Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 00:01 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00137.html quote author=RMS The crucial point is that when we release a program under the GPL, we do not claim that all possessors of a copy have agreed to any contract with us. /quote The GPL is not a contract. It is an unilateral grant of rights, some of which are restricted. There's no other party under the GPL to agree with something. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 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: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
Isaac wrote: [...] don't agree with his conclusions involving first sale, Well, http://lists.essential.org/upd-discuss/msg00137.html quote author=RMS The crucial point is that when we release a program under the GPL, we do not claim that all possessors of a copy have agreed to any contract with us. /quote Still don't agree? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:23:33 +0200, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote: My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is compatible), but who cares? This makes no sense. If I have some GPL'ed code and some code under license Foo, and I can combine them in a program in such a way that I can satisfy they terms of both GPL and Foo, then it makes sense to say they are compatible. If I cannot do so, then it makes sense to say they are incompatible. First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When you merely combine works, you create compilations, not derivative works. The former is also known as mere aggregation. Got it now? Linking code always is a derivative work of the individual parts, and rarely a compilation in the legal sense. The question relevant to the courts is whether the parts of the whole can be considered reasonably independent. It is one criterion for a compilation in the legal sense of the word that all parts make independent sense outside of the compilation. No that is not the way to tell if something is a compilation or a derivative work. Your description while logical is not based on any authoritative statement of the law I'm familiar with. Ironically a fairly good comparison of what a compilation and a derivative work are based on House Report 94-1476 that appears as annotation to the code was posted by Mr. Terekhov very recently. I don't agree with his conclusions involving first sale, but he seems to be on solid ground with respect to the difference between a compilations versus derivative works. The short of it is that a derivative requires a process of recasting, transforming or adapting a pre-existing work. If no such process is present, then your combination is some form of compilation such as a collective work and not a derivative work. Whether or not the parts are or are not reasonably independent, are or are not useful on their own, or are are are not useful with some other base work does not distinguish a compilation from a derivative work. Of course a compilation does not necessarily correspond to mere aggregation as described in the GPL, so the rest of Mr. T's argument may also be on shakey ground. Isaac ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote: My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is compatible), but who cares? This makes no sense. If I have some GPL'ed code and some code under license Foo, and I can combine them in a program in such a way that I can satisfy they terms of both GPL and Foo, then it makes sense to say they are compatible. If I cannot do so, then it makes sense to say they are incompatible. First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When you merely combine works, you create compilations, not derivative works. The former is also known as mere aggregation. Got it now? regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 10:57 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When you merely combine works, you create compilations, not derivative works. The former is also known as mere aggregation. Got it now? Well, apart from the fact that there is no combining but combining, one should take in account that while in combining you are just combining, when you build upon an existing work (aka use a library) you're making a derivate. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 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: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim Smith wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote: My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is compatible), but who cares? This makes no sense. If I have some GPL'ed code and some code under license Foo, and I can combine them in a program in such a way that I can satisfy they terms of both GPL and Foo, then it makes sense to say they are compatible. If I cannot do so, then it makes sense to say they are incompatible. First sale aside for a moment, GPL is a bare copyright license. When you merely combine works, you create compilations, not derivative works. The former is also known as mere aggregation. Got it now? Linking code always is a derivative work of the individual parts, and rarely a compilation in the legal sense. The question relevant to the courts is whether the parts of the whole can be considered reasonably independent. It is one criterion for a compilation in the legal sense of the word that all parts make independent sense outside of the compilation. For example, consider libgcc: it can usually be replaced with other libraries easily, so it would probably make little sense for the FSF to use the GPL instead of the LGPL for it: they would be on shaky legal ground for pressing the difference. The LGPL's basic difference is that it does not extend the protection to the complete derived work, and such an extension might not go down with some courts for something like the libgcc. I think that the main purpose of the LGPL for the FSF nowadays is to stay out of court for cases where they don't have a surefire chance of winning. It does not make sense otherwise that the FSF strongly deprecates using the licence, yet does not relicense core material like libgcc to the GPL. It is not because they would not want to have the protection extend over parts linked with it, it is more likely because they can't be sure to prevail with it. But that does not change that there is a lot of code around which _does_ fit the GPL protection when linking with it. -- 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: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov wrote: My answer is below it. As far as the GPL is concerned, everything is compatible with it. It might not be so under jursidiction of the GNU Republic (where only Mr President Stallman knows and rules what is compatible), but who cares? This makes no sense. If I have some GPL'ed code and some code under license Foo, and I can combine them in a program in such a way that I can satisfy they terms of both GPL and Foo, then it makes sense to say they are compatible. If I cannot do so, then it makes sense to say they are incompatible. -- --Tim Smith ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
Mike Linksvayer wrote: http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/xmp/sdk/license.txt I suspect it isn't due to the following ... If you choose to distribute the Software in a commercial product, you do so with the understanding that you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Adobe against any losses, damages and costs arising from the claims, lawsuits or other legal actions arising out of such distribution. You may distribute the Software in object code form under your own license, provided that your license agreement: (a) complies with the terms and conditions of this license agreement; (b) effectively disclaims all warranties and conditions, express or implied, on behalf of Adobe; (c) effectively excludes all liability for damages on behalf of Adobe; (d) states that any provisions that differ from this Agreement are offered by you alone and not Adobe; and (e) states that the Software is available from you or Adobe and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. ... however it isn't clear whether these do not apply if source is distributed and what the effect on its GPL compatibility would be if that were the case. I did a quick scan through http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html but didn't see an exactly comparable license. So, my question is in the subject line. Thanks! Well, if Adobe wanted to be GPL compatible, or to get rid of GPL -virus, why don't they then use some of the existing licences to be clear and effective? I think that this we are open-source advertising has purpose of stealing contributors' work in same way like with XFree86. See, that the company can make a proprietary snapshot of the software and use it to compete against isn't benefiting everyone. This is why one should use GPL, not BSD -licence. Of course there may be financial incentive driving BSD-licenced developers. But that incentive cannot be granted for everyone, and effectively discriminates the developers and end-users. This limits the benefits of open source. You know, everyone was end-user once. One should also see, how different licences affect on the structure of the development. GPL seems to centralize the development, whereas BSD and similiar licences seem to disseminate the development. Of course, diverse ideas are needed. But one should realize, that with development done in voluntary basis, the only way to pay back for utilized software is to contribute the same way. Otherwise, the system doesn't remain in balance. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy Sure I can. Work is GPL'd and publicly available. I admit making copies. What's the problem? and (re)DISTRIBUTE them unless you have distribution rights. 17 USC 109. regards, alexander. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 16:40 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy Sure I can. Work is GPL'd and publicly available. I admit making copies. What's the problem? Well, English 101: the phrase ends on the period. and (re)DISTRIBUTE them unless you have distribution rights. ^^^ ... which the GPL gives you under certain conditions only. 17 USC 109. That's first sale, not (re)distribution of copies. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 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: Adobe Open Source License GPL compatible?
Rui Miguel Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 14:18 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: [...] Because those that have somewhat more insight, see that your arguments do not apply, because you're talking of a radically different concept (first sale doctrine) than (re)distribution as if they where the exact same thing. They may well be radically different concepts under GNU Copyright Law (I know that you have much more insight regarding it than me). What happens to ONE copy, wheter it is in your hands alone, or if you gave THAT copy to someone else, that's first sale. Correction: if there is an exchange of interests. You can't claim first sale rights without a benefit for the seller. The redistribution of explicit _promotional_ material or stuff that is part of a support of other products for which you have commercial interests would probably count as such. But as long as the benefits of the transaction are completely one-sided, there are no rights transferred. As for US CODE: Title 17, (re)distribution is nonexistent and first sale limitation on exclusive distribution right is quite real. But you can't MAKE COPIES of YOUR copy and (re)DISTRIBUTE them unless you have distribution rights. This is plain default copyright law. -- 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
