Re: GPL misappropriation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Only the *owner* of code licensed under the BSD license may change that license. It's an *exclusive* right. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . You can't make up your own copyright law -- the federal courts will refuse to enforce it. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Hadron wrote: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly Fighting bitterly? Really? Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no fight Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as 1+1 = 2 Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or RJack have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those cretins are not oxygen thieves? -- Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. That BSD license fans get all green in the face when their works get relicensed under copyleft licenses is supposed to be a _moral_ storm of indignation, not a legal one. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak. http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPICpg=SA4-PA42lpg=SA4-PA42dq=sublicensing+explicit+grantsource=blots=JRQwZdnHUlsig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Qhl=deei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=8ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepageq=sublicensing%20explicit%20grantf=false (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis) Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Note that nothing is being said about adding conditions, or distributing with a more restrictive set of conditions. Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language involving the use of the word exclusive in: § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law the term 'sublicense can mean transfer of ownership or transfer of contractual interest. There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to license a work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?) It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!! Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On 3/22/2010 7:20 PM, RJack wrote: U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize moral rights. Exactly. That's the point. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
chrisv wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: Hadron quacked: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly Hey, you stupid asshole. Fsckhead trolls, like Alexander Terekhov, who pretend not to understand something are not evidence that it is difficult to understand. *Obviously* You just made a fscking jackass of yourself *again*, Hadron! Fighting bitterly? Really? Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no fight Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as 1+1 = 2 Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or RJack have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those cretins are not oxygen thieves? Of course Hadron will support the anti-GPL cranks. They are on Hadron's side of being pro-Micro$oft and anti-FOSS. My dog can whup your dog! (Mine's bigger 'un yours too.) Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. Copyright licenses apply to *intagable* works just like patent licenses apply to *intagable* inventions you moron. http://web.mit.edu/osp/www/IP_NDA%20Roundtable%20Handout_10_4_07.pdf Definitions: IP is a category of intangible rights protecting the products of human intellect that is unique and/or non-obvious with some value in the marketplace, including ideas, inventions, literary creations, unique names, business models, industrial processes, computer program code, etc. patent, trademark, copyright, mask work, and trade secret are wellknown examples of Intellectual Property. Patent is a governmental grant of right, privilege and authority for any useful, novel, and nonobvious inventions. A patent gives the holder the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing any patented invention. Note, however, that a patent does not provide the holder any affirmative right to practice a technology, since it may fall under a broader patent owned by others; instead, your patent only provides the right to exclude others from practicing it. Copyright is a property right in original works of authorship which have been fixed in any tangible medium of expression in the particular literary work, musical work, computer program, video or motion picture or sound recording, photograph, sculpture, etc. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute by sale or otherwise, and display or perform the work publicly. In contrast to a patent which protects the idea, copyright covers the artistic expression. Hth, uh retard dak. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
To clarify: I meant intangible (misspelled it as intagable) silly dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property Alexander Terekhov wrote: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. Copyright licenses apply to *intagable* works just like patent intangible licenses apply to *intagable* intangible inventions you moron. http://web.mit.edu/osp/www/IP_NDA%20Roundtable%20Handout_10_4_07.pdf Definitions: IP is a category of intangible rights protecting the products of human intellect that is unique and/or non-obvious with some value in the marketplace, including ideas, inventions, literary creations, unique names, business models, industrial processes, computer program code, etc. patent, trademark, copyright, mask work, and trade secret are wellknown examples of Intellectual Property. Patent is a governmental grant of right, privilege and authority for any useful, novel, and nonobvious inventions. A patent gives the holder the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing any patented invention. Note, however, that a patent does not provide the holder any affirmative right to practice a technology, since it may fall under a broader patent owned by others; instead, your patent only provides the right to exclude others from practicing it. Copyright is a property right in original works of authorship which have been fixed in any tangible medium of expression in the particular literary work, musical work, computer program, video or motion picture or sound recording, photograph, sculpture, etc. A copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce the work, prepare derivative works, distribute by sale or otherwise, and display or perform the work publicly. In contrast to a patent which protects the idea, copyright covers the artistic expression. Hth, uh retard dak. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak. http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPICpg=SA4-PA42lpg=SA4-PA42dq=sublicensing+explicit+grantsource=blots=JRQwZdnHUlsig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Qhl=deei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=8ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepageq=sublicensing%20explicit%20grantf=false (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis) Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
RJack wrote: [...] Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language Best of dak's moronity this week thus far: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. LMAO! regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language involving the use of the word exclusive in: § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . What about and to authorize did you not understand? leaves you incapable of understanding that under U.S. copyright law the term 'sublicense can mean transfer of ownership or transfer of contractual interest. There is *no* exclusive right for an owner to authorize someone who is not the owner of a copyright to license a work again. (It wouldn't be an exclusive right would it?) You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right. The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's behalf. It-just-ain't-gonna-happen. Nada, nope, zilch, not, nein!! Just because you pretend not to understand common concepts your absurd protestations do not gain any plausibility. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language Best of dak's moronity this week thus far: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. Perhaps you should make yourself acquainted with the concept of cleanroom reimplementation. The whole purpose of which is avoiding to get in contact with original code. If a cleanroom implementation incidentally creates identical code, it is not subject to the original copyright. That's different from patents. That might help your confusion. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
For silly dak, info in German... http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literaturpage2=aufsatzlizenz1 Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag geschlossen hat und zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen berechtigt ist. Eine nicht exklusive Lizenz berechtigt ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung nicht zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen. Bei einer Exklusivlizenz darf der Lizenznehmer Unterlizenzen erteilen, sofern dies nicht vertraglich ausgeschlossen ist. Für den US-amerikanischen Raum gelten diesbezüglich Besonderheiten, es sollten daher immer klarstellende Regelungen zur berechtigten Vergabe von Unterlizenzen im Vertrag zu finden sein. And specifically regarding copyright (UrhG): http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf Anders als Urheberrechte sind Nutzungsrechte an urheberrechtlich geschützten Inhalten grundsätzlich übertragbar. Abhängig davon, über welche Rechte man selbst verfügt, und welche Nutzungsrechte man selbst weiterhin benötigt, gibt es die Möglichkeit, die eigenen Rechte entweder vollständig beziehungsweise teilweise weiter zu übertragen oder einer anderen Person Unternutzungsrechte (Sublizenzen) einzuräumen. [...] Webdesigner-Fall Webdesigner W hat für die Homepage der Berufsschule B das Design entworfen und der B einfache Nutzungsrechte an den Designelementen eingeräumt. Einige Zeit später wird die Schulleitung der B von der Schuldirektorin des Gymnasiums G auf das tolle Design der Schulhomepage angesprochen und angefragt, ob die dort von W erstellten Logos, Buttons et cetera auch auf der Homepage des G verwendet werden dürfen. Die Schulleitung der B hat keine Einwände. Als W die Verwendung seiner Designelemente auf der Schulhomepage des G später per Zufall bemerkt, ist er sehr erbost und fordert die sofortige Entfernung sämtlicher von ihm entworfener Designelemente von der Homepage des G. Erfolgt die Forderung des W zu Recht? Alternative: Wäre der Fall anders zu beurteilen, wenn der B von W ein ausschließliches Nut-zungsrecht eingeräumt worden ist? Kurzantwort: Da der B lediglich einfache Nutzungsrechte eingeräumt waren, konnte sie dem G nicht wirksam (Unter-)Nutzungsrechte (Sublizenzen) an den Werken einräumen; die Zustimmung der B war daher unwirksam. Da es einen gutgläubigen Erwerb von Nutzungsrechten nicht gibt, hat das G keine Nutzungsrechte erworben. W kann daher die sofortige Entfernung der Designelemente verlangen. Alternative: Hätte die B dagegen die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte an den Designelementen erhalten, könnte sie dem G grundsätzlich einfache Nutzungsrechte einräumen; aller-dings bedürfte sie dafür der Zustimmung des W. Vertiefung Soweit man selbst Nutzungsrechte an urheberrechtlich geschützten Inhalten (wie zum Bei-spiel Werken) eingeräumt bekommen hat, stellt sich später häufig die Frage, ob und inwie-weit man auch dritten Personen die Verwendung der Inhalte gestatten kann und darf. Dies kann entweder durch die Weiterübertragung der eigenen Nutzungsrechte auf die andere Person geschehen, oder - wenn man selbst über ausschließliche Nutzungsrechte verfügt - über die Einräumung von so genannten Unternutzungsrechten (Sublizenzen). [...] Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten Von der Weiterübertragung von Nutzungsrechten ist, wie bereits erwähnt, die Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten weiterer Stufe (auch Unternutzungsrechte, Unterlizenzen oder Subli-zenzen genannt) zu unterscheiden. Während der Inhaber des Nutzungsrechts bei der Weiterübertragung keine eigenen Rechte zurückbehält, behält sich der Inhaber bei der Einräumung eines Unternutzungsrechts seine Nutzungsrechte teilweise zurück und kann so (je nach Umfang der eingeräumten Unternut-zungsrechte) zum Beispiel das Werk weiterhin selbst nutzen oder auch Anderen noch Nut-zungsrechte einräumen. Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG); einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten. Da der B im Webdesigner-Fall (Ausgangsvariante) von W nur ein einfaches Nutzungsrecht an den Designelementen eingeräumt worden war, konnte sie dem G insoweit auch selbst nicht wirksam (Unter-)nutzungsrechte einräumen. Die abgegebene Zustimmung war insoweit unwirksam. Dementsprechend kann sich das G auch gegenüber W nicht auf die Zustimmung der B berufen. Wären der B dagegen die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte an den Design-elementen eingeräumt worden (Alternativvariante), hätte sie dem G prinzipiell Nutzungsrech-te einräumen können (vergleiche dazu jedoch das sogleich erörterte Zustimmungserfordernis). Einfache und ausschließliche Unternutzungsrechte Als Unternutzungsrechte können insoweit wiederum sowohl ausschließliche als auch einfa-che
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right. The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's behalf. Uh retard dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney is not http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sublicense Got it now? Go to doctor, dak. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Unfortunately DAK your lack of understanding of the English language involving the use of the word exclusive in: § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . What about and to authorize did you not understand? understand common concepts your absurd protestations do not gain any plausibility. Read it again DAK boy. They have the right to authorize *six* enumerated things: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. None of those *six* things involve authorizing others to authorize. You're seeing double dear DAK. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: For silly dak, info in German... http://www.patente-stuttgart.de/index.php?page=literaturpage2=aufsatzlizenz1 Eine weitere Lizenzart ist die Unterlizenz. Hierbei leitet der Lizenznehmer sein Benutzungsrecht von einem anderen Lizenznehmer ab, der seinerseits mit dem Patentinhaber einen Lizenzvertrag geschlossen hat und zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen berechtigt ist. Eine nicht exklusive Lizenz berechtigt ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung nicht zur Vergabe von Unterlizenzen. [...] ohne gesonderte Vereinbarung. But such a Vereinbarung is spelled out in the license in question. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] You are confused. If I am the owner of a horse, I can authorize someone else to sell it, even though ownership gives _me_ the exclusive right. The whole point of authorization is to enable someone to act in one's behalf. Uh retard dak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_attorney is not http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sublicense Authorizations can be different in scope and character. Are you sure you know what point you are trying to make? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
RJack wrote: [...] None of those *six* things involve authorizing others to authorize. You're seeing double dear DAK. Dak is of opinion that the BSDL is a sort of http://www.ftb.ca.gov/law/Poa/index.shtml (POA with the entire world named as an attoney in fact LOL) authorizing GNUtains to license BSDL'd works on behalf of BSDL copyright owners under the GPL!!! Clearly, dak boy is insane... regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG); einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten. So where is the problem? It says that giving somebody right to use is Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN SUBLICENSE. Non-exclusive licensees can NOT sublicense no matter what the license says. For example, the MIT License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, is VOID regarding sublicensing under the German law. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] http://www.lehrer-online.de/dyn/bin/366209-369076-1-uebertragung_von_nutzungsrechten.pdf Inhabern ausschließlicher Nutzungsrechte vorbehalten Die Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten ist allerdings dem Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes vorbehalten (§ 31 Abs. 3 UrhG); einfache Nutzungsrechte berechtigen demgegenüber nicht zur Einräumung von Unternutzungsrechten. So where is the problem? It says that giving somebody right to use is Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN SUBLICENSE. Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_ receive the right to sublicense. A non-exclusive licensee does not _per_ _se_ have the right to sublicense. But if the license terms _grant_ him sublicensing possibilities, he can certainly make use of him. You can license people to exercise almost any right you have, except for _personal_ rights, those bound to the originator. Like the claim of authorship. For example, the MIT License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, is VOID regarding sublicensing under the German law. _Exactly_ because non-exclusive licensees do not get the right to sublicense automatically, these terms are granting something which the licensee otherwise could not do. You are getting it backwards. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN SUBLICENSE. Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_ receive the right to sublicense. Not automatically, dummkopf dak. http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/index.php?id=%2Fviewcid=3278title=Unterlizenzierung+von+Nutzungsrechten Urteil vom LG Leipzig Aktenzeichen: 05 O 1408/06, 5 O 1408/06 Entscheidungsdatum: 13. November 2006 Leitsätze Mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der Lizenznehmer gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen. Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes ausdrücklich vereinbart werden oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des Vertragsschlusses eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein solches Recht dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll. [...] Auch mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der Lizenznehmer aber gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen. Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes ausdrücklich vereinbart werden oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des Vertragsschlusses eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein solches Recht dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll. Eine entsprechende Regelung im Kaufvertrag aus dem Jahre 1998 fehlt. Auch wenn man den Vortrag der Beklagten zu den Umständen des Abschlusses des Kaufvertrages im Jahre 1998 auf Seite 2 der Klageerwiderung vom 06.06.2006 unterstellt, führt dies nach Auffassung der Kammer nicht zur Annahme der Einräumung eines zustimmungsfreien Rechts zur Drittlizenzierung an die Beklagte durch den Abschluss des Kaufvertrages aus dem Jahre 1998. Vielmehr sprechen die von Seiten der Beklagten geschilderten Umstände nur dafür, dass der Beklagten umfassende Rechte zur eigenen Veröffentlichung der Bilder eingeräumt wurden, nicht aber dafür, dass sie das Recht erhalten sollte, Dritten eine Unterlizenz zu erteilen. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Under the German copyright act ONLY EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES CAN SUBLICENSE. Wrong. You still don't get it. Exclusive licensees _automatically_ receive the right to sublicense. Not automatically, dummkopf dak. http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/index.php?id=%2Fviewcid=3278title=Unterlizenzierung+von+Nutzungsrechten Urteil vom LG Leipzig Aktenzeichen: 05 O 1408/06, 5 O 1408/06 Entscheidungsdatum: 13. November 2006 Leitsätze Mit der Übertragung des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes erwirbt der Lizenznehmer gemäß §§ 31 Abs. 3, 35 UrhG nicht das Recht, seinerseits ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers Unterlizenzen an Dritte zu erteilen. [...] So you cite conflicting opinions (the second from an actual verdict) whether or not an exclusive usage right automatically includes the right to sublicense. That's nice, or less nice. But it still does not say anything about the situation where a licensee is _explicitly_ granted the right to modify and redistribute under conditions allowing placing the modified whole under different licenses meeting specified restrictions. _Both_ of your quotes are talking about an _automatic_ grant. The second actually restricts this further: Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes ausdrücklich vereinbart werden Which says that sublicensing has to _either_ explicitly arranged for (like the BSDL licenses do, allowing the propagation of copies to third parties under given conditions) oder es muss sich jedenfalls aus den Umständen des Vertragsschlusses eindeutig ergeben, dass von Seiten des Urhebers ein solches Recht dem Inhaber des Nutzungsrechtes eingeräumt werden soll. _or_ the circumstances of the contract formation have to make it unambiguous that the author intends to give such a right to the recipient of the usage rights. So you manage to quote a source that lists _several_ possibilities for arranging the bestowment of sublicensing rights to an exclusive licensee. There is nothing here that would inherently be different with regard to non-exclusive licensees. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
RJack wrote: [...] Substitute the words tranfer of contractual interest for sub-license so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK. Are you having a problem understanding the concept of transfer of contractual interest when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license? Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07) Nach § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG bedarf es für die Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte durch den Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts der Zustimmung des Urhebers. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Substitute the words tranfer of contractual interest for sub-license so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK. Are you having a problem understanding the concept of transfer of contractual interest when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license? Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. additional usage rights. And the Urheber (author) has in the case in question granted his Zustimmung, given certain conditions. You are really masterful at digging up quotes contradicting your claims. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Ein Recht zur Lizenzierung von Dritten muss deshalb zwischen dem Urheber und dem Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechtes ausdrücklich vereinbart werden Which says that sublicensing has to _either_ explicitly arranged for (like the BSDL licenses do, allowing the propagation of copies to third parties under given conditions) The BSDL is NOT AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE. The BSDL is a non-exclusive license and a non-exclusive license CAN NOT GRANT SUBLICENSING RIGHTS, that's the German law, you moron. § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Substitute the words tranfer of contractual interest for sub-license so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK. Are you having a problem understanding the concept of transfer of contractual interest when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license? Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. additional usage rights. And the Urheber (author) has in the case in question granted his Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. Again: as opposed to patents, copyright applies to rights connected with physical copies. The BSDL grants permission to distribute physical copies with derived contents, as long as the conditions of the BSDL are met. Distributing such a copy under the GPL meets the conditions of some BSDL style licenses. There is no sublicensing of the original copy involved here, since obviously we are not talking about the original physical copy. We are talking about the creation and distribution of copies with derived content, under conditions permitted by the BSDL style license attached to the original copy. Do you get it now? -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On 3/22/2010 4:35 PM, RJack wrote: No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license. Derivative works of BSD-licensed code may be otherwise licensed. Indeed, that's why anti-GPL cranks think it's a superior license. Incorporate away DAK -- all you want -- still, BSD licensed code remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license. The creator of a derivative work may license his work in any way he chooses, and the BSD license does not forbid that. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: RJack wrote: [...] Substitute the words tranfer of contractual interest for sub-license so that you will no longer sound utterly confused DAK. Are you having a problem understanding the concept of transfer of contractual interest when it concerns a non-exclusive copyright license? Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. additional usage rights. And the Urheber (author) has in the case in question granted his Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would seem that the authority of the second is better). But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to sublicense. That's not supported by either of your quotes, and it does not even make sense. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. additional usage rights. And the Urheber (author) has in the case in question granted his Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would seem that the authority of the second is better). § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak. But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to sublicense. That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG, you retard. That's not supported by either of your quotes, and it does not even make sense. Let the German Bundestag know about that, silly dak. http://www.bundestag.de/service/kontakt/index.html regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the GPL. You should try rereading that BSD license. Appropriating and releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as long as the original copyright attributions remain intact. That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . Of course, when doing so, you can only (successfully) claim copyright violation for those parts which were written/modified by you. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth. http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845cid=20592673 (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo) ... Here are specific points I would make: 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply wrap the BSDL in the GPL. That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license. I mean, you can wrap it in Microsoft EULAs. 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. Its conditions comply with those of the BSDLed parts inside. It is funny that you then quote an article that _differentiates_ between various BSDL licenses according to their GPL compatibility. Yes, it is known that, for example, BSDL with advertising clause is GPL incompatible. That was one motivator for them to drop this clause eventually. So sure: you can't take any BSDL style licensed stuff and integrate it into work you distribute under the GPL. It depends on the license variant in question. Some are compatible. Some not. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. additional usage rights. And the Urheber (author) has in the case in question granted his Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would seem that the authority of the second is better). § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak. Your _first_ quote. Not your next to last one. But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to sublicense. That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG, you retard. Not at all. Again you are confusing _implicit__ grants with the _possibility_ to _explicitly_ grant rights to sublicense. It seems like understanding something simple as that does not come to you as easily as shouting insults. Though to be fair: it's been a long time since you came up with variety in that department either. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] Dak boy is having a problem understanding § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__35.html (§ 35 Einräumung weiterer Nutzungsrechte) (1) Der Inhaber eines ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts kann weitere Nutzungsrechte nur mit Zustimmung des Urhebers einräumen. additional usage rights. And the Urheber (author) has in the case in question granted his Zustimmung, given certain conditions. Uh idiot dak. It says that EXCLUSIVE licensee can sublicense ONLY if (iff) the author gives consent to sublicense. Yes, we got that (it contradicts your first quote, but then it would seem that the authority of the second is better). § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG doesn't contradict http://medien-internet-und-recht.de/volltext.php?mir_dok_id=1715 (LG Köln, Beschluss vom 09.04.2008 - Az. 28 O 690/07), silly dak. Your _first_ quote. Not your next to last one. Which _first_ quote are you talking about, silly? Quote it. But you are still barking up the wrong tree. What you claim is that the author can't explicitly grant a non-exclusive licensee the right to sublicense. That's true, according to § 31 Abs. 3 i.V.m. § 35 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG, you retard. Not at all. Go to doctor, dak. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks like this http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php: Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity, include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution. Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of these conditions. Why not write Congress and inform them that OSI has overuled the 1976 Copyright Act (as amended). I'm sure the federal courts will be very receptive to that idea. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: David Kastrup wrote: RJack u...@example.net writes: I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the GPL. You should try rereading that BSD license. Appropriating and releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as long as the original copyright attributions remain intact. That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. And the copyright owner licensed them under the BSD license which permits incorporation into works licensed differently. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. Read the BSD license, joker. No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license. And/or get a clue. IIRC, even some Windows bootup screen mentions contains code (C) BSD and so on. And Windows is not exactly BSD-licensed. The whole point of the BSD license is that you can incorporate the code into differently licensed stuff. As opposed to copyleft. Incorporate away DAK -- all you want -- still, BSD licensed code remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
RJack u...@example.net writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Only the *owner* of code licensed under the BSD license may change that license. It's an *exclusive* right. Licenses are not attached to code, but to transactions. If I receive code under the BSD license, that gives me permission to pass it on under a number of other licenses. That does not change the copyright ownership. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:. . . Yes, and he authorizes me to distribute code licensed under BSD to me under different terms and conditions, as long as I _myself_ adhere to the BSD licensing conditions. You can't make up your own copyright law -- the federal courts will refuse to enforce it. I don't need to. That you pretend not to understand BSD licensing does not mean that the courts don't. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On 3/22/2010 4:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks like this http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php: Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity, include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution. Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of these conditions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. It doesn't permit sublicensing at all you retard dak. http://books.google.de/books?id=OCGsutgMdPICpg=SA4-PA42lpg=SA4-PA42dq=sublicensing+explicit+grantsource=blots=JRQwZdnHUlsig=0b5RXRLLp2OXrNixaZ502i6Sd8Qhl=deei=So6oS47SHqT20wStr_XrDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=8ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepageq=sublicensing%20explicit%20grantf=false (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis) Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Note that nothing is being said about adding conditions, or distributing with a more restrictive set of conditions. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On 3/22/2010 4:23 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL Really? The Open Source Initiative says a BSD license looks like this http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php: Copyright (c) YEAR, OWNER All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. So the only restriction on BSD-licensed code is that it retain the copyright notice, not use the name of the organization for publicity, include a disclaimer, and include these conditions on distribution. Nothing in these conditions prevents a derivative work from being relicensed under the GPL, since nothing in the GPL contradicts any of these conditions. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Peter Köhlmann wrote: Hadron wrote: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly Fighting bitterly? Really? Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no fight Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as 1+1 = 2 Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or RJack have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those cretins are not oxygen thieves? Who pissed in your Cheerios today? Alexander of RJack? Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. BSDL licensed material does not restrict sublicensing to identical terms. That BSD license fans get all green in the face when their works get relicensed under copyleft licenses is supposed to be a _moral_ storm of indignation, not a legal one. U.S. copyright law doesn't recognize moral rights. Sincerely, RJack :) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:22:52 -0500, RJack wrote: Peter Köhlmann wrote: Hadron wrote: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hyman Rosen wrote: On 3/22/2010 3:41 PM, RJack wrote: That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright. Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to steal it. BSD-licensed code gives others the right to create derivative works without requiring that those derivative works be licensed under the same terms. Meaning that material originally licensed under the BSDL must remain licensed under the BSDL (with just a few restrictions imposed on binary-only form) and not hijacked by the GPL retards, you moron Hyman. Seems like you don't understand the difference between copyleft and weak permissive licenses. Wasn't it you who claimed all this was really easy to understand? And yet months later you're still here fighting bitterly Fighting bitterly? Really? Against the likes of Alexander there simply is no fight Cretins like him would not understand something as simple as 1+1 = 2 Do you actually claim that bullshitters like Alexander or RJack have anything of value to add? Do you actually claim that those cretins are not oxygen thieves? Who pissed in your Cheerios today? Alexander of RJack? Sincerely, RJack :) You might want to ask Peter Kohlmann how the music program Finale is *not* used for music composition. After he dodges that one, you can ask him about anti-aliasing, fonts and screen shots. He has some great theories on that one. IOW the guy has no clue what he is talking about. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: David Kastrup wrote: [...] (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis) Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without Redistribution and use in source and binary forms is NOT a grant of sublicensing rights, you silly dak. Redistribution is again covered by a license. Once we are talking about modified material, a licensing choice for the resulting work is made by the redistributor. Please note that your example regarding patents is utterly irrelevant, since patents are applicable when the resulting product works using the patented method, regardless how that came about. In contrast, copyright covers an actual chain of derivation. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: [...] (Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis) Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights, no right to sublicense is generally presumed.5 ... 5 Raufast SA v. Kniers Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 USPQ (BNA) 699 (EDNY 1980). What about Absent an explicit grant of sublicensing rights do you not understand? Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without Redistribution and use in source and binary forms is NOT a grant of sublicensing rights, you silly dak. http://www.eapdlaw.com/files/News/da4720f3-0eec-44ef-b1a6-009cca16da2e/Presentation/NewsAttachment/f773bbc6-a0e6-488c-bd1b-00e9517a6f8e/sublicense.pdf A sublicense is a grant by the original licensee to a third party (the sublicensee) under the patent or other technology rights granted to the original licensee by the licensor. There are key issues to consider, such as whether a licensee will have the right to sublicense with or without the licensors consent, how sublicense income will be shared, and whether any sublicense will survive a termination of the license agreement. Consent. Licensees who are granted non-exclusive licenses generally do not receive the right to grant sublicenses, in part because the potential sublicensee can obtain a direct license from the licensor. In fact, it is generally held that a non-exclusive patent licensee cannot grant sublicenses unless it is expressly granted such right. However, exclusive licenses commonly include a right to sublicense, at least with the consent of the licensor. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth. http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845cid=20592673 (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo) ... Here are specific points I would make: 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply wrap the BSDL in the GPL. This is particularly relevant to the GPL3 because it introduces potential license incompatibilities between BSDL-code and GPL3 code (see section 7 on removing additional permissions *without* asserting copyright). 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). Some BSD-like licenses (like the MIT License) explicitly allow sublicensing the code and in this case, wrapping it in the GPL would be allowed. Otherwise, it seems difficult to make this case. Whether exclusive licenses are divisible is not yet a settle matter of law as far as I can tell (you have the Gardner v. Nike case which suggests that they exclusive licenses are indivisible, but that is the only case I can find). BTW, Mr Moglen dismisses the above issue without providing any substantive argument against it. 3) Some BSD-like licenses seem to be addressed to all downstream users and do not include the right to sublicense. The ICU licnese, for example, and the X.Org licenses start out Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files... and does not specifically state a sublicensing right. Thus I am not sure that the advice that these can be automatically sublicensed under the GPL is advice that is sound. For these reasons, I have been suggesting that open source project leaders should seek unbiased legal advice from people outside the community. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de writes: Hey stupid dak, here's a nice post on sublicensing. Hth. http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=296845cid=20592673 (IANAL, but I actually agree with Theo) ... Here are specific points I would make: 1) While the BSDL and related licenses clearly do not have the intent to force sharing of code, they clearly *do* have the intent to provide the downstream recipients of the original elements of that code with the rights listed in the license. So Theo is right that you cannot simply wrap the BSDL in the GPL. That is nonsensical since the BSDL is not a strong copyleft license. I mean, you can wrap it in Microsoft EULAs. Microsoft EULAs are not copyright licenses you retard. 2) Copyright law seems even in the US holds that nonexclusive licenses are clearly indivisible and do not automatically grant sublicense rights (a sublicense being a new license issued by a licensee). The GPL is used for distributing the work as a whole. The GPL just can't apply to the BSDL licensed material because the BSDL doesn't grant sublicensing rights you idiot. regards, alexander. P.S. I'm insufficiently motivated to go set up a GNU/Linux system so that I can do the builds. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress. Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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: GPL misappropriation
RJack u...@example.net writes: I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox, v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those command line utilities are substantially similar to the old BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al. not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to put it illegally under the GPL. You should try rereading that BSD license. Appropriating and releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license as long as the original copyright attributions remain intact. Of course, when doing so, you can only (successfully) claim copyright violation for those parts which were written/modified by you. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
