Re: Open source shareware?
Hi all! Angelo Schneider David Johnson: On Thursday 08 November 2001 08:05 am, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: As long as this permission notice and disclaimer are included, any person obtaining a copy of this software may distribute this software or derivatives. Where's my permission to create derivatives? I see that I can distribute them, but there's nothing about being able to create them. This is a crucial distinction. As it now stands, I have the right to distribute derivatives created by OTHER people, but not to create them myself. You do not need a permission to create derivates, IMHO. As I understand copyright law creating of a derived work is free for everyone. Only redistribution, public performance etc. is regulated. Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all! Michael Beck wrote: For copyright law is only one thing interesting: If you look at the piece of derived work, can you still see the original work? I would argue that it is sufficient that the original class assumes a concrete or permanent form in the derived class by referencing to it. See: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html That case is not about derived work but about plain copyright infringement. Derived work is something different. If I compare the inherited class against the above case (in a biased way g), I could argue that: The user has a compiler [engine] and the code for the original class [source art library]. You create the MAP file [inherited class] referencing the original class [source art library], and deliver it to the user. The user runs the compiler [engine] which creates the object file [visual display] containing the elements of the original class [source art library]. If this comparison is valid, then according to the ruling, you have created a derivative work. Further, the fair use wouldn't apply here, because according to the ruling, the inherited class impinged on [my] ability to market new versions of my classes. The fact that I published them as OpenSource doesn't take away the possibility that I could sell the code to a client (similarly to www.Kaffe.org model). Your sample has nothing to do with inheritance either ... Several posters pointed out: in case of inheritance you can't. As the name of the class you inherit from may poin to totaly different files at the moment you compile. I believe that this has only impact on identifying from which class is the derivative work coming from, and whether you had a permission to derive a class. But it doesn't change the fact whether it is a derivative work. Well, the posters here tried to show you that no one needs a permission of the author to derive classes from his classes. As no one needs permission of the author to call functins in a library the author wrote. Angelo P.S. last psot for me, I answered at least 15 of your posts privatly -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi! This has absolutly nothing to do with inheritance nor, reffering to the name of this list: licenses. See below. Michael Beck wrote: -- Von: Michael Beck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2001 15:07:34 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work? Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. -Original Message- From: Rob Myers Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:54 Unless they distribute your code without negotiating a deal with you (which is piracy), people will still need to buy your class in order to use the oo-derived class. So this would drive sales of your work and increase your profits rather than reduce them. That doesn't matter. The issue is legal, i.e. does the author holds the right to future releases of the grid, or can anyone develop new versions of the grid by using inheritance? In FormGen the court decided for FormGen: Finally, by selling N/I, Micro Star impinged on [FormGen's ] ability to market new versions of the story. Stewart, 495 U.S. at 238; see also Twin Peaks ^^ Micro Star made a Sequel to a game from FormGen. This is not allowed under copyright law. Or am I allowed to make a sequell to Star Wars? Productions, Inc. v. Publications Int'l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366, 1377 (2d Cir. 1993). Only FormGen has the right to enter that market; whether it chooses to do so is entirely its business. The court ruling you bring up here as no relation at all to inheritance. If you would write Office YP, the sequell to Office XP, you do not need to inherite, reuse, copy whatsoever any code of Microsoft XP to get a court suit VERY soon. Michael -- Regards, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: what was the point?
onto the end user in getting the programs running or require a sofisticated install procedure (how do you ensure that your program written today, still is installable in 5 years if you do only deliever parts?) So there is no real point in doing so. If you feel the need to do so, create a client server architecture using CORBA or similar stuff. Then you have full controll in which process finaly the derived work resides and where your work seperatly resides. Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all! This is indeed a very good post! It exactly brings to the point what I seemed to have failed in :-( Ok, seemy three comments below :-) William Uther wrote: Hi, I lurk on the list. I've been skimming the conversation. I thought I'd try an analogy. Not sure if this will help or not. I am not a lawyer, nor do I really know copyright law very well. Feel free to ignore :). Imagine person A creates a picture. Person B comes along and makes an overlay that when placed over the picture makes a 'new, improved' picture by covering some bits of the original. If you distribute *just the overlay* is this a derived work? I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that it isn't. In the sence of copyright, no! It is not derived work like defined in the relevant paragraphs of the copyright law! If you distribute the overlay and a copy of the original painting (appropriately licensed) together, is *this* a derived work? YES! Exactly this is derived work. One could argue that in the second case the overlay is merely USING the original picture, and that the original picture can be copied because of its license. I suspect that a court would rule that you have a derived work here. Derived works usualy require a license to be legaly contributeable, thats what the term derived work is about. By using in any way a original work in the finaly distributed package you create derived work. You can create derived work as often and from what you like, only (re-)distribution, public performance and so on is restricted by copy right law and can be licensed or not, and thus its legal or not. \x/ill :-} Regards, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Linking and the GPL
Hi! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so, besides any diatribes you feel like blabbering, can someone give a legal explanation why the following aren't true? 1) the GPL does not prohibit linking Wy should it? If it would prohibit linking a lot of work published under GPL would be useless, e.g. all libraries. Basicly there are only two ways to derive work from a GPLed source. 1) Either you take the source as is and modify it - derived work. 2) You write an addition and modify the original work to use your additions - derived work. (You have to link your stuff with the GPLed stuff for that) OTOH: You write something new calling routiens from the GPLed work, that is not derived work. And link that new thing with the GPLed part yielding a second work piece, which then is derived work. 2) linking would probably fall under fair use even if the GPL did prohibit it. It only would if it was explicitly stated to be fair use in the relevant part of copyright law. All commerical sold libraries would then no longer be sell able, because you can not establish a business model similar to the film or broadcast industries (IMHO). Greg Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all! Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use of inheritance constitutes the creation of a derivative work, this might be extremely helpful for our discussion. If this is a reliable legal position, it might discourage use of the GNU GPL. Hence, this is a rather important matter. Indeed that is interestng! Especialy if there are court rulings! I think this fits with RMS and FSF previously published ideas (which were not from lawyers.) For years RMS and the FSF have the stance that if there is only one implementation of a library/API, and you write something which links to it, your work is a derivative work of that library. I expect the RMS/FSF reasoning is consistent in the case of inherited class. As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a derived work. derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in your license. If you like to say: in the sence of our lisence your work is based on our work if you link to it That you can do, of course. But: legal terms are hard to be redefined without shooting your self into your knee. I include a quote from a prvious message: by Lawrence E. Rosen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting work, such as a translation, musical arrangment, 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. 17 USC ยง 101. Probably you see that the character of the original work still is easyly recognizeable in ane form of derived work. You can say the essence of the original work shines through the reworking (reworking creates a derived work). How do you like to construct a case of derived work by calling an API? Is that a transaltion of the library? Is that a new [deleted musical] arangement of that library (source code)? Is that a dramatization of that librarty if you write code calling it? Is it a fictionalization? Look at the end of the legal paragraph, here in is the key: Derived work is any [other] form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. Derived work is: editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications even if they represent a own work. So: how may a call to an API, which surely may be a heavy use, the whole work may be unthinkable without that API, but how may this be a derived work? No modifications, adaptions, elaboratons. annotations, recasting, transforming of the original work! Even more: how may using inheritance be a derived work? (If we leave out that in the end you link the library or your derived class wont work). In most programming languages you only use *one* keyword plus the name of the base class to derive a class from: that would just be a citation of the class name. Citation is fair use, and a one word citation is (legaly) not even considered to be a citation. Finaly, (I said this at least 4 times on the list during the alst days) as long as you do not take one original source file from said library and modify THAT file, you make no derived work. NO, this is not my opinion, that is legal fact. Regards, Angelo P.S. how to change my mail adress on the list? I'm there as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ywould like to be there as [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all!
This a very good answer as it shows where the common missunderstanding
resides!
Please see below.
Michael Beck wrote:
Von: Michael Beck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
From: Angelo Schneider
As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
derived work.
derived work is a legal term. You can not redefine it in
your license.
Why are in insisting that deriving a new class is equal to linking to an
API? Unless you believe that a class cannot be copyrighted, please see the
class as a copyrighted entity, the same way as you see a book.
I'm not insisting on that.
I of course of the oposite opinion, I only liked to point out:
After you have created a derived class, which is your own work, you
usualy link the base class to it.
The resulting binary is legaly a derived work as it is an elaboration
of the original work. Note: teh binary is the derived work, not the
derived class.
If we agree that class is a copyrighted entity, then inheritance is NOT calling
individual functions of that class. If you make changes to the class via
inheritance - you add new elements, you modify existing elements - you are
adapting this class to be or do something different than it was designed to be
or do.
And this is unfortunatly wrong.
As you do not change the original class, that menas their source code,
you create no adaption.
You create a new entity -- the derived class --, that this entity is
useless without the base class is a technical issue, not a legal and
definitly not a copyright issue.
All those elements are part of the class, the same as words are part of a book.
This is precisly wrong. Because again: this is a technical issue.
The derived class would be only under one situation a adaption of teh
original class:
This is when you put the derived class into the exact same source file,
because then you do moidify/adapt the original work, the original source
file.
Of course the same where true if yopu would only distribute it printed,
in fact if you distribute the original source code printed and add into
the same book derived class, the whoel book would be an
adaption/modification/elaboration, IMHO elaboration.
Individual words cannot be copyrighted, and anyone is free to use them in a
different combination. But as soon as your start to change them in a particular
book, you are making modification to this book. So unless you deny me the right
to copyright my class, from the CLASS perspective any changes to the class
implementation (and not just to the class interface) should be treated as
modification of this class, and as such, a derivative work.
But it is not treated as that. At least not as long as your derived
class is kept seperated and not tweaked into the original code base.
Probably you see that the character of the original work still is
easyly recognizeable in ane form of derived work.
You can say the essence of the original work shines through the
reworking (reworking creates a derived work).
Yes, the original class shines through reworking (a derived/inherited class).
Nope it dos'nt!
Ant it can't. How should it?
public class AngelosSample extends MichalesSample {
public void doSomething() {}
public void doSomethingInteresting() {}
}
So, please how muich of your class is visible here?
What does your class?
What is the interface?
Do I overwrite something, or do I only add something?
As I did not change the source file with the class MichalesSample, my
class is no derived work.
And the character or essence of your class is no where visible!
How do you like to construct a case of derived work by calling an API?
Is that a transaltion of the library?
Is that a new [deleted musical] arangement of that library (source
code)?
Is that a dramatization of that librarty if you write code
calling it?
Is it a fictionalization?
It's an adaptation of an existing class, and as such, it creates a derivative
work.
As I said allready: an adaption changes the original wording.
Reformatting your code and placing comments into it, renaming some
methods, thats an adaption.
Taking your code and adding a method, thats an elaboration.
NOTE: your code
I have to copy and to rework your code!
Then I create derived work.
So: how may a call to an API, which surely may be a heavy
use, the whole
work may be unthinkable without that API, but how may this be
a derived
work? No modifications, adaptions, elaboratons. annotations,
recasting,
transforming of the original work!
Yes, by making changes to the class, you have made adaptation of this class.
I made no changes! Exactly that is teh point! I created an completle
independedn work, under copyright law. Technical it is necessary to
include your work for running the software. So during runtime the binary
in main memory is a derived work, the binary, not the derived class!
In most programming languages you only use *one* keyword plus
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all! The FSF is incorrect. However your extract and the talk with the FSF might have been missleading, see below. Ken Arromdee wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more thorough analysis of the situation from them before I accept their conclusion. In particular, how does inheritance differ in a substantive and legally significant way from traditional subroutine linkage which, as many of us believe, does *not* create a derivative work at least the context of dynamic linking? Well, the FSF believes that that does too, so I presume they don't see a difference... As I said in my previous post: derived work is a legal term, its defined in law what deriveed work means. In Germany dynamic linking is: derived work. Its up to your lisence if you allow it. Inheritance is NOT, NOWHERE, NEVER a derived work. However incorporating the derived class plus the base class into a piece of software makes that software a derived work, not the derived class. (Because the base class is included) Simple example: a1 b2 c3 d4 -- That is my work. Its protected under copyright (well its to primitive to be realy protected, just lets asume it was). You write: e5 That stands alone! No derivation. You write: A1 B2 C3 D4 -- that is a derived work (translation) a1 b2 XX d4 -- that is a derived work a1 b2 c3 d4 e5 -- that is a derived work b2 c3 d4 e5 a1 -- that is a derived work Its always a derived work for one simple reason: it containes literaly the original work. Thats the definition of derived work. Thre are further ways for derived work as one pointed put here: e.g. translation into a different lanuage(or programming language), writing a sequel to a nove also can be considered a derived work. A class inheriting does not contain -- in the code written by the coder creating the inherited class -- any portion of the base class, so it is by definition of the law not a derived work. Programs using a GPLed library are derived from that library because they LINK with it. Not becasue the call routines from it. (In germany no one would distinguish between dynamic and static linking, because the result is a set of copies of copyrighted pieces in main memory of the executed process, so all copied parts fall under copyright, because you copy them into main memory) Changing a file of an library is a derived work of that file and hence of the library itself. (Well, here are complicated exceptions thinkable and only the file is derived work and not the changed library) Adding a file to the library can be considered a drived work(same complicated exception apply), so you would just make two libraries, thats not a derived work as the original one is untouched. Now you link both libraries to an executeable - derived work, of the original library: because it is in the executeable, not because there might be ANY relation of your library code to the original library code. Finaly: calling routines in a library is NOT derived work. Period. It is not important wat you THINK, its important what the law says. Linking with that library is the only process creating a derived work! So if you use a GPL library, make it a dynamic one, distribute it under GPL as you are forced to do so by the license, and distribute your program with an installation script that fetches the library from the internet anywhere. Your program is then during the time it is distributed NOT a derived work, but during run time it is :-) Regards, Angelo P.S. no, I'm not a lwawer, but I work in that area for years. (Basicly: I can not get why you all write code, write/read licenses, sell code, gpl code and and and, and no one seems interested to look into the legal framework his work is placed in. Its not even important if that legal framework is everywhere the same, most do not understand the international copyright treaties only have one goal: is your work copyrighted under US law, in germany your right is honoured. Is my work under german copyright law copyrighted, my rights are honoured in the US. Even because both rights differ substantial. Just get a book with copyright law, the german one has 143 Paragraphs, most of them are 3 or 4 lines. In total it might have 80 pages, where 20 are important for you. I would think the US one is smaler.) -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
derivative work
Hm, I tend to write lenghty maisl, sorry. In short: bring the question if a piece is derived work or not down to the source code. You are deriving work if you take original source code and modify it. You are making a derived work if you incorporate source code in any way, compiling, loading and interpreting, linking, dynamic linking, translating in a different language (if tehre is no paradigm change) into one single piece of final work. Becaus your final work 'containes' the original work. Being in any way dependened on an original work . calling subroutines of that library . reffereing to classes in that library . deriving from classes in that library legaly that all is *NOT* making a derived work. This is not my stand point and I know most people somewhat working with the GPL also have not that stand point. But that does simply not matter. Its aquestion of law and not of stand points, making a derived work means you copy (hence the term copyright) parts or whole of some one else into your work. So: look at the cases above, and then link with that library, this constitutes a derived work. Reason: the source code of that library is incorporated (after compiling and archiving in a library) into your finla product(work). Sidenote: dynamic linbking constitutes a copy of the work in main memory, it copies also the libraries into main memory. They are linked in main memory(that has no meaning, linking just means here and above: put together) so they are a drived work in memory, due to the copying and putting together. Yes I know, RMS himslef does dynamic linking not consider being a derived work, well, law sees it different. Sidenode 2: You can use process boundaries, e.g. CORBA or similar constructions (RPC) to overcome those restrictions. Calling a library which is in its own proces from a different process does not construct a derived work, as they are not put together. Why is that? Well, derived work means all parts are put together into one thing. The new one thing is then a derived work of the parts. Hope that helps, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi all, I'm not a lawer, but I'm somewhat experianced in copyright cases, did my self one unfortunatly. Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: -- Von: Forrest J. Cavalier III[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Montag, 15. Oktober 2001 13:43:42 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work? Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. Michael Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Derived class is a derivative work, because it is based on, or extends, the original class. Using would be instantiating an object from it - stand-alone, or as a part of another class (composition). There would be no adaptation of the existing class. According to Copyright law, a derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works. It includes any form on which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. (17 USC Sec. 101). I think the issues that were raised in this thread are not totally tested or settled in case law. The term derived work is a well defined legal term. I can only speak about the european situation here: derived work means the original work is 'transformed' to make a new work. So if you take a novel and add pictures to it, you make a derived work. If you write a sequell for that novel, you usualy do not make a derived work. (In some cases there where judgements to the oposite because the characters in the first part where so popular that the court came to the opinion the sequell never would stand alone or even exist without the firts one) Plainest I can say: in a derived work you see the existence of the original work. In source code this means: portions of the original source code must be present. In linked code this means: portions of the original binary code must be present in the executeable(so dynamic linking is a case of derived work!) However, you are giving certain licenses, like GPL, for your source and binary code out. So under those conditions there might be different views. E.g: a class derived from a GPLed class does not fall per se under the GPL. Its not derived work, it does not contain any lines of code allready present in the base class. The binary linked from it does! It contains fully, either dynamic linked or static, the binary compiled from the base class. However: only the matter that the base class is included in the binary makes the binary a derived work, not the issue that there exists a derived class! Writing a wrapper and using delegation helps nothing: as long as the original class is in the binary you have a derived work. Regarding the reimplementation of an API: this is surely also a derived work, however it might fall under fair use. In germany a project like gnu class path would IMHO not stand in court, hundreds of classes mimicing the same API of the origininal classes without a own intellectual contribution of the developers(that would be what a layer would say about it, its not my OPINION as I never looked at it :-) ) Regards, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
so waht? Re: WG: MSFT and GNU questions
David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] And, while GPL isn't the *only* free software license, some 90% of free software projects (based on independent counts by me of SourceForge aprojects and Debian packages) use the GPL and/or LGPL licenses. That's a very large majority. A significant remainder are BSD/MIT or similar, many of these being fully GPL compatible. MozPL and variants round out much of the remainder, on-off licenses and corporate licenses are relatively rare. While a useage-weighted survey might suggest a greater significance of other licenses (BSD: apache, bind; MIT: X11; MozPL: Mozilla, Galeon, Skipstone...), there's no question that the GPL is significant both by the volume of usage and its own peculiar nature. That said... So what? The GPL and LGPL are arguable the oldest free or open licenses. Slighly followed or even older, by MIT/BDS licenses. Thats no wonder that there is more software published under that license. Reading this mailing list people are also strong encauraged not to invent new ones but to choose existing ones. If you look, it seems to my eye that GPL is the easyst, I throw my code to the public license, where the author of the code has minimum hazzle to consider side effects etc. Other licenses are more complicated, so if I would like to get rid of the burdon of some code, but also like it to be available for the public I publsih it under GPL. That one needs the less infrastructure from my side Just my thoughts so Regards, Angelo -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatiblewit
Hi all! Rod Dixon wrote: Those are very good thoughts, if I may say so. Rod On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote: I am not sure I see how 102(b) should exclude APIs from copyrightable subject matter as an absolute matter. Surely some aspects of an API may fail because of various doctrines such as merger, scenes a faire, etc. (viz. sqrt()) but I am not sure I see how a full set of APIs should be excluded per se. I find it hard to distinguish an API from a "computer program" - if APIs fail under 102(b) then shouldn't computer programs in An API is not THE program. A POSIX compliant kernal (or his calling interface) all suport the same API, POSIX. The standard C library and the glibc have a lot of "functions" in common. The command line options of the command "ls" or for simplicity a command like "rm" are mre or less the same in the same UNIX family. THAT is an API. Of course one can write a replacement for glibc exposing the same API. Of course one can write a kernal which has a calling interface which is identical to that of POSIX. Of course one can write a replacement for "ls" or "rm" which accept the same command line options (and serve the same purpose). An API is in my sence a LANGUAGE. Take it as an mathematical language if you like, a language can not be copyrighted. The other posts I saw regarding this thread (about Adope, Psotscript and PDF, and Sun/Microsoft JAVA) are in my opinion Trademark issues. The same is true if you go and call a kernal POSIX compliant. I don't know if POSIX is a trademark. The only thing which is in general copyrightable, is CONTENT. The only thing which is in general(exceptions exist e.g. in the US) patent able is a PROCESS in conjunction whith the artifact which is created by performing it. (Same process for different purpose is not affected, same artifact created in a different way is not affected - except that artifact is copyrighted) The only thing wich can get trademarked are (artificial) names used in public (business) affairs (where the names reffer to an artifact or an business). Well, I'm not a lawyer and I simplificated it a bit. (Also I'm from germany, a lot of stuff is different here than in the rest of the world, outside europe) However I work in copyright relevant areas for 10 years now Finaly: JAVA is a trademark, so if GNU CLASSPATH would call it self JAVA, than there would be trouble. Regards! Angelo general fail also because they comprise an idea, process, method, etc.? I see both as expressions, not the idea themselves. I think the tougher issue is infringement/derivative works (leave alone implied/express licenses, estoppels, etc.). Just some thoughts From: Rod Dixon To: Angelo Schneider CC: , Subject: Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:12:13 -0400 (EDT) This is the issue I was hinting at. I do not believe that as a general matter that APIs should be copyrightable under U.S. copyright law since section 102(b) of the Copyright Act should exclude APIs from copyright subject matter. Having said that, I admit the issue seems unresolved since both Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are two well known developers who claim copyright interests in APIs; Microsoft for Windows, and Sun for Java. Rod On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote: Hi! In Europe APIs are not "copyright able". No idea about the US. However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is copyrighted. However you can not prevent anyone to write a software against a given API. Same is true for data formats. (In Europe dataformats e.g. a flat file format for a word processor are not copyright able) Regards, Angelo Forrest J Cavalier III wrote: -- Von: Forrest J Cavalier III[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2001 13:50:06 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. How can you copyright an API? Isn't it simply a collection of facts? Perhaps you could copyright the formal parameter names, and certainly the documentation in a header file. But the facts of function name, return type(s) parameter type(s) are just facts. There is no creative expression involved. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation. ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Pat
Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit
Well, You can look it up in a standard law book I guess. I have that not at hand and not the time acctually to do it, I'm in a copyright case in court on monday still preparing my stand. Angelo Chloe Hoffman wrote: Not to sound harsh but..Do you have any support for these categorical statements? Please cite some European case law, statutes, legal texts, etc. Inquiring minds want to know. From: Angelo Schneider To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:42:49 +0100 Hi! In Europe APIs are not "copyright able". No idea about the US. However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is copyrighted. However you can not prevent anyone to write a software against a given API. Same is true for data formats. (In Europe dataformats e.g. a flat file format for a word processor are not copyright able) Regards, Angelo Forrest J Cavalier III wrote: -- Von: Forrest J Cavalier III[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2001 13:50:06 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. How can you copyright an API? Isn't it simply a collection of facts? Perhaps you could copyright the formal parameter names, and certainly the documentation in a header file. But the facts of function name, return type(s) parameter type(s) are just facts. There is no creative expression involved. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation. ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 -- Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just keep your software closed source? Because "Open Source" and "Free Software" are ideologies. And a lot I know think, its right to incluse the source code. But its not right to get no fees from those who use the software (esecialy if those drive their business with it). So the man likely looks for a broad distribution, and all who likes it and benefit from it should pay a fee. Everybody should have access to the source code. I think this mailing list would run much better if people here would try to understand that ther is still demand to ordinyry sell software. Not everynody is in the habit of living from Consulting contracts etc. Also its a bit pathetic to say: "Yeah, he gives you also the source, but that is not Open Source. He should make it closed sorce again or true open source". That doesn't serve anybody. Regards, Angelo Schneider ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
[Fwd: Germany]
Hm, Microsoft is the cause of the Mellissa Virus and similar Viruses (I LOVE YOU). In germany currently a several Billion Dollar/EURO case is prepared against Microsoft. Because the lack of security of the Office/Outlook software and the so caused loss in time/money for the affected institutions of those viruses. AND sure we have more than one leg to stand on. The same is true in the united states. Of course you have implied warranties. Or do you think you can say: "Here is software, I have written it. Pay me some dollars and you may use it. But I OWN it, still. Nope, I'm not liable if it hurts your computer :-)" Sure you are liable. However the GNU license says: you may use it on your own risk. And as you do not pay, its like: you may swim here on your own risk, its my coast and my land and the water is at my cost but if you swim there, its on your own risk. This are two different issues. Angelo SamBC wrote: -- Von: SamBC[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2001 19:49:28 An: John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Germany Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "SamBC" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Germany SamBC wrote: It is a problem in many nations, UK being the easiest example, where there are several 'implied warranties' that cannot be denied, succintly: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and damages liability. All this, however, is not merely a problem for the GPL or OSS software in general. All software is essentially sold without warranty protection of any sort, insofar as the jurisdiction permits. Which most don't! If you expect that Microsoft Word (to choose an example at random) has to have any more function than an old leaky boot, you don't have a leg to stand on. If MSWord, through 'poor workmanship', causes corruption/loss of data which has financial value in any way, you do have a leg to stand on in the UK, due to the coupling of implied warranty (fitness for purpose) and difficulty of disclaiming liability in the UK via PROMINENT NOTICES that CANNOT BE MISSED (excuse caps, easiest way to enforce point). Exactly while almost all software licenses SCREAM their disclaimers. But these are shrink-wrap EULA's, to bring up a general problem. Money is already spent, and the shop doesn't have to refund you if you refuse to agree to the license, because the product is still fit for the purpose for which they sold it, your tough titty if you refuse to use it... It is taken that software is the same as any other product, covered by these warranties. However, one of the assumptions the GPL works under (and is not a very safe one) is that people will read the disclaimer, and be sensible, or believe it to be true. In addition, recovering the purchase price is rather pointless. I was making a general point A defending lawyer would make a good case that the failure of the software was at best a semi-deliberate ploy, as they new that it was not full-scale commercial stuff. Probably won't work, because the commercial stuff is just the same. One legal statement that may work is to state the intended purpose of the product, and state it as something pathetic, so people can't sue when it is used for another purpose and make a mess. The end result, at least in the UK, is that disclaiming liability is not a legal step, but it can help cover you at least partially, as you have warned the person. Sorry I wasn't so succinct before. SamBC -- Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467 -- Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
Rick! Now you are very polemic: quote forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source", or it will have a serious public-relations problem. For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you. /quote The term O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E was long n use before the OSI made a public, and now widly accepted definition of it. And the former common sence of US, yes there are MANY O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E developers who still have a common sence on what this is and this does not meet the definition of the term the OSI brought up simply because not everyone who believes he does open source is reading and understanding the definition of the OSI. You are right that http://www.intradat.com does not deliver "open source" in the sence as the OSI defines it but they deliever open-source as this is not a defined term. And you are mybe right that they do not want to make "open source" however they have a different understanding and they like truely to make open-source. Manfred: if you distribute a piece of software to a customer A and you deliever it to a different customer B and both get it under different conditions for furhter use, even if both can choose the way they get it and how to use/redistribute it, then it is not open source according to OSI. Lets amke it simple: commercial users should pay, regardless how they use your software right? Non commercial users should get it for free if they likre. Both get the source code if they like. This is not open source(OSI). Period. Thats what all those writing here try to explain you. You "discriminate" (not in the german sense, in the latin sense) between both customers, EXACTLY this is not allowed under OSI/open source. However I agree with you that your way is the only RIGHT way in making software successfull especialy if you consider the shift from a producing industrie to a knowledge/information industrie. You need to invent a new term for your kind of source-included software distribution. Well, my company also works on a similar license. Contributors get a fair share of the revenues. EVERYBODY get the source code, non commercial organisations may get the software free of charge, commercial organisations have to pay. Everybody is encouraged to redistribute: however if the final user is a commercial one we like to get license fees and if he is not a commercial one we waive the fees. If anybody redistributes for a fee we like to get a fair share of those fees. Manfred: again, no one here likes to piss you, but the point is somebody defined boiling water is the water which is at 100 degree centigrade on sea level. Your water is only 80 degree centigrade, so you miss that definition. So either you heat it up or you leave it at 80 degrees but then you can not call it open source. Regards, Angelo Rick Moen wrote: -- Von: Rick Moen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2001 08:51:04 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. begin Manfred Schmid quotation: We see that emotions have gone high. I see that you _continue_ declining to address the subject at hand. Which is evaluating whether specific licences are OSD-compliant or not. Instead, you digress onto business models, alleged deficiencies in the OSD, and a whole circus of diversions. We take the freedom to make a final statement concerning our requests. [90-line manifesto snipped] Farewell! I sincerely hope that your employer has the good sense to forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source", or it will have a serious public-relations problem. For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you. -- Cheers, "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us Rick Moenin trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Artemus Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist -- Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html ---------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: IPL as a burden
Manfred Schmid wrote: Hi all! [...] "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." GNU reads "`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.'' ``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software." To me, a lot of the discussion gets down to the "free beer" question. May I ask the Board for an official statement: Is the charging of license fees (or execution fees) definitely a no-go to qualify it as OSI-compliant Open Source? Up to now, I did not find any such statement on opensource.org Manfred Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL. The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme from customer B. You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it. OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL. If your license does not meet that criteria it is not OSI/open source. Angelo ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: IPL as a burden
Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Citates from the GPL: Well, the GPL says this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." Gregor Hoffleit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Concludes: I.e. the GPL doesn't restrict the act of running the program, and if somebody else redistributes the program, he can't impose any restrictions on running the program either. I dissagree, with the conclusion. The GPL lets it open wether there is or might be a restriction on the act of running the program. Probably this is not intended by the GPL, but in the citate above, its clearly stated: "the license does not restrict runnning of a program", this means it does not SAY anything about the running of the program. You can not draw the conclusion that it does allow everything and requires all changes to allow everything. In fact this would be impossible. E.G. you add a peace of source code written in SPARC assembler, this implies the restriction that the sourcecode only runs on SPARC compatible runtime environments. Also you could invent restrictions like: this code may never run on a nuclear war head controller. The GPL does nothing to prefent this. Regards, Angelo ---------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Plan 9 license
Well, It seems that I beg for misunderstanding? So I simply delete and skip that part :-) Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976 to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. In the EU it is not possible to transfer a copyright. QED. Regards, Angelo Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Plan 9 license
Well, I'm not a native english speaker, first fault. I learned british english in scholl, second fault. On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Angelo Schneider wrote: To copy without the authorization of the creator, denies the freedom of the creator. This is incoherent on any known definition of "freedom". freedom means to be free to do and to let do what you want. I do not know of any other definition. [...] It is moral wrong to make unauthorized copies as it it s moral wrong to denie the physical freedom of one. You're entitled to devise your own moral code, of course. Sure, do you agree or not, would be more interesting to me. Free Software is a nice idea, but not the solution. It simply floddes the market with so much software that stealing is no longer a reasonable action of one who likes to use the software. Solution to what? To the problems RMS wans to address with the FSF. Anyway, free software cannot be stolen except by breaching the license. I'm not talking about "stealing" free software. I'm talking about stealing any intellectual property from an inventor/autor/creator against his will AND without refunding. This is regardless wether I breach the FSF license or if I copy a CD from a friend. If you invent the one and only intergalactic starship drive, you will make your knowledge free. One will build that ship with that drive. Why only "one"? If you make the information publicly and freely In britisch english one means "some one", "some body" and does not mean 1 person but any person. available, *many* can build ships with that drive. This is called "competition" and is generally thought to be a Good Thing for the public, if not for would-be monopolists. I was not talking about that, strange that you draw this from my simple example ;-) You should better think about a world in which the inventor/creator or how ever you call him gets a fair revenue, instead about a world in which a "customer" gets a free(in beer) access to inventions. So we do. See http://www.opensource.org/for-suits.html . Well, 50% of the arguments on that paper are wrong or very narrow minded. Most propritary software organizations are on CMM level 1. The same is true for open source software and free software. In terms of effort put into the software and return of investment most OS and FS software performs very bad. Much more bad then most a standard priprietary software house. (there are exceptions: namely Apache and ANTLR) Most of the business models mentioned there would not work if OS or FS would not allready exist. They only can work because millions of developer monthes are allready DONE. Most of them unpayd. So the real winners are the compayies which say: "Well, I'm smart, I know linux. Lets go and do some consulting." (substitute linux with your favorite OS/FS work) And all this companies do not pay anything back to anybody. Neither the public nor the creator. (Besides paying sales tax) Of course the real winners are companies which now can sell hardware for linux boxes. Those have a benfit in OS development. (again substitute 'linux box' for any OS/FS work which can be a base for a product on top of it) The point with most free software promotors is that they only see the US and their strange copyright law and patent law. The rest of the world is very different. Nonsense. The U.S. has been changing its copyright laws since 1976 Well, I commented on that but I do again. to come into *conformity* with the rest of the world, specifically including the EU. In the EU it is impossible to transfer a copyright. QED. And it even goes farer, now we are close to a change which makes contracts which want the creator to surrender his rights void. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]" --Eric Raymond Regards, Angelo P.S. if one would read what I write it would be more fun to discuss ... Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Plan 9 license
Richard Stallman wrote: -- Von: Richard Stallman[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 1. September 2000 14:59:11 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Plan 9 license Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. I am ashamed of Eric Raymond for using the term "piracy" to describe unauthorized copying. That word is a propaganda term, designed to imply that unauthorized copying is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. Yes, I agree with RMS here. We should not call it piracy but slavery. Unauthorized copying of intellectual capital/property means denying the freedom of the IP holder. Just like slavery denied the freedom of man. Regards, Angelo Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html ------ Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Copyrighting facts (was: Re: Can you alter the MIT license?)
Hi Seth,
very good explanaition!
Angelo
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Bruce Perens writes:
From: Justin Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How far can you go with this notion that you cannot copyright a fact? Can you
copyright the arrangement of chess men on a chess board?
The arrangement of chess pieces is not the same sort of concrete fact as
"Woodhaven Rd. runs between these two points".
The strange paradox of copyright is that facts which result from creative
intellectual effort are nonetheless facts.
For example, the last character of the main text of Douglas Hofstadter's
_Godel, Escher, Bach_ is an "r". The second character of (l'havdil)
Microsoft Word 97 is a "Z". These are objective facts. In the same vein,
I could look up the six hundred twenty-sixth note of Andrew Lloyd Webber's
_Requiem_ (assuming a standard ordering of the instrumental voices within
a work and the notes within an instrumental line). The identity of that
note would also be an objective fact.
These particular facts are not copyrightable (because of fair use), but
the co-ordinated public mention of a sufficiently large number of them
would still be a copyright violation.
E.g.
The first character of _Neuromancer_ is a "T".
The second character of _Neuromancer_ is an "h".
The third character of _Neuromancer_ is an "e".
The fourth character of _Neuromancer_ is a space.
The fifth character of _Neuromancer_ is an "s".
The sixth character of _Neuromancer_ is a "k".
[...]
If I continued this sequence for a little while longer, I would be guilty
of a copyright violation.
How is that sequence of objective facts essentially different from the
following sequence of objective facts?
The elevation, in feet, of Alameda, California, is 30.
The elevation, in feet, of Berkeley, California, is 150.
The elevation, in feet, of Cupertino, California, is 236.
The elevation, in feet, of Daly City, California, is 300.
The elevation, in feet, of Emeryville, California, is 15.
The elevation, in feet, of Fremont, California, is 53.
[...]
Presumably, the information contained in one is the result of organized
human creative effort, where the other is not. (It _is_ the result of
human effort, in the form of the USGS GNIS.)
So, can I copyright the following?
1aef 9a8e 707e 8274 391d 6de4 3c76 da65
bd62 d2bc 4635 c915 141b 3a33 2fc2 7baa
7be7 7f3d 0cb5 f460 5adb d52d 1231 274e
2f02 a75e 7cc8 faa5 f2fe ad36 110b ba02
fe23 17eb e15f 484a 776d 6a3a 08a1 686f
a329 9593 58a0 54b4 6f48 75ea bc61 bd3e
90a2 6d76 03f5 a7ab b45e 3d4b 8b6a 8480
964b 614a 0c38 68c2 718b 53ce a39d 89f9
7109 66ed 6000 591e 6006 5e26 9b4b 7143
950a 2272 531d a0cd ccc9 9797 3670 7828
If you are the author. You have the copyright on that.
Why?
You could claim this as art!
How would you proofe that its art?
Well if someone copies it you have the context
in which he copied it. If he tried to sell this great art,
than it is, even if noone else recognizes it that way.
Furthr more:
Your code above is yust a code.
That means how you code your informatin or art is not important for
the fact that it is copyrighted.
Even if I crypt an excerpt of Bach I would violate propably some
rights. Ok, better: I encrypt a song of Sting (he still lives),
noone would understnd the coding. But it was his work, so I violate
his rights.
Do you need to know what it is first to say whether I can copyright it?
No, it must be (not even intellectual) work, done by a human or
initiated by
a human. However some works are to trivial (see the/YOUR law for those
exceptions).
I don't think it's possible to consider the copyright system reasonable,
logical, intuitive, or founded on readily comprehensible rules. Certainly
the idea that "you can't copyright facts" won't help someone who desires
to report the fact that the text of Microsoft Word is... (well, that
person is not myself).
--
Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/| have leisure; for perhaps you will
http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF)| not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Best Regards,
Angelo
-
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Can you alter the MIT license? (2)
Hi Bruce, Hi all, Bruce Perens wrote: From: "Scott Johnston" [EMAIL PROTECTED] A better example is Bruce Perens GPL'ing of the public domain TIGER map database last year from the US Census Bureau. I am skating on thin ice on that one because it's a collection of facts and not in itself copyrightable under current law. Thus you should not use The facts it self are not copyrightable. But someone collected that facts and placed them on "paper". This paper is copyrighted by the author. It does not matter if the paper is in fact a CD or a database. it as an example. I can hold a copyright on certain aspects of the data, such as its representation, but I can't copyright the fact that a street runs between two coordinates. Thanks Bruce Hint to derivation, or derived work: Transforming some sheets of paper with facts on it into a database is also a derived work, like transforming some source code into some other source code. Regards, Angelo --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Can you alter the MIT license? (1)
Hi Bruce!
Hi all!
Problem in this thread is that most people seem not to realize that
copyright is only a smal part out of a set of rights which belong
to a more comprehencive right.
see below!
Best Regards,
Angelo
Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even public domain isn't your copyright [um.. unless you wrote it, of
course].
You're a bit confused about public domain. Please read this entire message
carefully.
Sorry Bruce, you are wrong.
The former author, your replay applies to, is (more) right.
Placing a work in the public domain is not the same as granting broad
rights to that work. If you place on your work the notice "I place
this work in the public domain", you abandon your copyright rights
Nope, you cant abondon your "copyrights".
Clarification:
The mother of those rights which are often called "copyright" is a right
which is called (translated from german) "creators rights".
The creator of a given subject has "rights of an author".
This is called (translated from german) a natural law. Or a divine
law. This can't be removed, given up or even transfered.
entirely. You literally no longer have a copyright on that work at
all. That is different than saying "Copyright 1999 Bruce Perens, Do
anything you want as long as you preserve my copyright notice." For example,
someone can create a derived work of public-domain material and copyright it,
To some extend, yes.
and can place any license terms they wish on it, and need not attribute the
work to you!
Yes, the original stuff is still available as the original stuff.
But this would not be true for a picture for e.g.
Propably some one could clarify the term "public domain". Especialy
in contrast to copyright. I do not believe that a work which is put
into pd dos not have a copyright. I'm of the impression that the author
of a pd work grants everybody to copy and to ditribute his work.
Thats something different.
Claiming for a business advantage, to be the author of a public-domain work
may be fraud. That's criminal law, however, not copyright law. Copyright
law does not require you to put proper author attribution on public-domain
work.
Copyrights can be explicitly assigned to others, bought and sold as
commodities. But they can't be given up entirely...
Thats right! Better if you reference "creators rights" here, than it's
true: they can't be given up. They belong to you like your DNS,
a lawyer once telled me it sticks to you like your name, even if you
change your name, your old schoole mates will know you.
Like that you will always be known as "the creator" of the specific work
(at least to some god). This action of creation can never be reversed
or made undone. And this action grants you some rights, one of this
rights
is the right to copy and distribute (the so called copyright).
OK, you dared me.
I abandon my copyright rights on this message and place it in the
public domain. Bruce Perens, 15-November-1999.
It's entirely my right to do that.
Yes it's your right to do that, but this action would be void if
you would mean "creators rights"!
If you see "the copyright" as a part of the creators/authors rights
about his crafted work, you can public give up to enforce that right.
Or you can public grant that right to the community (-public domain).
'Public domain', literally, applies to something upon which there is no
copyright at all. This would be something which has no attributable
There does nothing exist build by man which has no copyright (except the
exceptions in the law, but this is not a principal difference) and
bears some originality.
author, or more likely a long-dead author (copyright thus expired).
Or the copyright owner has intentionaly placed the work in the public domain.
In particular, the GPL says that you must make available the source of the
whole work. Now this is an additional restriction on top the the MIT one,
but it's not in conflict with the MIT one - it doesn't ask you to do
anything you aren't allowed to do.
Right.
Current popular interpretation is that you can't, if your software is
'BSD-with-advertising-clause'. If you don't have the adv-clause, or
you're happy to give it up, then you can GPL parts of your software, and
include other peoples GPL'ed software. But you must satisfy the terms of
the GPL (which you are not likely to find a problem).
Note also that you can issue _any_number_of_licenses_ on software as long
as you own its copyright. Want to put the same work under GPL, BSD, X11,
Artistic, MPL, and so on? Do all at once. Producers of derived works and users
get to pick a license, they can't mix and match terms from more than one.
Thanks
Bruce
Regards,
Angelo
---
Copyright vs. GPL vs. API
Hi all, I just picked up some terms used in several other threads: Q: Can an API be copylefted, copyrighted? A: Simply: No! Well, propably that is more complicated: An API is in its essence a specification which can be written on paper without using actual a real programming language: Eg: To perform a operation to get result blub-blab you need to call a function called "do-blub-blab". That functions accepts three parameters. The first one is of Type XXX and named yyy, that means To be more explicit: APIs, data formats, exchange formats etc. and several further stuff are in most european copyright laws explicit excluded from specific protection. Thus no limitation in its usage/licesing etc. are possible. In my opinion a JAVA interface class cant be protected ny copyright and licensing terms. Everybody is free to rewrite the same JAVA interface class with the same signature and the same methods. You could only controll distribution of the original source code, but you cant hinder anyone to rework them. Copyright and licesing. The Copyright existing in western countries (don't know about eastern and african countries) gives you the right to controll what to do or what to let to be done with your work iff several conditions are true for that work (intelectual level exceeds normality, not done as in dayly work, etc.). Well, in Europe we do not call it copyright, because the right to copy is just some very smal part of a form of right I would translate as "the creators rights" into english. But in the essence those laws make it possible for us authors to attach licenses for usage, distribution, derivation etc. to work. However you can't force someone to release a program/code under GPL because he conforms/uses an API which was defined in/by code under the GPL. Just some ideas/comments to some unprecisse statements I found in several different threads/postings. Regards, Angelo --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: YAOSL - Yet Another Open Source License v1.03
Alex Nicolaou wrote: [...] This is similar to the above. What if a nation (France for example) ruled that something was unenforcable (the 90 days for another example). This would mean that no one in the nation of France is able to use the software at all. I think a better solution would be to change this into a severability clause This is my intention also. I don't know what you mean by a severability clause. Can you point me at another license that contains one or suggest one? I beleive that the usual case for these types of laws has to do with preserving competitive advantage for people writing software within the country. For example, it was rumored that non-localized software would be illegal in France at some point in the near future: so if you wished Can't be done. This would be against european laws. to sell in france you'd have to translate your software to french. Clearly this type of law tilts the table substantially in favour of protecting the internal software development industry: they already need They have not protectin in mind! They have their language in mind, they don't want it poluted by anglocisms, like the german language is ... to localize their software to reach the huge english speaking market, No they don't need to do that. France only writes software for france. That's the braindead assumption of them :-) but they'll have less trouble simultaneously releasing a version in France that will hold a near-monopoly and make it easier for the french software company to survive and maintain its position. It isn't clear to me why my license should take steps to allow my software to be used in countries where the laws are oriented at restricting my ability to The U.S. does exactly and only that ... Why should europe (or some country in particular) not do the same in return? compete for market share. [...] alex Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
Ok, now we come to a point, please read below. Angelo Arandir wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Angelo Schneider wrote: If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software, and it is also not open source software. I do not get that. a) One uses my software to gain profit: he has to share his profit with me b) One uses my source to derive work: he has to chare his work with mine This is exactly one of the mistake Troll Tech made with their first license. Question (but see below also): Why was/is that a mistake? At first glance, it seemed quite sensible to me: Free for Free Software, proprietary for proprietary software. What it does however is deny that Free Software can be commercial software. If all Free Software remains "freeware with source", then it will never cross the boundaries from hobby programs to Can you explain that? What are the reasons, are there any evidents/examples for that? What would be the difference if it would be free from the start off? Why should it not work to SELL commercial licenses and to grant FREE licenses for the GNU project or open source projects e.g simultaniously? I do not get what kind of boundary you mean and in which way it can't cross. professional programs (professionals get paid). -- Arandir... ___ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/ Counterexample: JACOB a free/commercial JAVA-COM Bridge. In Fact I do even not see any change in QT, only the Linux Version is "FREE" the other versions are still proprietary. But I do not like to bind my license to the OS. Best Regards, Angelo --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
Hi, I commented below. Bernard Lang wrote: Cf. your ptoposal below ... why not ... seems fair ... except it does not work - how do you hendle sharing revenues between contributors ? By granting them shares. - how do you share responsibility for the software you are now selling ? By allocating "authorities". - it introcuces viscosity in the sytems,... more things to bother with and most people do not want to bother ... I thought that is what "commnity licenses" are about. read the litterature on libre development... your scheme is just to complex ... and too constraining ... But since you object to free (gratis) contributions, I suggest you be consistent and buy solaris or SCO. Bernard On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:15:40PM +0100, Angelo Schneider wrote: If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software, and it is also not open source software. I do not get that. a) One uses my software to gain profit: he has to share his profit with me b) One uses my source to derive work: he has to chare his work with mine Both can get the source of my software for free, and can distribute it under the same terms they recieved it. So GPL is not applicable. But why is that not "open source" or "community source"? Because it is not for free? So far you failed to express what free realy means ... (in your view). For me it will never be an option to work and to give my work away for nothing. (I did it often enough and allways got ripped off) If you use my source, you have to contribute to it (so that I'm FREE to use that contribution AS I LIKE!) As you may use you contribution AS YOU LIKE. If you use my software and earn money with that use, you have to contribute money to my work. Quite easy. Each NON PROFIT organization may use my software without fee and may use my source without fee as long as it contributes its modifications to that source. Each profit organization has to chare it's profit with me, on a per copy, on a per site or whatever base. Both kinds of organizations have full access to the source, so whats the problem? Both kinds of organizations should give me the right to re-use their modifications. Free means for me: you can get the source without additional charge. You can even give away that source, it depend wat the new recipient does with it. Angelo ----- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ,_ /\o\o/Tel +33 1 3963 5644 http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469 INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX -- --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: GNU License for Hardware
Richard Stallman wrote: Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war. I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not? I am an American, and I have read extensively about the Civil War. It was caused by the dispute over slavery, not by economic factors. Slavery was the reason for secession, and disgust for slavery motivated the Union troops. It wasn't for nothing that they sang about John Brown while marching to war. AS far as I know, but that my be wrong: The seperation came first, then came the war, and while the war seemd to get expensive and would last longer than the north expected, Lincoln finaly mobilized the masses because of "slavery". For a long time, Southerners have made a great effort to deny this. You may have read their propaganda. Or you may have seen something Nope. I did not read something about that. Specific events in history are normaly tought/examined by the pupils for 3 to 6 month, so also the civil/seperation war in the US. We considered everything which we thought could have an influence. influenced indirectly by the Marxist idea that history is determined mainly by economics. It is useful to look for economic factors in history, but they are not the only ones. I'm shure that history is mainly determined by economics. Even if the economics behind it are often not obvious. Further I'm shure that the victory writes the history. W II was started from the german side merly because of economic reasons. Fachism was only needed to GUIDE the people. Angelo ----- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
If people have to pay per copy, then the program is not free software, and it is also not open source software. I do not get that. a) One uses my software to gain profit: he has to share his profit with me b) One uses my source to derive work: he has to chare his work with mine Both can get the source of my software for free, and can distribute it under the same terms they recieved it. So GPL is not applicable. But why is that not "open source" or "community source"? Because it is not for free? So far you failed to express what free realy means ... (in your view). For me it will never be an option to work and to give my work away for nothing. (I did it often enough and allways got ripped off) If you use my source, you have to contribute to it (so that I'm FREE to use that contribution AS I LIKE!) As you may use you contribution AS YOU LIKE. If you use my software and earn money with that use, you have to contribute money to my work. Quite easy. Each NON PROFIT organization may use my software without fee and may use my source without fee as long as it contributes its modifications to that source. Each profit organization has to chare it's profit with me, on a per copy, on a per site or whatever base. Both kinds of organizations have full access to the source, so whats the problem? Both kinds of organizations should give me the right to re-use their modifications. Free means for me: you can get the source without additional charge. You can even give away that source, it depend wat the new recipient does with it. Angelo --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
Justin Wells wrote: On Fri, Oct 15, 1999 at 09:33:11PM -0700, David Johnson wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Bruce Perens wrote: It makes sense that the end-user in general would prefer a "do anything you want" license. The important point is that the _author_ often doesn't prefer this license ... If Open Source is going to be used extensively by commercial concerns, then the needs of the consumer must be taken into account. No, it doesn't seem to matter. Linux has made significant inroads into commercial concerns, and it does not have a "do anything you want" license. I think developers care a lot more about software licenses than the average consumer. Consumers only care about quality, reliability, and price. Justin This is because you rarely use the kernel code and build up a 'propriery'(sp?) system on top of it. You simply use the kernal as is and provide additional software. BUT: my point was and is: some hundred people contributed to the kernel and some thousend people make their living and get welthy by shrinkwrapping it. If you, as a kernel contributor, like that: ok. Regards, Angelo --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: [openip] Re: GNU License for Hardware
y succeed partly. If you live cheaply, as I did and still do, you ought to be able to make a living by working half-time or less As a Programmer not, as a Consultant yes. as a programmer. Even if that job involves making proprietary software, you could still write free software the other half of your time. Doing good for society with half of your work is better than doing no good at all. You forgott one thing: some percentage of the guys on theese lists are europeans: a great majority of us did their civilian service for 15/18 or 24 month. Paying/contributing to society is something everybody does in our world ... Regards, Angelo ----- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: GNU License for Hardware
Richard Stallman wrote: which is rare in the OSS movement. In my experience, people who firmly reject non-free software do so at least partly based on the moral disapproval which is the basis of the Free Software movement. That is a strange experiance. Why should anybody have moral reasons not to use free software? For example the US Civil war was not fought over abolishing slavery, it was fought over whether states had the right to leave the Union. That was the superficial issue, but really it was fought about slavery. Sorry, Richard, thats wrong. The war is called seccesion war. The reasons are very economical. E.G. the rich industrialized north fought against the poor agricultural south. Why? The south seperated. Thwy would had have the possibility to increase prices on food and cotten etc. to get a fairer exchange for the ibdustrial products they recieved. Nobody in the north was interested in slavery (excepted some brave men who gave shelter and possibility to escape). Nobody in the north was interested in the war either. But Lincoln was very good in public relations, he convinced people to fight for the slaves because he knew nobody would fight against the seperation very long. Well, to explain all the reasons, the political and economic circumstances would need about 30 pages ... I though you where an american and you knew that, are you not? Regards, Angelo - Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
FAQ for abbreviations? Or what are: HtN, LODR,
Hi everybody, Sorry for a silly question :-9 But usual/common terms can be looked up in the dict, most "scientific" terms are latin or greek, so its not a problem at all. But your abbreviations are a bit wierd to me, is there a FAQ anywhere or is sombody so kind to point the most common one used in this list out to me? Best Regards, Angelo ----- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Can Java code EVER be GPLd, at all?
nnect the components? That makes the components essential to the container's operation ... the same argument applies to Java beans and their containers. So, you see, simply talking about programs that are essential to other program's function is not really a very clear position for the FSF to have. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to use the FSF's code in production environments where the players are deeply concerned about legal liability, and simultaneously rely on commercial code. I think the final definition to essential is: a) the client program does nothing (usefull?) without the used server component b) the server component can't be replaced c) client and server run in the same address space (same process) The problem with JAVA and CORBA/DCOM is finaly that you can circumvent the static linking etc. by wrapping GNU stuff into RMI/CORBA/DCOM wrappers. The derived work is than clearly the server side RMI/CORBA/DCOM module which is linked to the GNU stuff. So you have to apply the appropriated license to that derived work. However, IMHO, a cleint is a independet work. Having the seperation via a protocol done, you can replace either side without notice for the other side. alex Regards, Angelo P.S. however you could restrict usage of your stuff to static linking and/or forbit usage in a distributed environment. --------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
