[I am not subscribed to debian-kernel.]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:00:55AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
> > it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
>
Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>> It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
>> it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
> exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."). I hope
> that a lic
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:06:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> I would argue that while the new Social Contract makes it
> unambiguously clear that the DFSG applies to non-programs (such as
> documentation, etc), both the old and new Social Contracts clearly
> apply to "software".
> While it has been
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:26:05 -0500 Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[...]
> I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message.
I agree too.
> Here's an attempt
> at an unbiased summary:
>
> There are four classes of firmware:
>
> 1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have
> to
> But wait; firmware is *not* linking with the kernel, as the icons
> are *not* linking with emacs. Or are they? What is linking? If you
> consider linking to give names fixups and resolving them, well, the
> char tg3_fw[] = ... is linked with the kernel all right. If you
> consider that a call (
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV.
By which of course I meant GR 2004-004, which is only *about* GR
2004-003.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
>>>Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
>>>what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
>>>conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them res
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:02, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
> >> what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
> >> conclusion they communi
Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>It is not his interpretation of copyright law, but his interpretation
>>>of the license, that is incorrect.
>>
>>It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
>>it to mean.
>
> Reference, pl
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
>> what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
>> conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other.
On Fri, Jun 18,
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> There are four classes of firmware:
>
> 1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have to
> go right away, or be relicensed. Thankfully, there are few of these, and
> the kernel team seems to be willing to help pursue the relicensing.
>
> 2. Firmware
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 18/06/2004 10:39 : wrote Dave Howe :
>
>> At what point does the unpackager/installer become an
>> interdependency? most installers come in three forms 1) a archive
>> containing the product, and a uncompactor capable of extracting the
>> files from the archive, and c
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III writes:
> >> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> >> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole w
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
>>are distributed "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
>>Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
>
> They are part of a Debian system.
> > Firmware images embedded in kernel drivers fit neither.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:39:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Please, demonstrate why the firmware is not an independent work. No
> one has done so yet. Then define "interdependent programs" and
> explain why that concept is relevant
Josh Triplett writes:
> Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
> are distributed "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
> Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
They are part of a Debian system. That makes them neither s
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
> > of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
> >
> > It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
>
Michael Poole wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov writes:
>
>>Look, it explicitly mentions "a work containing the Program". The
>>language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that "work based
>>on the Program" is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
>>the original work, be it a d
William Lee Irwin III writes:
>> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
>> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is corre
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:47:50AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
The current GR on debian-vote attempts to resolve some of these
issues.
FYI,
--
Rau
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:34:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> The current release policy says that all firmware not licensed under
> GPL-compatible licenses needs to be removed. It also says that any
> sourceless firmware needs to be removed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/06/msg00
William Lee Irwin III writes:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct: DFSG
requires that anything without source be removed. As far
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>as to why the GPL prohibits
>>distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
>
> It doesn't. If some work includes a GPL'ed work and is distributed,
> then the whole work must be GPL compatible. This doesn't extend to a
> collection o
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 10:51, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
> > exception to < > any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
> > the Pr
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:50:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> If it's undistributable, it obviously doesn't belong in main. So please
> remove the undistributable stuff. Second, if it's non-free, it doesn't
> belong in the kernel, which is in main. So remove anything that is
> non-free from t
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:16:50AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> broke this thread for the 16th time, despite having been asked to fix
> his mailer repeatedly
Why do you refuse to fix your horribly broken mailer?
--
Glenn Maynard
Alexander Cherepanov writes:
> Look, it explicitly mentions "a work containing the Program". The
> language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that "work based
> on the Program" is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
> the original work, be it a derived work, a compilatio
17-Jun-04 12:24 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
>>My point is that any sentence talking about "a work based on the
>>Program" is by default talking about both derivative and collective
>>works.
> No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work bas
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
>
> Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it?
AFAICS it contains not a derivative in the legal sense but the
original in a different
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
> exception to < any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
> the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications...>>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:55:47AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> What rights do the GPL'd software recipient have? The GPL grants
> some rights not granted by copyrights law. I made an extensive
> document and posted it to d-l, but no-one seemed to listen or to
> understand. All ok. IRT making der
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The interpretation favoured by kernel hackers is that anything that runs
> on the host CPU is part of the program, and anything that runs on the
> card is just data for the program to operate on.
This distinction isn't relevant when
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux
> kernel is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology
> work of its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle,
> would be each and every patch that entered th
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
>> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
>> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
>> derivative works fro
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> The installer can be GPLed, sure. Why shouldn't it be? You will
>> likely run into other copyright issues because you do not have
>> permission to redistribute Microsoft Word like that, but it is
>> irrelevant to the GPLness of the i
@ 18/06/2004 11:25 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
>>copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
>>distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
>>der
@ 18/06/2004 10:39 : wrote Dave Howe :
At what point does the unpackager/installer become an
interdependency? most installers come in three forms 1) a archive
containing the product, and a uncompactor capable of extracting the
files from the archive, and correctly placing them (possibly unde
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
> derivative works from the rights of a collective (antholo
I apologize for the cross-posting to linux-kernel, but this seems
relevant to me (even if it comes from debian- lists) to the kernel
developers as a whole.
@ 18/06/2004 10:02 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>The firmware typically wasn't patched, an
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:02:25AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I would be much more convinced if I saw an argument from the
> GPL-incompatible-firmware-is-OK side as to why the GPL prohibits
> distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
The interpretation favoured by kernel
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But why do I have permission to distribute the GPL'd installer that
way (let's say it incorporates Emacs for some reason)? This isn't
mere aggregation -- it would be if the files were next to each other
on a CD and otherwise unrelated, but it's clear that there are
@ 18/06/2004 09:56 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of
the license requirements, he should check.
@ 18/06/2004 09:52 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not "this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is." Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary
@ 18/06/2004 09:50 : wrote Matthew Palmer :
I would imagine that a lot of the patches in the kernel are
derivative works of the kernel, besides. This is, I would imagine,
the major difference between the kernel and a "standard" anthology.
- Matt
That's why I exposed in detail my point i
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it? If not,
why can't I put some GPL-incompatible x86 code into the kernel, load
it into a device in my system -- the main memo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
>>> license requirements, he should check.
>>
>> I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not "this work
> is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is." Humberto has
> cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary images) should be
> considered a compilati
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:04:18AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux kernel
> is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology work of
> its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle, would be each
> and ever
@ 17/06/2004 18:27 : wrote Raul Miller :
>> If you think there is some legally relevant document which means
that a ...
>> work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1
@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
>> You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
>> By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable
>> for a large percentage of users. Th
@ 17/06/2004 19:34 : wrote Francesco Poli :
Well, if MS Word is installed by unpacking a separate package, then
it's merely data from the installer point of view. In this case, yes,
the installer can be GPL'd. Just as dpkg(8) which is GPL'd, but, of
course, using it to install a non-free deb
@ 17/06/2004 17:19 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
Your reaction is uncal
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:54:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Surely if
> anyone should be concerned, it's one with a half-billion dollar market
> capitalisation rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account.
No, quite the opposite. The former will not be seriously afflicted by
co
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
> > By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
> > large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
>
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:37:09 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
> > would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy,
> > right? A hardcoded string, copied to some device which runs it, and
> > maybe with some additio
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
Raul Miller writes:
> Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
>
> However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
> derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
> into the kernel.
>
> According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective wo
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
> By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
> large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware
> > If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
> > work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
> differences be
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 14:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
> > licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
> > license's author for gu
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
>> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
>
> I'm writing in english, not greek.
>
> If you think there is some legally relev
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
> licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
> license's author for guidance. In this case the FSF indicates the binary
> firmwar
@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
la
@ 17/06/2004 15:14 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
@ 17/06/2004 01:06 : wrote Michael Poole :
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it "great lengths." When I said the GPL
"deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't lik
> >False dichotomy.
> >
> >There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
> >derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
> law following the Geneva convention *does* such a d
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
> the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
> copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
>
> _Not_ collective/compilation/antholo
@ 17/06/2004 14:12 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
> to use GPL"), the very last paragraph of [1]:
>
> QUOTE
>
> This General Public License does not permit incorporating your
> program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine
> library, you may consider it more useful to permit link
Michael wrote:
> Several (a plurality, if not majority) of US federal court districts
> use the Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison test to determine
> whether one computer program infringes on another's copyright --
[snip]
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreti
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> >> The deception is calling it "great lengths." When I said the GPL
> >> "deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
> >> the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
> >> other (because you don't like what it says?).
> >
> >
Michael Poole wrote:
> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
> license requirements, he should check.
I think that expecting all GPL code to come with full source under the
terms of the GPL is not an uncommon interpretation, and neither is
expecting all code linked i
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:44:37AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> >
> >> One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this library
> >> a derivative work makes)
> >
> >
>
@ 17/06/2004 12:26 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>Humberto Massa wrote: [snip]
>
It's a compilation work.
>>>
>>>Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
>>>compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
>>>
>>>Thiemo
>>
>>not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _se
@ 16/06/2004 20:48 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>Joe Wreschnig wrote: [snip]
>
>>When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
>>distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived
>>from the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the
>>firmware is a de
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
>>>However, this sentence makes clear that "works based on the Program"
>>>is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
>>>collective works based on the Program.
>
>
>On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>>
Humberto Massa wrote:
[snip]
> >> It's a compilation work.
> >
> > Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
> > compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
> >
> > Thiemo
>
> not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I referred only to the
@ 17/06/2004 11:07 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Raul Miller wrote:
> It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
Let's
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> > Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case?
> > And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than "this is
> > nonsense", "this is obvious", or some broken analogy.
>
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
> > > is "mere aggregation" is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
> > > code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
> > > external file) a deri
@ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>> One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this library
>> a derivative work makes)
>
>
> There is no point discussing this issue with you until you comprehend
> the GP
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
>> license requirements, he should check.
>
> I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
> would be compli
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
> license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy, right?
A har
Frank Küster writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> [firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
> [...]
>> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/ms
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
> program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
> a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
> times an identifier is used, count the number of lines
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
> copyright notices attributable to him or Yggdrasil before
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040616 22:25]:
> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
There is a company that claims that itself is the copyright holder of
some Unix sources, and that thinks that use of that concepts is a
breach of copyright. Should we accept tha
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [firmware as mere aggregation]
>>> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
[...]
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately f
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
> >
> > If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> > large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> > ls source.
Raul Miller writes:
>> The deception is calling it "great lengths." When I said the GPL
>> "deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
>> the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
>> other (because you don't like what it says?).
>
> You seem to be i
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
I disagree here. Why do you claim that is derivative work? N
> > However, this sentence makes clear that "works based on the Program"
> > is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
> > collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> In addition, mere aggregation of another w
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:59, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
>
> If I write a program that cont
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
>> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
>> GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
>> deri
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:32, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
> >>
> >> Unfortunately for Mr. Ri
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> [snip]
> > When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
> > distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
> > the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmwa
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
> GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
> derivative) works in just two p
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
> copyright notices attributable to hi
Raul Miller writes:
> It's a compilation work.
>
> [Some people might think that "compilation" and "aggregation" are the
> same thing -- but the GPL goes to great lengths to specify that it does
> apply where the compilation is a program and not where the compilation
> is not a program.]
I think
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:23:19PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The question is not whether you
> extract the work later, but whether the collective work is governed by
> the GPL.
I agree that this is the question.
> Copyright covers creative content, not mechanical
> transformations, so whether
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
