Speaking of people who will be pretty pissed when it turns out that
Eben Moglen has been bullshitting about the legal meaning of the GPL
all along:
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/2216239&tid=147
But for better or for worse, Mr. Wallace doesn't seem to have a
terribly firm gra
On 5/11/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The drafter of this offer of contract has shouted from the rooftops
> > that he has made no attempt to conform it with the applicable law.
>
> You make it sound like RMS is attempting
On 5/11/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The drafter of this offer of contract has shouted from the rooftops
> that he has made no attempt to conform it with the applicable law.
You make it sound like RMS is attempting civil disobedience.
As I understand it, he's attempting to
On 5/10/05, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:51:53AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Well, I have to admit it didn't occur to me that anyone might think my
> > opinion represented an opposite consensus. More widely recognized
> > debian-legal personages such
On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[a painfully inadequate redaction of my argument, with a non-rebuttal]
> I do not believe this to be a contradiction. Collective works and
> derivative works are two entirely different conce
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >And, if you allow the full definition of a "work based on the Program"
> >from section 0 of the GPL to apply, it's clear that when these
> >collective works are being protected as intellectual creations that
> >you're talking about a "work based on the Program" and so can
>
Raul Miller wrote:
And, if you allow the full definition of a "work based on the Program"
from section 0 of the GPL to apply, it's clear that when these
collective works are being protected as intellectual creations that
you're talking about a "work based on the Program" and so can
be granted licen
On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's very clear that what copyright is protecting is not the symbols which
> > comprise a document but the creative content that they represent.
> This could be different in common law c
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >At minimum, there must be some modified form of some of
> > >the creative content of the Program in a derivative
> > >work, or it's no a derivative work under copyright law.
> > >
> > Where did you get this idea?
>
> This idea pervades the c
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >17 USC 101: "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
> >preexisting works"
> >how much plainer do you need this t
> >
> >I'm asserting that copyrightable collective works are derivatives
> >of the contained w
On 5/10/05, Batist Paklons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words, these two categories are not disjoint.
>
> I do not believe this to be a contradiction. Collective works and
> derivative works are two entirely different concepts in cop
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/8/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only time a collective work is not a derivative work is when the
the collective work lacks sufficient originality under copyright law
to be granted separate copy
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >This is part of the definition. You cut it off before the end of the
> >sentence.
> This is disputed.
You claim you did not cut it off before the end of the sentence?
> And you know that. I have already presented a lo
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I discuss below, there are considerable grounds for believing that the
> > category "derivative works" is completely disjoint from "collective
> > works".
>
> In other words, you c
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Succinctly describing the flaw:
1. '' a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law '' -- this is a definition. It
defines what the expression "work based on the Program" m
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I discuss below, there are considerable grounds for believing that the
> category "derivative works" is completely disjoint from "collective
> works".
In other words, you can't have a work where both categories apply.
On 5/10/05, Micha
On 5/9/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) 17 USC 101 says "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works", Clearly, the law is in error. It should not say
> "or more". This is obvious from the definition of collective work, and
> from the concept of disjo
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:51:53AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 5/8/05, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:00:54AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> [snip]
> > OK, there may be more dissenters than I had previously noticed.
> >
> > I was ticked off by t
I want to revisit this one point.
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not true under the Berne Convention or under 17 USC as I read
> them; indeed, the term "collective works" and its superset
> "compilations" appear to be explicitly reserved in 17 USC 101 (1976
> an
As I am eschewing sarcasm and mockery with respect to Raul for the
present, I will defer to someone else to rebut the incorrect readings
and reasonings in the referenced message. But for the reader's
convenience:
On 5/9/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come on, Raul: a collective work is NEVER a derivative work. Never ever
> ever.
What's this? Proof by repeated assertion?
> A collective work CONTAINS another works, and is copyrightable per se if
> it is intelectually novel by virtue of its
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/8/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only time a collective work is not a derivative work is when the
> > the collective work lacks sufficient originality under copyright law
> > to be granted separate copyright protect
Raul Miller wrote:
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, Raul, I'm impressed. You have found enough ambiguities in
the GPL to exhibit a way to construe limits on dynamic linking and
packaging dependencies that are not far from the FSF FAQ's
prescriptions and Debian'
Jakob Bohm wrote:
Sorry, I misspoke; contracts are construed against the offeror, not
against the drafter, when there's a distinction. The offeror had the
option of proposing language as explicit as he or she chose, so
ambiguities are as a matter of law construed against his or her
interests. Tha
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe you're objecting t
On 5/9/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I read it, what you've said here is that you'll take legal action
> against people who respond to your email messages in a fashion
> you don't approve of. ...
Oh, and if it helps; feel free to respond directly to me in any
fashion not otherwis
On 5/9/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I have to admit it didn't occur to me that anyone might think my
> > opinion represented an opposite consensus. More widely recognized
> > debian-legal personages such as Raul and
On 5/8/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The only time a collective work is not a derivative work is when the
> the collective work lacks sufficient originality under copyright law
> to be granted separate copyright protection.
This is not true under the Berne Convention or under
On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I have to admit it didn't occur to me that anyone might think my
> opinion represented an opposite consensus. More widely recognized
> debian-legal personages such as Raul and Andrew seem to think I'm an
> idiot or a troll, and to ha
On 5/8/05, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:00:54AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[snip]
> OK, there may be more dissenters than I had previously noticed.
>
> I was ticked off by the way your original message to -devel
> *could* leave people not following -leg
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, Raul, I'm impressed. You have found enough ambiguities in
> the GPL to exhibit a way to construe limits on dynamic linking and
> packaging dependencies that are not far from the FSF FAQ's
> prescriptions and Debian's current prac
Actually, Raul, I'm impressed. You have found enough ambiguities in
the GPL to exhibit a way to construe limits on dynamic linking and
packaging dependencies that are not far from the FSF FAQ's
prescriptions and Debian's current practices -- though by a completely
different logical path. Namely
Note, I admit that there is a lot of repetition in my arguments,
reflecting to some degree repetitions in that to which I
respond. I have tried to limit this by stating my arguments
once or twice and referring to those from other places in the
text.
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:00:54AM -0700, Micha
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As written, the "mere aggregation" clause, if it has any legal
> significance at all, applies only to Section 2.
Section 2 is the section which grants permission to distribute
copies of the program which are not verbatim, and which places
On 5/8/05, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The way I read it, Mr. Edwards is starting from a different
> meaning of "work based on the program" and related terms, and
> then concluding that the "mere aggregation" clause is a no-op
> under that interpretation. Although this is one of the le
On 5/8/05, Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:34:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > The "work" (subspecies "copyrightable collection", or "collective
> > > work" in 17 U.S.C. 101) known as Debian s
Stepping in to defend Mr. Edwards, though not his claims or
conclusions.
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:34:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECT
On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
> > > derivative work under copyright law
> > >
> >
>
On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
> > based on the Program". (The word Program, capitalized, is defined
> > previously.) That _definition_, in its entirety, is:
> >
> >
> > a "work based on the Program" mean
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh Lord. Deep breath. Please, please, please read to the end of this
> one before responding to each line on the fly.
Done.
> The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
> based on the Program". (The word Progr
Oh Lord. Deep breath. Please, please, please read to the end of this
one before responding to each line on the fly.
The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work
based on the Program". (The word Program, capitalized, is defined
previously.) That _definition_, in its enti
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think this "attempts to" quip is meaningless.
> > >
> > > How w
Er, not to be paranoid or anything, but before someone else quotes
this out of context ...
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the above. The license text, as actually written, contains an
> erroneous statement:
>
> ... a "work based on the Program" means either the
We actually seem to be getting somewhere, slowly.
On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think this "attempts to" quip is meaningless.
> >
> > How would you like me t
On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which
> I don't, except insofar as C - "the Program" attempts to paraphrase E
> - "the Program" (= D).
Oh for Pete's sake, (E - "the Program") (= D). What a great place for
a word wrap.
- Michael
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe you're objecting to the "that is to say" phrase, which restates
> > > what
> > > "work based on the Program": means.
>
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > > such program or work, and a "work based o
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > Second sentence in Section 0: The "Program", below, refers to any
> > such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either
> > the Program or any derivative work
On 5/6/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:51PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > > > The GPL simply defers to copyright law to define
On 5/6/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> > paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
>
> Who is sorry? How sorry?
>
> Let's assume, for the sake
On 5/5/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
> paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this.
Who is sorry? How sorry?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this sorry-ness is not
something that matte
Thank you for a reasoned response, Jakob. Oh, and by the way -- just
because I am arguing against the legal validity of the FSF FAQ's
claims that linking to a GPL-incompatible work violates the GPL,
doesn't mean I think Debian maintainers or debian-legal should take up
shrugging at GPL incompatibi
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:03:09AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Note: I am replying only to -legal for now, someone with more
> firm knowledge than either me or Mr. Edwards should post a
> proper rebuttal to -devel so Mr. Edwards' arguments will not
> look undisputed to the broad masses of Debian Dev
Note: I am replying only to -legal for now, someone with more
firm knowledge than either me or Mr. Edwards should post a
proper rebuttal to -devel so Mr. Edwards' arguments will not
look undisputed to the broad masses of Debian Developers.
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 07:26:00AM -0700, Michael K. Edwar
On 5/4/05, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [This part of the thread belongs on -legal]
Sorry to spam debian-devel -- and with a long message containing long
paragraphs too, horrors! -- in replying to this. But that's where
this discussion is actually happening now, and I'm afraid I c
56 matches
Mail list logo
