- if needed a United States Federal Marshal will enforce his ruling. That's why arguing using case law and court precedent from judges is the surest ground to stand upon to answer these questions short of an actual judicial decree. There is no by opening this package you signify your acceptance or by clicking this button you signify your acceptance or similar. ... However, as long as the requirement of the GPL is clear to both licensor and licensee before contract formation, then the notice-plus-conduct model contemplated by the GPL operates successfully despite the lack of formal notice in practice. Courts will likely hold Linux developers to the same standard as parties who receive printed forms and choose not to read them. ... Regardless of the interpretation of the GPL as a license or as a contract, the text of the GPL helps to determine its enforceability. There is no question as to whether the GPL is a license OR contract. For the past eighty three years, since the Supreme Court ruled in DE FOREST RADIO TEL. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 273 U. S. 236 (1927) the federal courts have ruled *without exception* that an intellectual property license IS a contract. [U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.; HUTTO v. DAVIS, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). In a way. The text of the GPL states that it is your own choice whether you accept it or not. So the determination is no. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/10/2010 6:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: RJack didn't wrote that actiontec.com is verizon.net In this matter, Actiontec is acting as Verizon's agent. Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not acting on its own behalf, stypid Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 2:21 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Why didn't Erik Andersen fork the busybox to create his own non-joint version of busybox? As far as I understand, he made changes to BusyBox to produce a new version. Fork would imply that he was making a version separate from one undergoing development by someone else. I do not know the history of BusyBox well enough to say if this was the case, but I would suspect that it wasn't. There is no joint copyright version of BusyBox, so asking why he did not create his own non-joint version makes an untrue implication. They agree and intend to do so by posting contributions to joint work projects like busybox They do not. They post contributions to GPL-licensed programs, and the GPL is the only documentation of their intent. If the GPL intended to create a joint work it would say so, and since it does not, no joint work is created. Indeed, since the GPL spells out that GPLed work may be distributed only under the GPL, while joint authorship would allow later authors to distribute the work otherwise, it is clear that the GPL intends not to create a joint work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
On 2/11/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not acting on its own behalf The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself showed. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] They do not. They post contributions to GPL-licensed programs, and the GPL is the only documentation of their intent. If the GPL intended to create a joint work it would say so, and since it does not, no joint Uh retard Hyman. A joint work can be created without any license at all. The GPL doesn't have to say anything about joint works (just like in the case of no license at all) for a joint work created that is available to non-coauthors under the GPL. Coauthors don't need any non-exclusive license -- they have exclusive ownership!!! regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: [News] SFLC Responds to Copyright Misconceptions, Presents MoglenTalk
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 2:30 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Who said to you that Actiontec is Verizon's agent/not acting on its own behalf The fact that Verizon web pages point to Actiontec web sites and use Actiontec addresses, as you yourself showed. Take your meds Hyman. If *you* would make a bunch of web pages to point to Actiontec web sites and use Actiontec addresses to point to Actiontec locations THAT WOULD NOT MAKE ACTIONTEC YOUR AGENT... do you agree Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. the registered work is a compilation Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the GPL and only the GPL instead. This is generally correct. Since those creators of derivative works do not have the right to create them without permission of the rights holders, caviling at the restrictions is pointless. The restrictions are known, and if they are not acceptable to the author who wishes to create a derivative work, then he should not create that work. But who said that such intent will be enforced in a capitalist legal system court? It is copyright law which is being enforced. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the GPL and only the GPL instead. This is generally correct. Since those creators of derivative works do not have the right to create them without permission of the rights holders, caviling at the restrictions is pointless. The restrictions are known, and if they are not acceptable to the author who wishes to create a derivative work, then he should not create that work. Man, you have the patience of a saint, dealing with these mental-midget trolling assholes Alexander Terekhov and RJack. The Alexander POS actually claims that someone becomes a co-author of something when they agree and intend to do so, without needing the agreement of the original author(s) - that they then obtain legal/copyright authority over the entire work, equal to the original author(s), in spite of the original aouthor(s) wishes and the fact that the original work is copyrighted and released under the GPL. I wonder how the fsckwit Alexander would feel if I claimed co-ownership of his house, because I agree and intend to do so and contribute by planting a tree in the yard, regardless of what he wants. Maybe I should then be able to sell, or give, rights to the house to Microsoft! Fsck the rights of the originator! Sheesh! I mean, what the HELL is so hard about the GPL and the concept of if you don't like the terms, DON'T USE THE CODE. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 4:01 PM, chrisv wrote: Man, you have the patience of a saint It's not precisely patience. As I have said before, I find these exchanges entertaining. It's rather sad, actually :-) More seriously, it's also educational to a get a layman's glimpse of what it must be like being a lawyer involved in litigation - tracking down cases that support your claim and tear down the opposition, reading documents closely, and finding flaws in arguments. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Alexander Terekhov wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A joint work can be created without any license at all. But when there is a license, the presumption is that the license states the terms. Take your meds Hyman. The GPL states the terms of non-exclusive license. The GPL is irrelevant to co-authors because they have exclusive ownership. Quite true. The GPL license is a non-exclusive license it CANNOT speak to intent for purposes of ownership of a joint work or any other work for that matter: 17 USC sec. 101 -- A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license. We are not speaking about the intent of the developers concerning the GPL and all third parties (meaning the general public -- remember General Public License?) but the relationship among the *developers* themselves. The GPL is irrelevant to the intent among the contributing developers. The developers *actions* carry far for weight than any *language* about intent. Alexander is correct. The operative definition of a joint work as defined in the Copyright Act controls in this case: 17 USC sec. 101 -- A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. BusyBox is undoubtedly a joint work of authorship. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 4:37 PM, RJack wrote: We are not speaking about the intent of the developers concerning the GPL and all third parties (meaning the general public -- remember General Public License?) but the relationship among the *developers* themselves. The GPL is irrelevant to the intent among the contributing developers. The developers *actions* carry far for weight than any *language* about intent. The GPL is entirely relevant - intent can be imputed when there is no document describing the relationship among several authors, but when there is such documentation, there is no need to search for intent. The authors have all stated exactly what the copyright relationship among them is, by using the GPL as their license. Had they wished to create a joint work, they would have said so in the license. But they did not. The notion that a joint work happens by accident is laughable. This is what a document creating a joint work looks like: http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf 1. Contributor owns, and has sufficient rights to contribute, all source code and related material intended to be compiled or integrated with the source code for the OpenOffice.org open source product (the Contribution) which Contributor has ever delivered, and Sun has accepted, for incorporation into the technology made available under the OpenOffice.org open source project. 2. Contributor hereby assigns to Sun joint ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright application, copyright registration and moral rights in the Contribution to the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions. Contributor agrees that this assignment may be submitted by Sun to register a copyright in the Contribution. Contributor retains the right to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes. This Joint Copyright Assignment supersedes and replaces all prior copyright assignments made by Contributor to Sun under the OpenOffice.org project. 3. Contributor is legally entitled to grant the above assignment and agrees not to provide any Contribution that violates any law or breaches any contract. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
chrisv wrote: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the GPL and only the GPL instead. This is generally correct. Since those creators of derivative works do not have the right to create them without permission of the rights holders, caviling at the restrictions is pointless. The restrictions are known, and if they are not acceptable to the author who wishes to create a derivative work, then he should not create that work. Man, you have the patience of a saint, dealing with these mental-midget trolling assholes Alexander Terekhov and RJack. The Alexander POS actually claims that someone becomes a co-author of something when they agree and intend to do so, without needing the agreement of the original author(s) If the original authors accept a developer's code to be integrated into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new contributor as a joint author. This acceptance is an *affirmative act* by the original developers. See the BusyBox site http://busybox.net/developer.html and Contributing: If you're approved for an account, you'll need to send an email from your preferred contact email address with the username you'd like to use when committing changes to GIT, and attach a public ssh key to access your account with. It is these actions under Contributing that make BusyBox a jointly owned work and has nothing to do with intent of the GPL. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2/11/2010 4:53 PM, RJack wrote: If the original authors accept a developer's code to be integrated into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new contributor as a joint author. No, that's completely wrong. The new developers prepare work distributed under the GPL, distribute it to the original developers, and those developers prepare a derivative work based on the original program and the new piece, and distribute that under the GPL. No one is creating a joint work. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 2/11/2010 4:53 PM, RJack wrote: If the original authors accept a developer's code to be integrated into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new contributor as a joint author. No, that's completely wrong. The new developers prepare work distributed under the GPL, distribute it to the original developers, and those developers prepare a derivative work based on the original program and the new piece, and distribute that under the GPL. No one is creating a joint work. That reply was lame Hyman... really lame. I expected better from you. The Captain's scared them out of the water! http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
On 2010-02-11, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Snit wrote: Hyman Rosen stated in post b4zcn.76921$je2.9...@newsfe09.iad on 2/11/10 12:42 PM: On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: A joint work can be created without any license at all. But when there is a license, the presumption is that the license states the terms. The GPL doesn't have to say anything about joint works (just like in the case of no license at all) for a joint work created that is available to non-coauthors under the GPL. Coauthors don't need any non-exclusive license -- they have exclusive ownership!!! They cannot be co-authors except as they accept the GPL, because they otherwise have no permission to create a derivative work from GPL-licensed code. Their freedom is limited. The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly There is no ownership in derivative works. [deletia] Derivative works are the exclusive monopoly of the author of the original work you're trying to mooch off of. The GPL isn't creating any restrictive condition that doesn't already exist in it's absence. -- Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens||| rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \ affairs, government and business. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote in message news:m9%cn.53092$np1.1...@newsfe19.iad... On 2/11/2010 4:53 PM, RJack wrote: If the original authors accept a developer's code to be integrated into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new contributor as a joint author. No, that's completely wrong. The new developers prepare work distributed under the GPL, distribute it to the original developers, and those developers prepare a derivative work based on the original program and the new piece, and distribute that under the GPL. No one is creating a joint work. So taking someone else's work and republishing it as a whole is not joint authorship? You are in an untenable position to be sure! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
