Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Tim Smith]

In article <49822021.cf051...@web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov  quoted the FSF:
> to the latest version of the license. It also paves the way for GCC to
> add a plugin architecture, by adding new protections against extending
> GCC with proprietary software.

It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
That issue arose a long time ago, with producers of commercial software
trying to use copyright to prevent unauthorized third-party plugins.
The plugin writers won.

If you write a program that has a plugin interface, and you want to
stop third-parties from writing unauthorized plugins, the only legal
tool that has a chance of working is the patent.  You have to make
it so that plugins have to practice something you have a patent on.

Even if the plugin has to use structure definitions, function calling 
sequences, constants, and such that are defined in your copyrighted 
code, those elements aren't covered by your copyright because they are 
considered to be processes or methods of operation.

The courts have also noted that there is a strong public interest in not 
allowing copyright owners to use their copyrights in a way that would 
give them the kind of monopoly that patents grant--if you want a 
patent-type monopoly, you have to get a patent.

-- 
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Tim Smith wrote:

It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.


Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
derived from their runtime libraries.


If you did use GPL-incompatible software in conjunction with GCC
during the Compilation Process, you would not be able to take
advantage of this permission. Since all of the object code that
GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means
you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when
propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to
develop your own GPL-incompatible software.

I have to go with Terekhov on this: ROFL!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[7]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
> 
> Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
> meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
> derived from their runtime libraries.


Prove it!

The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
data held within and the music is protected by copyright.

The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
e.g. How a switch statement is implemented varies from one CPU to the next,
but it has been precisely and efficiently put together by someone
for each and every CPU!


 
> 
>  If you did use GPL-incompatible software in conjunction with GCC
>  during the Compilation Process, you would not be able to take
>  advantage of this permission. Since all of the object code that
>  GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means
>  you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when
>  propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to
>  develop your own GPL-incompatible software.
> 
> I have to go with Terekhov on this: ROFL!



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Hyman Rosen belched out
  this bit o' wisdom:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
>
> Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
> meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
> derived from their runtime libraries.
>
> 
>  If you did use GPL-incompatible software in conjunction with GCC
>  during the Compilation Process, you would not be able to take
>  advantage of this permission. Since all of the object code that
>  GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means
>  you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when
>  propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to
>  develop your own GPL-incompatible software.
>
> I have to go with Terekhov on this: ROFL!

I like Tim's argument (and its style) better than Cherenkhov's.
The latter is mostly a hand-waving joker.

It seems the FSF is taking an odd position here.  And it doesn't seem to
matter anyway.  They allow you to write proprietary software using GCC.
So what's the difference if you make it proprietary by converting GCC into a
proprietary format generator with a plugin?

And how many suckers would bite on that, anyway?

-- 
What we wish, that we readily believe.
-- Demosthenes
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen  writes:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
>
> Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
> meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
> derived from their runtime libraries.
>
> 
> If you did use GPL-incompatible software in conjunction with GCC
> during the Compilation Process, you would not be able to take
> advantage of this permission. Since all of the object code that
> GCC generates is derived from these GPLed libraries, that means
> you would be required to follow the terms of the GPL when
> propagating any of that object code. You could not use GCC to
> develop your own GPL-incompatible software.
>
> I have to go with Terekhov on this: ROFL!

Doesn't matter as long as it is no judge rolling with laughter.  Once it
is, there is case law against plugin copyright creep, and nobody will be
more happy about that than the FSF.  Every time the scope of copyright
is weakened in court, this is a win for free software.  When some
far-fetched theoretic scope of copyright law tried by the FSF on behalf
of the GPL is acknowledged, a corner case of free software is kept free
artificially.  When it is defeated, this corner case is kept free
naturally for all software.

As long as the FSF keeps the cases generally relevant and not just for
the GPL, it maintains the ground for free software by winning, and wins
ground by losing.

-- 
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Doesn't matter as long as it is no judge rolling with laughter.  Once it
> is, there is case law against plugin copyright creep, and nobody will be
> more happy about that than the FSF. 

"plugin copyright creep"

LOL.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html

"RMS: ... To be using three years old software is not a disaster.

AM3: Don't you think this is a system that would favour feature creep?

RMS: [airily] Ah that's OK. That's a minor side issue, compared with
these issues of freedom encouraging, every system encourages some
artificial distortions in what people, and our present system certainly
encourages various kinds of artificial distortions in activity that is
covered by copyright so if a changed system also encourages a few of
these secondary distortions it's not a big deal I would say.

AM4: The problem with this change in the copyright laws for three would
be that you wouldn't get the sources.

RMS: Right. There would have also to be a condition, a law that to sell
copies of the software to the public the source code must be deposited
somewhere so that three years later it can be released. So it could be
deposited say, with the library of congress in the US, and I think other
countries have similar institutions where copies of published books get
placed, and they could also received the source code and after three
years, publish it. And of course, if the source code didn't correspond
to the executable that would be fraud, and in fact if it really
corresponds then they ought to be able to check that very easily when
the work is published initially so you're publishing the source code and
somebody there says alright “dot slash configure dot slash make” and
sees if produces the same executables and uh.

So you're right, just eliminating copyright would not make software
free.

AM5: Um libre

RMS: Right. That's the only sense I use the term. ..."

ROFL.

> David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

regards,
alexander.

--
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

7 wrote:

The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
data held within and the music is protected by copyright.

The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.


Please see , for example:
A “derivative work,” that is, a work that is based on
(or derived from) one or more already existing works,
is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law
calls an “original work of authorship.”

The consistent (and apparently deliberate) error made by the FSF is
to disregard the "original work of authorship" requirement. The
circular also goes on to say:
Compilations and abridgments may also be copyrightable if
they contain new work of authorship. When the collecting of
the preexisting material that makes up the compilation is a
purely mechanical task with no element of editorial selection,
or when only a few minor deletions constitute an abridgment,
copyright protection for the compilation or abridgment as a
new version is not available.

Thus: the inclusion of runtime library code in the output of a
program does not create a derivative work because there has been
no original work of authorship involved in the creation of the
output. When the output contains pieces of runtime library code
it might be considered a compilation, but since the output has
literally been generated by a purely mechanical task, it is not
eligible for copyright protection as a compilation.

It may still be possible to craft a license restriction on the
runtime library code that will make things behave in the way the
FSF would like, though.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

I love the silly manipulations and blather the FSF is engaging in 
its attempts to manipulate gcc development.


It is spurring support and development of pcc and related 
development tools. The BSD licensed pcc compiler is now included in 
most versions of the BSD licensed operating systems.


http://bsdfund.org/projects/pcc/

Pcc is a solid compiler with a highly respected history.

http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/

True open source software is becoming more and more independent of 
the highly restricted "Free Software" model for source code.


Sincerely,
Rjack :)




___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

Pcc is a solid compiler with a highly respected history.


It's just C. No C++, no Ada, no Java. It will never catch up to GCC.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Rjack wrote:

Pcc is a solid compiler with a highly respected history.


It's just C. No C++, no Ada, no Java. It will never catch up to GCC.


REAL men program in C.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

REAL men program in C.


And if you go by my wife, real women program in Fortran :-)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[7]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
>> data held within and the music is protected by copyright.
>> 
>> The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
>> by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
>> When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
>> by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
> 
> Please see , for example:
>  A ?derivative work,? that is, a work that is based on
>  (or derived from) one or more already existing works,
>  is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law
>  calls an ?original work of authorship.?
> 
> The consistent (and apparently deliberate) error made by the FSF is
> to disregard the "original work of authorship" requirement.


Wrong fool!

As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 

Very often I look at how others have implemented the switch statement.
Some are brilliant shortcuts. Some are just average brilliant. Others
are mediocre. And a few down right stupid.

If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone to use it without
copyright protecting it, especially if I felt (and other agree) that
my solution is better than anyone elses. Thats creative work.
After that point, it doesn't matter how a compiler mixes and mashes
the output, the structure of how the switch statement got implemented
will contain my brilliant piece of assembler arranged like poetry
is a particular sequence and then copied over and over again for each
ocurance of the switch statement. That original arragement template didn't
discover itself! That is the original work of authorship.

In other words, the arangement of assembler is like arragement
of passages in a musical score - and if I have copyright, then
no one should be using that particular arrangement without
some acknowledgement to copyright. 


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

7 wrote:

If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone

> to use it without copyright protecting it

Methods cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented.

Statements like this will cause even more confusion in this group.
Please stop making them.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

7 wrote:



As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 


Nonsense.

The structural semantics of a "switch" statement are dictated by the 
programming language specification. The the implementation of that 
structure is dictated by the CPU specification.


So what's so original about that?

Sincerely,
Rjack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[7]

Rjack wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
>> then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
>> The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
>> 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
>> interpret and put together reading CPU specification.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The structural semantics of a "switch" statement are dictated by the
> programming language specification. The the implementation of that
> structure is dictated by the CPU specification.

Wrong fool. You don't know any assembler coding.

> So what's so original about that?

If you knew assembler you wouldn't ask.



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[7]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone
>  > to use it without copyright protecting it
> 
> Methods cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented.
> 
> Statements like this will cause even more confusion in this group.
> Please stop making them.


Really fool?
You made whole speeches a minute ago and fooled everyone!

Read again and replace method with composition.
And weep if all you have is some semantics left over to bite into...


"
>> The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
>> by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
>> When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
>> by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
> 
> Please see , for example:
>  A ?derivative work,? that is, a work that is based on
>  (or derived from) one or more already existing works,
>  is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law
>  calls an ?original work of authorship.?
> 
> The consistent (and apparently deliberate) error made by the FSF is
> to disregard the "original work of authorship" requirement.


Wrong fool!

As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 

Very often I look at how others have implemented the switch statement.
Some are brilliant shortcuts. Some are just average brilliant. Others
are mediocre. And a few down right stupid.

If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone to use it without
copyright protecting it, especially if I felt (and other agree) that
my solution is better than anyone elses. Thats creative work.
After that point, it doesn't matter how a compiler mixes and mashes
the output, the structure of how the switch statement got implemented
will contain my brilliant piece of assembler arranged like poetry
is a particular sequence and then copied over and over again for each
ocurance of the switch statement. That original arragement template didn't
discover itself! That is the original work of authorship.

In other words, the arangement of assembler is like arragement
of passages in a musical score - and if I have copyright, then
no one should be using that particular arrangement without
some acknowledgement to copyright.
"


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

7 wrote:

Rjack wrote:


7 wrote:


As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
interpret and put together reading CPU specification.

Nonsense.

The structural semantics of a "switch" statement are dictated by the
programming language specification. The the implementation of that
structure is dictated by the CPU specification.


Wrong fool. You don't know any assembler coding.


So what's so original about that?


If you knew assembler you wouldn't ask.





I was probably writing assembler when you were a glint in your 
Daddy's eye.


Sincerely,
Rjack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Barry Margolin]

In article <%4egl.91026$1k1.79...@newsfe14.iad>,
 Hyman Rosen  wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> > The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
> > data held within and the music is protected by copyright.
> > 
> > The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
> > by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
> > When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
> > by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
> 
> Please see , for example:
>  A ³derivative work,² that is, a work that is based on
>  (or derived from) one or more already existing works,
>  is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law
>  calls an ³original work of authorship.²
> 
> The consistent (and apparently deliberate) error made by the FSF is
> to disregard the "original work of authorship" requirement. The
> circular also goes on to say:
>  Compilations and abridgments may also be copyrightable if
>  they contain new work of authorship. When the collecting of
>  the preexisting material that makes up the compilation is a
>  purely mechanical task with no element of editorial selection,
>  or when only a few minor deletions constitute an abridgment,
>  copyright protection for the compilation or abridgment as a
>  new version is not available.
> 
> Thus: the inclusion of runtime library code in the output of a
> program does not create a derivative work because there has been
> no original work of authorship involved in the creation of the
> output. When the output contains pieces of runtime library code
> it might be considered a compilation, but since the output has
> literally been generated by a purely mechanical task, it is not
> eligible for copyright protection as a compilation.
> 
> It may still be possible to craft a license restriction on the
> runtime library code that will make things behave in the way the
> FSF would like, though.

I believe the choice of library to incorporate is an "original work of 
authorship".  Linking a set of object files and libraries is analogous 
to creating an anthology in traditional literature.

The "purely mechanical" exception comes from a case involving a 
telephone directory.  There's no creative authorship in taking an 
existing database of names, addresses, and phone numbers and printing 
them out alphabetically.

-- 
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

7 wrote:

Really fool?
Read again and replace method with composition.



What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
  principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a
  description, explanation, or illustration

If the compiler generated the same identical piece of code each
time for a switch statement, it's possible that the author of the
code could have copyright in it, but not if that code was the only
way to do the required operation.


As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.



Copyright protection extends to a description, explanation, or
illustration of an idea or system, assuming that the requirements
of the copyright law are met. Copyright in such a case protects
the particular literary or pictorial expression chosen by the
author. However, it gives the copyright owner no exclusive rights
in the idea, method, or system involved.
Suppose, for example, that an author writes a book explaining a
new system for food processing. The copyright in the book, which
comes into effect at the moment the work is fixed in a tangible
form, will prevent others from publishing the text and
illustrations describing the author’s ideas for machinery,
processes, and merchandising methods. But it will not give the
author any rights to prevent others from adopting the ideas for
commercial purposes or from developing or using the machinery,
processes, or methods described in the book.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself with displays of ignorance.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Barry Margolin wrote:
I believe the choice of library to incorporate is an "original work of 
authorship".  Linking a set of object files and libraries is analogous 
to creating an anthology in traditional literature.


You're never going to convince a court of that - the source which
makes calls to the library is an original work of authorship but
compilation is a purely mechanical act. The FSF is also talking
about the runtime libraries which come with compiler, which no one
makes a choice to use.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:16:06 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It's cute how they think they can control what people do with plugins.
> 
> Isn't it? Their rationale again completely misinterprets the legal
> meaning of a derived work, claiming that gcc-compiled output is
> derived from their runtime libraries.

Anyone with even a casual idea of how a c compiler works understands that
the output of a compiler typically includes a certain amount of linked in
code from the standard c runtime library, such as startup code, string
handling routines, etc..

THAT code is GPL'd, and that's why they need the exceptions.  Not because
the compiler generates code that is GPL'd (it doesn't).

I agree that "derived work" should not be interpreted to mean "linked
code", but that's been the classic interpretation of the FSF since the
beginning, and someone needs to challenge this in court.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss 7  wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Wrong fool!

No, I think you might actually be the right one.

> As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
> then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
> The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
> 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
> interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 

The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.

> Very often I look at how others have implemented the switch statement.
> Some are brilliant shortcuts. Some are just average brilliant. Others
> are mediocre. And a few down right stupid.

> If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone to use it without
> copyright protecting it, especially if I felt (and other agree) that
> my solution is better than anyone elses. Thats creative work.

If you're talking about coding a switch statement, the creativity is
almost entirely that of designers of the chip's instruction set.  Given
that instruction set, there're at most a handful of ways of doing a
switch.

> After that point, it doesn't matter how a compiler mixes and mashes
> the output, the structure of how the switch statement got implemented
> will contain my brilliant piece of assembler arranged like poetry
> in a particular sequence and then copied over and over again for each
> ocurance of the switch statement.

No it won't.  The assembler will only exist if the user asks for an
object code listing - hardly ever.  And it won't be what you wrote, since
you didn't write in the destinations of the jump instructions; they
derive from the author of the C source.

> That original arragement template didn't discover itself! That is the
> original work of authorship.

Hardly.

> In other words, the arangement of assembler is like arrangement
> of passages in a musical score - and if I have copyright, then
> no one should be using that particular arrangement without
> some acknowledgement to copyright. 

No, your arrangement of "assembler" is is like the F major chord with
suspended G at the beginning of Lennon and McCartney's "Yesterday".  You
don't get copyright on a single musical chord devoid of context.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Andrew Halliwell]

Erik Funkenbusch  wrote:
> Anyone with even a casual idea of how a c compiler works understands that
> the output of a compiler typically includes a certain amount of linked in
> code from the standard c runtime library, such as startup code, string
> handling routines, etc..

Indeed. and it should be noted that some commercial compilers have
restrictions on what you can do with your compiled code. some include a "not
for commercial use or sale" clause for example. (You have to buy a license
for that).

-- 
|   spi...@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a|
|  | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|in|microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science |can't stand 1 bit of competition.   |
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
   conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
   copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would
   be.

Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll a loop,
and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is trivial,
is really not true, if you have a long one, you really wish to do it
as fast as possible, and might resort to vector tables or other stuff.

So switch statment optimistaions can be very creative, it isn't just a
bunch of jmps and conds lumped together...


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Alfred!

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:03:18PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
>conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
>copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would
>be.

> Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll a loop,
> and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

> Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is trivial,
> is really not true, if you have a long one, you really wish to do it
> as fast as possible, and might resort to vector tables or other stuff.

Trivial it may or may not be, but what I said was that it's too trivial
TO MERIT COPYRIGHT.  In any case, the machine instructions in a piece of
object code weren't written by the copyright non-owner.  They were
mechanically generated by a program (a compiler) written by him, the
creative input being supplied by the author of the C code.

> So switch statment optimistaions can be very creative, it isn't just a
> bunch of jmps and conds lumped together...

Yeah, playing an F major chord can be equally creative.  It takes a lot
of skill to get all the various components in tune with eachother, and
to get them to sound at the same time, at the right relative
intensities.  That doesn't make it deserving of copyright status.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie  wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss 7  wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
>> Wrong fool!
>
> No, I think you might actually be the right one.
>
>> As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
>> then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
>> The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
>> 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
>> interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 
>
> The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
> conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
> copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.

So then, are you going to hold your breath until they reform the Law.

You may have a long wait since pretty much nobody that owns proprietary
source code would want to see such a reform put into place. The world is
chock full of very un-creative software.

[deletia]


-- 
The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals   ||| 
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs   / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH  wrote:
> On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie  wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss 7  wrote:
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:

>>> Wrong fool!

>> No, I think you might actually be the right one.

>>> As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
>>> then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
>>> The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
>>> 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
>>> interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 

>> The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
>> conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
>> copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.

>So then, are you going to hold your breath until they reform the Law.

Whitt???  "So"?  That's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

>You may have a long wait since pretty much nobody that owns proprietary
> source code would want to see such a reform put into place. The world is
> chock full of very un-creative software.

Again, totally disconnected with what went before.  There is indeed a
load of boring source code around, but it's nevertheless copyright, as
it should be.  However, the line of code

for (i = 0 ; i < num_is ; i++)

, even though contained in these boring copyright bits of code, is not,
of itself, copyright because it falls beneath the threshold of
creativity.

> [deletia]

Who's she?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie  wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH  wrote:
>> On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie  wrote:
>>> In gnu.misc.discuss 7  wrote:
 Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
 Wrong fool!
>
>>> No, I think you might actually be the right one.
>
 As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
 then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
 The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
 interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 
>
>>> The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
>>> conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
>>> copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.
>
>>So then, are you going to hold your breath until they reform the Law.
>
> Whitt???  "So"?  That's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

...nope. Just a less than straightforward way of saying you're clueless.

>
>>You may have a long wait since pretty much nobody that owns proprietary
>> source code would want to see such a reform put into place. The world is
>> chock full of very un-creative software.
>
> Again, totally disconnected with what went before.  There is indeed a
> load of boring source code around, but it's nevertheless copyright, as
> it should be.  However, the line of code
>
> for (i = 0 ; i < num_is ; i++)

   What you think on this matter doesn't really matter and those that
are relevant have no interest in making copyright any less draconian.
They rather profit from stupid ideas derived from the Berne convention
and it's friends.

>
> , even though contained in these boring copyright bits of code, is not,
> of itself, copyright because it falls beneath the threshold of
> creativity.
>
>> [deletia]
>
> Who's she?
>


-- 
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some  / | \ 
simple date manipulations in postgres.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison
   >and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to
   >merit copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is
   >silly." would be.

   > Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll a
   > loop, and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

   > Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is
   > trivial, is really not true, if you have a long one, you really
   > wish to do it as fast as possible, and might resort to vector
   > tables or other stuff.

   Trivial it may or may not be, but what I said was that it's too trivial
   TO MERIT COPYRIGHT.  In any case, the machine instructions in a piece of
   object code weren't written by the copyright non-owner.  They were
   mechanically generated by a program (a compiler) written by him, the
   creative input being supplied by the author of the C code.

Someone had to write the assembly code for generation of a switch
statement, and that is copyrightable.  The compiler then inserts parts
of it verbatim (prelude, epilouge code for example) into the program,
or with some other transformation on top of that.

So, a naive switch statement might not be copyrightable, but a complex
one sure is.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison
   >and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to
   >merit copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is
   >silly." would be.

   > Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll a
   > loop, and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

   > Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is
   > trivial, is really not true, if you have a long one, you really
   > wish to do it as fast as possible, and might resort to vector
   > tables or other stuff.

   Trivial it may or may not be, but what I said was that it's too trivial
   TO MERIT COPYRIGHT.  In any case, the machine instructions in a piece of
   object code weren't written by the copyright non-owner.  They were
   mechanically generated by a program (a compiler) written by him, the
   creative input being supplied by the author of the C code.

Someone had to write the assembly code for generation of a switch
statement, and that is copyrightable.  The compiler then inserts parts
of it verbatim (prelude, epilouge code for example) into the program,
or with some other transformation on top of that.

So, a naive switch statement might not be copyrightable, but a complex
one sure is.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hi, Alfred!

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison
>>and conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to
>>merit copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is
>>silly." would be.

>> Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to unroll a
>> loop, and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

>> Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is
>> trivial, is really not true, if you have a long one, you really
>> wish to do it as fast as possible, and might resort to vector
>> tables or other stuff.

>Trivial it may or may not be, but what I said was that it's too trivial
>TO MERIT COPYRIGHT.  In any case, the machine instructions in a piece of
>object code weren't written by the copyright non-owner.  They were
>mechanically generated by a program (a compiler) written by him, the
>creative input being supplied by the author of the C code.

> Someone had to write the assembly code for generation of a switch
> statement, and that is copyrightable.  The compiler then inserts parts
> of it verbatim (prelude, epilouge code for example) into the program,
> or with some other transformation on top of that.

Let's get the terminology right:  "Assembly code" is a source file which
an assembler processes, a fragment of which might look like "mov #5, d4".
I think you were talking more about "machine code" than "assembly code".

In your sentence "Someone had to write ... and that is copyrightable",
"the assembly code for generation of a switch statement", what you said
is true if (a) you mean the bit of the compiler which generates the
switch statement and (b) this bit of the compiler is written in
assembler.  I don't think that's what you meant, though.

What I think you meant is that the sequence of machine code, part of
which might be representable as:

...
cmp #5862, d1
bne 52
...

generated from a C source file, the corresponding fragment of which is:

case 5862:

is copyrightable by the writer of the compiler.  This is false, since the
compiler writer isn't the author of that machine code.  In particular,
she didn't write the constant 5862.  The was written by the author of the
C source file.

> So, a naive switch statement might not be copyrightable, but a complex
> one sure is.

I think you mean here that if the machine code generated for the switch
statement was more refined than the crude fragment sketched above, this
would make that machine code copyrightable by the compiler writer.
Again, this is false for the same reason: the compiler writer didn't
write the constant 5862 which will be contained, somehow, in that more
subtle machine code.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few
   >>comparison and conditional/unconditional jump
   >>instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as
   >>composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.

   >> Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to
   >> unroll a loop, and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

   >> Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is
   >> trivial, is really not true, if you have a long one, you
   >> really wish to do it as fast as possible, and might resort
   >> to vector tables or other stuff.

   >Trivial it may or may not be, but what I said was that it's
   >too trivial TO MERIT COPYRIGHT.  In any case, the machine
   >instructions in a piece of object code weren't written by the
   >copyright non-owner.  They were mechanically generated by a
   >program (a compiler) written by him, the creative input being
   >supplied by the author of the C code.

   > Someone had to write the assembly code for generation of a switch
   > statement, and that is copyrightable.  The compiler then inserts
   > parts of it verbatim (prelude, epilouge code for example) into
   > the program, or with some other transformation on top of that.

   Let's get the terminology right: "Assembly code" is a source file
   which an assembler processes, a fragment of which might look like
   "mov #5, d4".  I think you were talking more about "machine code"
   than "assembly code".

I see no difference between either, assembler is a one-to-one
translation to machine code.  One is a set of human readable
memenonics, the other is computer readable.

   What I think you meant is that the sequence of machine code, part
   of which might be representable as:

   ...
   cmp #5862, d1
   bne 52
   ...

   generated from a C source file, the corresponding fragment of which
   is:

   case 5862:

   is copyrightable by the writer of the compiler.  This is false,
   since the compiler writer isn't the author of that machine code.
   In particular, she didn't write the constant 5862.  The was written
   by the author of the C source file.

I am not talking about a trivial case statement that only consists of
a jmp.  I am talking about a vector jump table using hashes.  This
requires a big prelude, and a bunch of helper functions, _ALL_ of this
is copyrightable.

You clearly have absolutley no clue what is going on in an advanced
compiler.  You also clearly insist of assuming what I mean when what I
wrote is as plain as the sun shine outside my window.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Afternoon, Alfred!

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:12:53PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>>The degree of creativity involved in writing a few
>>>comparison and conditional/unconditional jump
>>>instructions is too low to merit copyright, just as
>>>composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.

>>> Well, depends... Duff's device is quite a smart way to
>>> unroll a loop, and loop unrolling is quite trivial.

>>> Saying out right that making a efficient switch statment is
>>> trivial, is really not true, if you have a long one, you
>>> really wish to do it as fast as possible, and might resort
>>> to vector tables or other stuff.

>>Trivial it may or may not be, but what I said was that it's
>>too trivial TO MERIT COPYRIGHT.  In any case, the machine
>>instructions in a piece of object code weren't written by the
>>copyright non-owner.  They were mechanically generated by a
>>program (a compiler) written by him, the creative input being
>>supplied by the author of the C code.

>> Someone had to write the assembly code for generation of a switch
>> statement, and that is copyrightable.  The compiler then inserts
>> parts of it verbatim (prelude, epilouge code for example) into
>> the program, or with some other transformation on top of that.

>Let's get the terminology right: "Assembly code" is a source file
>which an assembler processes, a fragment of which might look like
>"mov #5, d4".  I think you were talking more about "machine code"
>than "assembly code".

> I see no difference between either, assembler is a one-to-one
> translation to machine code.  One is a set of human readable
> memenonics, the other is computer readable.

Possibly.  I'm trying to avoid us falling into stupid arguments about
what words mean.  I'm also trying to clear up the ambiguities in your
posts, of which the number is non-zero.  ;-)

>What I think you meant is that the sequence of machine code, part
>of which might be representable as:

>...
>cmp #5862, d1
>bne 52
>...

>generated from a C source file, the corresponding fragment of which
>is:

>case 5862:

>is copyrightable by the writer of the compiler.  This is false,
>since the compiler writer isn't the author of that machine code.
>In particular, she didn't write the constant 5862.  The was written
>by the author of the C source file.

> I am not talking about a trivial case statement that only consists of
> a jmp.  I am talking about a vector jump table using hashes.  This
> requires a big prelude, and a bunch of helper functions, _ALL_ of this
> is copyrightable.

OK.  you're saying a direct coding of the switch statement (as above) is
not copyrightable, but an ingenious coding is.

No.  You can only copyright what you write.  Maybe the compiler writer
can copyright the sophisticated prelude; but even so, she won't have
written it EXACTLY as it appears in the code.  Anyhow, did she actually
write the prelude?  Or did she write code to generate it?  If the latter,
is this copyrightable in law?  (I don't know the answer to that
question.)

She certainly can't copyright the hashed jump table, because she didn't
write it.  If anybody wrote this jump table, it is the author of the C
source, since it is a purely mechanical manipulation, no matter how
sophisticated, of his source file.

Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held
by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the
compiler.

If the use of a sophisticated compilation of a switch statement should be
restricted to the person who devised it, the mechanism is a _patent_, not
copyright.

> You clearly have absolutley no clue what is going on in an advanced
> compiler.

Oh dear!  Hey, you're better than some of the idiots that hang around
this newsgroup, Alfred!

> You also clearly insist of assuming what I mean when what I wrote is as
> plain as the sun shine outside my window.

Yes.  It's clouded over in Nuremberg, too.  It helps to be completely
clear about what we're talking about, otherwise the discussion
degenerates into meaninglessness and squabbles about words.  With this
sort of subject, it's very difficult to write with this clarity, and your
posts haven't been very clear at all.  Please at least acknowledge that
I'm countering your points directly rather than diverting you into stupid
squabbles.

Why not consider it as me lending my expertise as a native English
speaker?  :-)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held
by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the
compiler.


An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered
to be the same work for copyright purposes.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held
>> by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the
>> compiler.

> An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
> computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered
> to be the same work for copyright purposes.

That sounds,  er complicated!  You mean, if you validly hold an
executable copy of a (non-free) program, and you "somehow" get hold of
the source for it, then you're entitled to keep that source code.

Are you sure, on this one?  I mean, this doesn't apply to book
translation.  If a publisher is authorised to publish an edition of a
book written in English, that wouldn't give him any rights to publish
somebody else's German translation.

Sorry, I can't work this out!

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Hyman Rosen  wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably 
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source 
files, not those who wrote the compiler.



An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of
 a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are 
considered to be the same work for copyright purposes.


They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the other.
That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law:

17 USC 101 Definitions.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. 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”.







That sounds,  er complicated!  You mean, if you validly hold 
an executable copy of a (non-free) program, and you "somehow" get
 hold of the source for it, then you're entitled to keep that 
source code.


Are you sure, on this one?  I mean, this doesn't apply to book 
translation.  If a publisher is authorised to publish an edition 
of a book written in English, that wouldn't give him any rights 
to publish somebody else's German translation.


Sorry, I can't work this out!


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Rjack wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Hyman Rosen  wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.



An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms
of a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They
are considered to be the same work for copyright purposes.


They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright 
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the

other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
law:

17 USC 101 Definitions.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting 
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
 fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art 
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in

which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. 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”.




I have argued that a compiler adds no creative element to qualify
the "translation" because of its fixed algorithms but this is a
legally unsupported *conjecture*. The subject of derivative works
concerning computer source code has almost no modern case law to
assist in answering legal questions of this nature.








That sounds,  er complicated!  You mean, if you validly
hold an executable copy of a (non-free) program, and you
"somehow" get hold of the source for it, then you're entitled
to keep that source code.

Are you sure, on this one?  I mean, this doesn't apply to book
 translation.  If a publisher is authorised to publish an
edition of a book written in English, that wouldn't give him
any rights to publish somebody else's German translation.

Sorry, I can't work this out!



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Rjack wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Hyman Rosen  wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.



An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms
of a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They
are considered to be the same work for copyright purposes.


They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright 
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the

other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
law:

17 USC 101 Definitions.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting 
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
 fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art 
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in

which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. 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”.



Just imagine filing a copyright infringement case and asking a jury
to evaluate the "substantial similarity"(a task for the trier of
fact) between source and object code:

--
(for i = 1; i < 235; i++){
var1 = var2;
var3 = var1 % var4;}
--

compared with;

--
11101101001110001000001010
--


H

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Hyman Rosen  wrote:

An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of a
computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered
to be the same work for copyright purposes.


Are you sure, on this one?


Yes. See 


321.03 Relationship between source code and object code.
The Copyright Office considers source code and object code
as two representations of the same computer program. For
registration purposes, the claim is in the computer program
rather than in any particular representation of the program.


I mean, this doesn't apply to book translation.


That's because book translation is a significant work of
authorship carried out by a human, and translation to binary
code is a mechanical process carried out by a program.


Sorry, I can't work this out!


Law is a man-made artifact. It doesn't have to meet criteria
of mathematical consistency. You have to accept it as a given.

> That sounds,  er complicated!  You mean, if you validly hold an
> executable copy of a (non-free) program, and you "somehow" get hold of
> the source for it, then you're entitled to keep that source code.

How does that follow? You can do that only the source copy was
legally made and conveyed to you. If you buy one copy of a DVD
in a store, that doesn't give you the right to have multiple
illegally made copies of the same DVD.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

I have argued that a compiler adds no creative element to qualify
the "translation" because of its fixed algorithms but this is a
legally unsupported *conjecture*.


It is the codified practice of the US Copyright Office.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the other.
That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law:


You are wrong.


321.03 Relationship between source code and object code.
The Copyright Office considers source code and object code
as two representations of the same computer program. For
registration purposes, the claim is in the computer program
rather than in any particular representation of the program.
...
323 Derivative computer programs.
A derivative computer program is one that is based on or
incorporates material from a previously published or
registered or public domain program that has been revised,
augmented, abridged, or otherwise modified so that the
modifications, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Rjack wrote:
They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright 
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the

other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
law:


You are wrong.


 321.03 Relationship between source code and object code. The
Copyright Office considers source code and object code as two
representations of the same computer program. For registration
purposes, the claim is in the computer program rather than in any
particular representation of the program. ...

Copyright Office opinions are only advisory and are not binding on
the courts.



323 Derivative computer programs. A derivative computer program
is one that is based on or incorporates material from a
previously published or registered or public domain program that
has been revised, augmented, abridged, or otherwise modified so
that the modifications, as a whole, represent an original work of
 authorship.


If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions
provided by Congress in the Copyright Act:

--
17 USC section 101 Definitions.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. 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”.
---

then you are either extremely naive or smoking something causing you
to hallucinate.


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 doesn't mention the Copyright Office:

"The Congress shall have the power. . .
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries."


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions
provided by Congress in the Copyright Act then you are either

> extremely naive or smoking something causing you to hallucinate.

Given the choice of believing you or believing the manual of
procedures for the government agency responsible for copyrights,
I should think the choice is obvious. To be explicit: not you.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Rjack wrote:
> > If you think the Copyright Office may re-define the definitions
> > provided by Congress in the Copyright Act then you are either
>  > extremely naive or smoking something causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Given the choice of believing you or believing the manual of
> procedures for the government agency responsible for copyrights,
> I should think the choice is obvious. To be explicit: not you.

Here's a more balanced view:

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise26.html

-
VI.B. Source Code and Object Code

Although copyright comes into being with the writing of the source code,
it is the object code – the actual instructions that control the
computer when the program is being executed – that copyright generally
protects. In most instances, the source code is never revealed to the
public, and thus remains protected as a trade secret even though
millions and millions of copies of the program are distributed as object
code.

Every computer program copyright case treats the copyright in the source
code and the object code as equivalent. That is likely because they were
decided at a time when there was essentially a one-to-one correspondence
between the source code and the object code. The source code was written
in assembly language, with each line of the source code corresponding to
a single machine instruction (or, if a macro facility existed as part of
the assembler, a small predefined series of machine instructions). The
source code contained information that made it easier for a programmer
to write or understand the program – mnemonics like “ADD” instead of a
bit pattern of “0111” for the addition instruction, the use of
symbolic labels for storage or program locations, and the inclusion of
comments to annotate the program – which the assembly process removed or
replaced as it produced the object code.

With the advent of higher-level programming languages, that is less the
case. The compiler for the higher-level language performs a much more
complicated translation than was the case for an assembler. It not only
produces complex series of object code instructions for each source line
but may actually rearrange the statements of the program to produce a
more efficient program. There is no longer the one-to-one correspondence
between the source code and the object code. This, along with their
size, makes it more difficult to reverse engineer (for example, to learn
how the program works either by testing or by trying to convert the
object code back to source code) a modern computer program, which in
turn makes it more likely that any copying will be a literal copying of
the entire program.

Even though source code and object code are distinct, it is still useful
to maintain the concept that the source code and the object code are
just different forms of the same copyrighted work. The Copyright Office
regards the source code and object code as equivalent for purposes of
registration. In fact, it generally requires a deposit of at least a
portion of the source code (generally the first and last 25 pages – see
their Circular 61) and questionsany registration that includes only
object code.

Where an applicant is unable or unwilling to deposit source code, he/she
must state in writing that the work as deposited in object code contains
copyrightable authorship. The Office will send a letter stating that
registration has been made under its rule of doubt and warning that it
has not determined the existence of copyrightable authorship. {FN102:
Copyright Office Circular 61: “Copyright Registration for Computer
Programs,” at 2} 
-

I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".

Do you agree, Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Hey Hyman, consider:

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/s-plan2008/s-plan2008-2013-1.pdf

"Judiciary · Although the Office does not enforce the provisions of
title 17, it may be involved in litigation in several ways. It can
choose to intervene in a copyright infringement suit under section
411(a) in a case where registration has been refused. It may be sued
under the Administrative Procedure Act. Or it may be asked to
participate in litigation by (a) assisting the Department of Justice in
preparing an amicus curiae brief in support of a particular position or
in defending a particular action, or (b) by bringing a suit under
section 407 to compel the deposit of a work."

-- 
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-dis

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".

Do you agree, Hyman?


Yes.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
>> is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
>> copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
>> is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
>> GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".
 
>> Do you agree, Hyman?

> Yes.

That is, indeed, the best answer.  ;-)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

That is, indeed, the best answer.  ;-)


Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means
putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > That is, indeed, the best answer.  ;-)
> 
> Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means
> putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
> shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work.

Hyman, Alan believes that taking two separate and independent computer 
program works (separate and independent under copyright law, according 
to the AFC test) and combining them together in a compilation (see 17 
USC 101) creates a "derived work" (see the GNU Copyleft Act) akin to 
"embryo which is derived from the egg and sperm." I gather that he also
believes that linking is akin to sex without condoms (and that it is
not oral or anal).

Alan's beliefs are inspired by maniac Moglen's beliefs. Eben calls it 
"interpenetration".

http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/

-
LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
proprietary modules as an infringement?
 
Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the
degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder
of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with
some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is
dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and
because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what
determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear
analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the
license if it's pure GPL.
-

http://www.mail-archive.com/gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org/msg01420.html

[Alan:]

-
Think of an embryo  - it is not a "compilation" of an egg and a sperm,
since the latter have long since lost their distinctive identity.  The
embryo is _derived_ from the egg and sperm, though.
-

LOL.

regards,
alexander.

-- 
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
 
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> > That is, indeed, the best answer.  ;-)
 
>> Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means
>> putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
>> shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work.

> Hyman, Alan believes .

Hah!  Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said
he was a troll.  This is as much feeding as I'm going to give him.

> LOL.

Indeed.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
> 
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> >> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> > That is, indeed, the best answer.  ;-)
> 
> >> Actually, it's not the GPL's "mere aggregation", which means
> >> putting multiple independent programs on the same media for
> >> shipping. But it is an aggregation and not a derived work.
> 
> > Hyman, Alan believes .
> 
> Hah!  Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said
> he was a troll.  

  Have a nice day Alan!
   _ _
  |a|   |a|
  |l|   |l|
  |e|   |e|
  |x|   |x|
  |a|   |a|
  |n| /^^^\ |n|
 _|d|_  (| "o" |)  _|d|_
   _| |e| | _(_---_)_ | |e| |_
  | | |r| |' |_| |_| `| |r| | |
  |  |   / \   |  |
   \/  / /(. .)\ \  \/
 \/  / /  | . |  \ \  \/
   \  \/ /||Y||\ \/  /
\__/  || ||  \__/
  () ()
  || ||
 ooO Ooo

regards,
alexander.

-- 
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 
>> Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
 
>> > Hyman, Alan believes .
 
>> Hah!  Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said
>> he was a troll.  
 
>  Have a nice day Alan!
>   _ _
>  |a|   |a|
>  |l|   |l|
>  |e|   |e|
>  |x|   |x|
>  |a|   |a|
>  |n| /^^^\ |n|
> _|d|_  (| "o" |)  _|d|_
>   _| |e| | _(_---_)_ | |e| |_
>  | | |r| |' |_| |_| `| |r| | |
>  |  |   / \   |  |
>   \/  / /(. .)\ \  \/
> \/  / /  | . |  \ \  \/
>   \  \/ /||Y||\ \/  /
>\__/  || ||  \__/
>  () ()
>  || ||
> ooO Ooo

Wow, that guy's got a very small dick!

Cheers, Alex!

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:


Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
 

Hyman, Alan believes .
 

Hah!  Some while ago, on this newsgroup, Alexander Terekhov said
he was a troll.  
 

 Have a nice day Alan!
  _ _
 |a|   |a|
 |l|   |l|
 |e|   |e|
 |x|   |x|
 |a|   |a|
 |n| /^^^\ |n|
_|d|_  (| "o" |)  _|d|_
  _| |e| | _(_---_)_ | |e| |_
 | | |r| |' |_| |_| `| |r| | |
 |  |   / \   |  |
  \/  / /(. .)\ \  \/
\/  / /  | . |  \ \  \/
  \  \/ /||Y||\ \/  /
   \__/  || ||  \__/
 () ()
 || ||
ooO Ooo


Wow, that guy's got a very small dick!

Cheers, Alex!


regards,
alexander.





It has to be when it spends most of its time in *your* ear Alan.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Kalle Olavi Niemitalo]

How is this GPLv3 + GCC Runtime Library Exception supposed to
enable distribution of binaries compiled from GPLv2-only
applications?  It is an exception to GPLv3, but I don't see how
it could excuse distributors from GPLv2 sections 1-3, which AFAIK
require source code to be be licensed under GPLv2.  There is the
operating system exception in section 3 of GPLv2, but it may not
apply to GNU/Linux distributions that include both the compiler
and the application.

The GCC Runtime Library Exception Rationale and FAQ claim:
"Nobody who is currently using GCC should be affected by this
change."  On the other hand, they do not explicitly mention
GPLv2.

The GNU C Library version 2.5.1 release announcement included a
note that the next non-bugfix version of the C Library would be
switching from LGPLv2.1-or-later to a newer LGPL version,
I presume LGPLv3 which FSF admits is incompatible with GPLv2.
That change seems to have been silently canceled, as GLIBC
versions 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 have since been released with the
old licence.  I get the impression that the GLIBC licence change
didn't fly with major libc funders and the FSF is now going to
smoke out GPLv2-only software via GCC instead.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
> 
> > I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
> > is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
> > copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
> > is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
> > GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".
> 
> This may be true.  That you personally believe this, I mean.  But that
> belief is mistaken.
> 
> "Mere aggregation" means making a loose collection of separate things.

Alan, my dictionary says that "mere aggregation" means a thing being
nothing more than an aggregation and that it has nothing to do with
"loose" vs "tight" aggregation.

Do you agree that neither "loose" nor "tight" aggregation of multiple
independent computer program works creates a derivative work under the
Copyright Act of the United States of America (don't confuse it with
unwritten Copyleft Act of the GNU Republic), Alan?

regards,
alexander.

-- 
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
 
>> Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
 
>> > I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
>> > is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
>> > copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
>> > is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
>> > GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".
 
>> This may be true.  That you personally believe this, I mean.  But that
>> belief is mistaken.
 
>> "Mere aggregation" means making a loose collection of separate things.

> Alan, my dictionary says that "mere aggregation" means a thing being
> nothing more than an aggregation and that it has nothing to do with
> "loose" vs "tight" aggregation.

I'd be interested to see this dictionary which has a definition for the
phrase "mere aggregation", as opposed to separate definitions for the
two words.

Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".

The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
phrase: "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".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.

> Do you agree that neither "loose" nor "tight" aggregation of multiple
> independent computer program works creates a derivative work under the
> Copyright Act of the United States of America (don't confuse it with
> unwritten Copyleft Act of the GNU Republic), Alan?

I think that's fairly obvious - assuming that by "multiple" you mean
"several" (I'm not sure what a "multiple program work" is.  Something
like Open Office, perhaps).  If the works are truly independent, i.e.
have no dependencies on eachother, you can't create a work deriving
from them without creating such dependencies.

Clearly, if you put Open Office and Firefox onto the same CD, this
isn't a derivative work - it's just two things put on a medium for
convenience.

It's great to be able to agree with you, for once!

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
> The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
> pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
> than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".
> 
> The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
> phrase: "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".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
> could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.

You're mistaken.

This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.

Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".

What say you now, Alan?

Do you still believe in your comical "embryo which is derived from the
egg and sperm" theory of treating aggregations as GNUish "derived"
works?



regards,
alexander.

-- 
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

An example of a "mere aggregation" is two books bound together in a
single spine.  However, if two authors were to cooperate to produce a
single book, this would not be a "mere aggretation" - it would be a
tightly integrated whole - just like a single binary resulting from a
compilation process.


No. What's missing from the compilation case is the work of
authorship. Copyrighted works are created by human authors
doing creative work. Period. Any other way of creating a
work that contains pieces of copyrighted material results
in just that - a pile of stuff with copyrighted material in
it. The work as a whole cannot be separately copyrighted.
The right to make copies of it is the intersection of the
right to make copies of the pieces.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
>> The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
>> pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
>> than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".
 
>> The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
>> phrase: "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".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
>> could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.
 
> You're mistaken.

You mean lawyers are even more contorted than I thought?
 
> This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.

> Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".

> What say you now, Alan?

The whole thing is a mess of rambling gibberish.  Is there anything
pertinent anywhere in it?

Actually, it kind of reminds me of your style a bit.  Are you the
author of that PDF file?

> Do you still believe in your comical "embryo which is derived from the
> egg and sperm" theory of treating aggregations as GNUish "derived"
> works?

That is indeed comical indeed, but it's so different from anything I've
written, apart from mentioning the fusion of gametes as an analogy, that
there's nothing sensible to be said about it.

Is begin derogatory about the FSF still your hobby? 

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
An example of a "mere aggregation" is two books bound together 
in a single spine.  However, if two authors were to cooperate 
to produce a single book, this would not be a "mere 
aggretation" - it would be a tightly integrated whole - just 
like a single binary resulting from a compilation process.


No. What's missing from the compilation case is the work of 
authorship. Copyrighted works are created by human authors doing 
creative work. Period. Any other way of creating a work that 
contains pieces of copyrighted material results in just that - a 
pile of stuff with copyrighted material in it. The work as a 
whole cannot be separately copyrighted. The right to make copies 
of it is the intersection of the right to make copies of the 
pieces.



Hmmm. . .
__

Title 17 USC. . .

§ 100. Definitions.

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.

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.

§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102
includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a
work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does
not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been
used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material.


The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation
makes it eligible for copyright.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> > This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.
> 
> > Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".
> 
> > What say you now, Alan?
> 
> The whole thing is a mess of rambling gibberish.  Is there anything
> pertinent anywhere in it?
> 
> Actually, it kind of reminds me of your style a bit.  Are you the
> author of that PDF file?

No, http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm is the author.

regards,
alexander.

-- 
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

Alan Mackenzie wrote: [...]

This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.
 Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and
Linking". What say you now, Alan?

The whole thing is a mess of rambling gibberish.  Is there
anything pertinent anywhere in it?

Actually, it kind of reminds me of your style a bit.  Are you
the author of that PDF file?


No, http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm is the author.


The author is former counsel for the Open Source Initiative.
Do you think the OSI is about "rambling gibberish" Alan?


regards, alexander.



___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> An example of a "mere aggregation" is two books bound together in a
>> single spine.  However, if two authors were to cooperate to produce a
>> single book, this would not be a "mere aggretation" - it would be a
>> tightly integrated whole - just like a single binary resulting from a
>> compilation process.

> No. What's missing from the compilation case is the work of
> authorship.

Sorry, I can't parse that.  Which work of authorship are you talking
about?  By "work" do you mean the process of working or an artifact?

> Copyrighted works are created by human authors
> doing creative work. Period.

OK.

> Any other way of creating a work that contains pieces of copyrighted
> material results in just that - a pile of stuff with copyrighted
> material in it.

I think a "construction of stuff" is a better description than
"pile of stuff", in the sense that if you take any bit away, the rest
collapses into uselessness.

The "any other way" might be a compiler/linker, or perhaps a printing
press.  Is that what you mean?

> The work as a whole cannot be separately copyrighted.
> The right to make copies of it is the intersection of the
> right to make copies of the pieces.

I'm not sure there are any "pieces" in any meaningful sense.  If I write
a book, which is then printed and bound by a publisher's machines, this
is analogous to compiling and linking my program.  The publisher doesn't
have any copyright on the printed book, beyond what he's negotiated with
the author.  The book goes out of copyright N years (70 in the EU) after
the _author's_ death, not the publisher's death.

If I write foo.c and compile it to foo.o, I don't think there are pieces
there.  I then link it with a few other files and it becomes the
executable foo.  The only bits in there which aren't my copyright are
analogues of the book's cover and printing.

If I were to take some source code written by somebody who died in 1938
and compile it a working program, that program would be public domain,
just like the source code, wouldn't it?  Hey, didn't Ada Lovelace do
some programming back in whenever it was?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:
 
> I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
> is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
> copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
> is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
> GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".

This may be true.  That you personally believe this, I mean.  But that
belief is mistaken.

"Mere aggregation" means making a loose collection of separate things.
Trust me on this one, my native language is English.

An example of a "mere aggregation" is two books bound together in a
single spine.  However, if two authors were to cooperate to produce a
single book, this would not be a "mere aggretation" - it would be a
tightly integrated whole - just like a single binary resulting from a
compilation process.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:

This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.


Good quote:
It is enough to say that licensors are free to decide what
licensing model suits them best and whether or how to give
away rights. Licensees may accept or reject software under
the terms of the license, but they don’t get to set their
own terms. That’s what copyright law allows, and the GPL
uses that law effectively and brilliantly for its avowed
purpose of fostering the creation of free software available
to all under a single license.

Effective! Brilliant! LICENSE!
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> Effective! Brilliant! LICENSE!

Hey Hyman, stay focused on Alan's "embryo which is derived from the egg
and sperm" comical theory of treating aggregations (with
linking/dependencies between constituents) as GNUish "derived" works.

As for Larry Rosen, he's also fond of making comical claims. My
favorite is his claim that his licenses (AFL/OSL) are not bilateral but
unilateral agreements (contracts).

http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm

-
Unilateral Contracts And Conditions

So OSL 3.0 can be both a license and a contract, but at heart it is a
license just like GPL or any other open source license, phrased in
contract language.

As a legal document, OSL 3.0 is drafted as a unilateral contract in
which the Licensor makes certain promises and accepts certain
obligations. In return, any licensee who accepts and uses the software
must honor certain conditions. In a formal sense, in unilateral
contracts licensees don't make promises, they merely honor conditions,
and so you will find no language in OSL 3.0 to the effect that "licensee
promises" anything at all. For example, the obligation to publish source
code is an obligation of the Licensor, not a licensee. [§ 3] Reciprocity
works indirectly: A licensee's right to distribute Derivative Works is
conditioned upon licensing those Derivative Works under the same OSL 3.0
license, whereupon that licensee becomes a Licensor obligated by her own
promise to publish Source Code. [§§ 1(c), 3]
-

Analysis:

"So OSL 3.0 can be both a license and a contract, but at heart it is a
license just like GPL or any other open source license, phrased in
contract language."

That's misleading at best.

"Whether this [act] constitutes a gratuitous license, or one for a
reasonable compensation, must, of course, depend upon the
circumstances; but the relation between the parties thereafter in
respect of any suit brought must be held to be contractual, and not an
unlawful invasion of the rights of the owner."
De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, (1927)

"Whether express or implied, a license is a contract 'governed by
ordinary principles of state contract law.'"
McCoy v. Mitsuboshi Cutlery, Inc., 67. F.3d 917, (Fed. Cir. 1995)

"Normal rules of contract construction are generally applied in
construing copyright agreements. Nimmer on Copyright sec. 10.08. Under
Wisconsin law, contracts are to be construed as they are written. When
the language is plain and unambiguous, a reviewing court must construe
the contract as it stands. In construing the contract, terms are to be
given their plain and ordinary meaning." (citations omitted).
Kennedy v. Nat'l Juvenile Det. Ass'n, 187 F.3d 690, (7th Cir. 1999)

"Although the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332,
grants exclusive jurisdiction for infringement claims to the federal
courts, those courts construe copyrights as contracts and turn to the
relevant state law to interpret them."
Automation by Design, Inc. v. Raybestos Products Co., 463 F3d 749,
(7th Cir. 2006)

"However, implicit in a nonexclusive license is the promise not to sue
for copyright infringement. See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677
(9th Cir. 1996), citing De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United
States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927) (finding that a nonexclusive license
is, in essence, a mere waiver of the right to sue the licensee for
infringement); see also Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d
555, 558 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that the granting of a nonexclusive
license may be oral or by conduct and a such a license creates a
waiver of the right to sue in copyright, but not the right to sue for
breach of contract)."
Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905, (N.D. Cal. 2007)

Rosen goes on:

"As a legal document, OSL 3.0 is drafted as a unilateral contract in
which the Licensor makes certain promises and accepts certain
obligations. In return, any licensee who accepts and uses the software
must honor certain conditions. In a formal sense, in unilateral
contracts licensees don't make promises, they merely honor conditions,
and so you will find no language in OSL 3.0 to the effect that
"licensee promises" anything at all. "

That's nonsense!

OSL 3.0:

"Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source Code of any
Derivative Works that You create, all copyright, patent, or trademark
notices from the Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any
notices of licensing and any descriptive text identified therein as an
"Attribution Notice." You must cause the Source Code for any
Derivative Works that You create to carry a prominent Attribution
Notice reasonably calculated to inform recipients that You have
modified the Original Work."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=969224

"Third, James argues that the license was voided when Graham breached
its conditions by nonpayment of royalties and removal of James's
copyright notice. This argument turns--and fails--on t

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov  wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
>> The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
>> pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
>> than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".
 
>> The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
>> phrase: "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".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
>> could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.

> You're mistaken.

> This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.

> Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".

> What say you now, Alan?

I've had a look at the "Copyright law and Linking" section in that pdf.
The guy conflates two very different things which are called "linking":
Firstly, putting a hyperlink into a web page, secondly joining object
code files together to create an executable or larger object file.

So either he doesn't understand what linking means (he's an idiot) or
he's trying to confuse his readers (he's a knave) or he's trying to show
off how clever he is by noticing something in common between "linking"
and "linking" which nobody else thought of before (he's a smart alex).

I suspect the first of these.  Whichever it is, it thoroughly discredits
him, and it thus seems a waste of time to give his outpourings any
credence whatsoever.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation
makes it eligible for copyright.


"Compilation" meaning the output produced by the computerized
programming language translator known as a "compiler". Which
should have been obvious from the context.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

If I write foo.c and compile it to foo.o, I don't think there are pieces
there.  I then link it with a few other files and it becomes the
executable foo.  The only bits in there which aren't my copyright are
analogues of the book's cover and printing.


That's not correct. The executable foo may contain pieces
(or the entirety, even) of works whose copyright is owned
by someone other than you. Some of them may be requested
by you as part of the link process, and some of them may
be placed there automatically by the linker without your
specific request.

Your "book printing" analogy is apt; the cover art will
generally be covered by a copyright owned by someone other
than the book author.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> If I write foo.c and compile it to foo.o, I don't think there are pieces
>> there.  I then link it with a few other files and it becomes the
>> executable foo.  The only bits in there which aren't my copyright are
>> analogues of the book's cover and printing.

> That's not correct. The executable foo may contain pieces
> (or the entirety, even) of works whose copyright is owned
> by someone other than you.

OK.  I'm assuming here that I wrote all the source myself.  The only
other components in the executable will be "boilerplate" (things like
init code, setting up stacks, reading command line parameters, calling
OS routines).

> Some of them may be requested by you as part of the link process,
> and some of them may be placed there automatically by the linker
> without your specific request.

OK.  You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.
I'm not at all convinced o this.  Certainly, the world doesn't seem to
work this way in practice, in that if I write some code for a
proprietary OS, and build it with proprietary tools, the tool vendors
don't sue me for royalties.

> Your "book printing" analogy is apt; the cover art will
> generally be covered by a copyright owned by someone other
> than the book author.

It differs from software, though, in that the cover isn't necessary for
the book's purpose.  The "boilerplate" code is absolutely required for
the program to work.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

The only other components in the executable will be "boilerplate"


No. Those components may include entire implementations of things
like formatting floating point numbers into strings, trigonometric
functions, calendar functions, and so forth.


OK.  You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.


No. I'm saying that the library code which is linked in to the
executable program continues to fall under the copyright of its
holder, and may only be copied under permission of that holder.
If you wish to make copies of your executable, you must have this
permission.


the tool vendors don't sue me for royalties.


That's because no one would use the tools. The tool vendors give you
permission to redistribute their libraries when you buy the tool from
them, and that permission is explicitly given in the license.


It differs from software, though, in that the cover isn't necessary for
the book's purpose.  The "boilerplate" code is absolutely required for
the program to work.


But copyright law doesn't care about whether your program works!
A broken program is just as copyrightable as a working one.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[John Hasler]

Alan Mackenzie writes:
> You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
> boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.
> I'm not at all convinced o this.  Certainly, the world doesn't seem to
> work this way in practice, in that if I write some code for a proprietary
> OS, and build it with proprietary tools, the tool vendors don't sue me
> for royalties.

They grant you a license.  There once were compiler vendors who claimed
that you owed them a royalty for every copy of a program compiled with
their compilers.
-- 
John Hasler 
j...@dhh.gt.org
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: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

Rjack wrote:
The an original creative arrangement of materials in a 
compilation makes it eligible for copyright.


"Compilation" meaning the output produced by the computerized 
programming language translator known as a "compiler". Which 
should have been obvious from the context.


Sigh. . . a compiler "transforms" from one language representation
to another:

A compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that
transforms source code written in a computer language (the source
language) into another computer language (the target language, often
having a binary form known as object code).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler

Sincereley,
Rjack :)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation
>> makes it eligible for copyright.

> "Compilation" meaning the output produced by the computerized
> programming language translator known as a "compiler". Which
> should have been obvious from the context.

ISTM that a lot of the nonsense emanating from this newsgroup is due to
some people getting confused between the different meanings of the
words "compilation" and "linking", and possibly others.

If a bit of a copyright act talks about a "compilation", meaning a work
consisting of a collection, rearrangement, and organisation of
previously existing works, it is dumbness of high order to think that
this bit of act applies to a "compilation" which is an object code file
or the process of making one.

It wouldn't be clever, either, to think that it applied to the
"compilation" (i.e. the composing of) a crossword puzzle.

It is just as dumb to believe that arguments about "linking", the use of
hyperlinks in web pages, have validity to "linking", the process of
fusing object code files into a tightly integrated whole.

Thankfully, judges are perspicacious enough to understand these
differences.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

John Hasler  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>> You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
>> boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable program.
>> I'm not at all convinced o this.  Certainly, the world doesn't seem to
>> work this way in practice, in that if I write some code for a proprietary
>> OS, and build it with proprietary tools, the tool vendors don't sue me
>> for royalties.

> They grant you a license.  There once were compiler vendors who claimed
> that you owed them a royalty for every copy of a program compiled with
> their compilers.

OK, got you!  These other compiler vendors have, presumably, long since
ceased to exist.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen  wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> The only other components in the executable will be "boilerplate"

> No. Those components may include entire implementations of things
> like formatting floating point numbers into strings, trigonometric
> functions, calendar functions, and so forth.

They needn't do so, for example, if these things are in a dynamically
linked library which isn't part of the executable.  But these library
components often will be linked in.

>> OK.  You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
>> boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable
>> program.

> No. I'm saying that the library code which is linked in to the
> executable program continues to fall under the copyright of its
> holder, and may only be copied under permission of that holder.
> If you wish to make copies of your executable, you must have this
> permission.

And as you and John Hasler have explained, this permission comes with
the tools, otherwise nobody would buy them.  Thanks!

>> It differs from software, though, in that the cover isn't necessary for
>> the book's purpose.  The "boilerplate" code is absolutely required for
>> the program to work.

> But copyright law doesn't care about whether your program works!
> A broken program is just as copyrightable as a working one.

And a good job too, otherwise not many programs would be
copyrightable.  :-)

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:

Sigh. . . a compiler "transforms" from one language representation
to another:

A compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that
transforms source code written in a computer language (the source
language) into another computer language (the target language, often
having a binary form known as object code).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler


Yeah, so?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss