RE: Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source?
From: Andrew J Bromage [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I would think that it would be exceedingly hard to argue that the output of a compiler is a derivative work of (or "work based on") the compiler or any standard libraries that must be provided as part of a conforming [DJW:] The FSF appears to consider use of the standard libraries to constitute a derivative work, but licenses them under a weaker licence that permits their use, but still requires the library source code to be supplied. This is only true of the core libraries; soem libraries are under the strict licence. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
A point of clarification on fair use. "Fair use" is based on copyright. Hence, the license may control uses that would otherwise be deemed fair uses under the default rules of copyright. In this respect, it is not consistent with open source philosophy to specify what uses the licensor considers fair uses since doing so would have the opposite effect than what is intended. You might think of it like this: although the GNU GPL flips copyright by altering the default rules of copyright to benefit the "public domain," fair use cannot be flipped in the same or similar manner by a license since fair use already grants "rights" to the public. Rod - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Jimmy Wales" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Nupedia Open Content License David Johnson wrote: "You may not charge a fee for the sole service of providing access to and/or use of the Content via a network" Why not allow someone to charge for the service? Presumably the server upon which the content is based cost some money to operate. The content itself is still free beer. I agree with this. Furthermore, dropping this provision allows people to provide (e.g.) a better framing of the content, or a better search engine for it, for a fee, without even coming close to breaching the license. You may say that that is not the "sole service of providing access", but I believe an enhanced-services provider would feel safer without this clause. "Attribution Requirement" I have nothing againt attribution requirements personally. But I recall decades during which the BSD license had an attribution requirement which the FSF called "obnoxious". And will there be exceptions for schoolchildren doing homework :-) Actually, I think the attribution requirement is *less* obnoxious for text than for software. Kids, like other scholars, have to cite their sources anyway. "Exceptions are made to this requirement to release modified works free of charge under this license only in compliance with Fair Use law where applicable" Fair Use is kept deliberately nebulous in law. It would be good if you explicitely listed some example of Fair Use. How much can I quote in a term paper before the license kicks in? Are there any additional privileges for educational use? This clause is legally nugatory anyhow, because fair use is precisely *unlicensed* use; it is a right of the public adverse to the copyright owner's rights. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote: A point of clarification on fair use. "Fair use" is based on copyright. Quite so. As you know (or should have known :-) ), I hold that an open-source license can only grant away the rights that the copyright owner gets from the applicable copyright law, consequently ... Hence, the license may control uses that would otherwise be deemed fair uses under the default rules of copyright. ... I deny this, since open-source licenses may not control use at all. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
John, We are in agreement. My point was simple - - although my explanation was too laconic, sorry about that - - you are far better of by keeping fair use issues out of the license. Rod - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Jimmy Wales" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 12:37 PM Subject: Re: Nupedia Open Content License "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote: A point of clarification on fair use. "Fair use" is based on copyright. Quite so. As you know (or should have known :-) ), I hold that an open-source license can only grant away the rights that the copyright owner gets from the applicable copyright law, consequently ... Hence, the license may control uses that would otherwise be deemed fair uses under the default rules of copyright. ... I deny this, since open-source licenses may not control use at all. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
