On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the
only
thing that might help when someone finally decides to go after
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the only
thing that might help when someone
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Are you asking to put FSF's officers in jail?
I'm not an Attorney General. But to fulfill your curiosity, I'd rather
extradite the entire gang to North Korea with no right to return.
regards,
alexander.
We SHOULD be taking an individual work and analyzing it
for creative content. Not cooking up arbitrary hypotheses
and pretending they mean something
I am going to try taking some hours this weekend and verify one
of the programs + libcurl + openssl cases. I'll get back to you
next week.
I
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
Wow.
I think that's the *least relevant* rejoinder I've ever seen.
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | Shadow Robot Company |
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
1. the GPL can only restrict the distributions of an original work or
its derivatives;
Modulo first sale (which is nonexistent in the GNU Republic).
and
2. the only way to determine if a work is a derivative work of
On 9/16/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
Wow.
Anarchists are anti-copyright and against fake free software.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/16/05, Rich Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
Wow.
Anarchists are anti-copyright
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're
talking ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those
bits that end up in a
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
Assume that programX is a complex (1 SLOC) program,
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
question). But it does eliminate some scenarios.
Assume that programX is a
permission for a compilation work.
Copyright doesn't establish exclusive right to prepare (original)
compilations (the term compilation includes collective works).
Compilation is entirely separate work from its constituents. You'd
need permission to prepare a derivative compilation (by
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
for stuff you write yourself).
It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've made
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The license on visual studio doesn't really matter here. What
matters is the license on the SDK (which has fairly generous terms
for stuff you write yourself).
On 9/15/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
It follows that if sell a Windows program that you've made without
if you sell, I meant.
Microsoft SDK which has generous terms (what are they, BTW?)...
When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
I said
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/15/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ok. This leaves open the question of how thin that protection
would be (which in turn depends on the specific work(s) in
question). But
On 9/15/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/15/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft SDK which has generous terms (what are they, BTW?)...
When you're talking about what you need to build generic programs
I said Windows program, not generic. A program that
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the only
thing that might help when someone finally decides to go after them.
You may want to follow in the footsteps of Mr.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 04:06:00AM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've
The difference is that when you talk about dynamic linking, the
'replacement' means fiddling with linker options or package
dependencies. It is indeed nonsense to conclude that doing these
things would change the copyright status of the program using the
libraries.
in the case of dynamic
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hint:
http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=21197
(... Besides, too overbroad a viral effect ...)
This document is a report from two french bureaucrats and one employee
of Unisys corp, recommending methods of licensing
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:20:17PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
I can't see how can
programX possibly be a derivative work of libopenssl or of libnvossl.
Can you please explain it to me, like if I was a four-year-old?
You stole somebody else's work when you wrote programX. Piracy is
You stole somebody else's work when you wrote programX. Piracy is
wrong. You are destroying the hopes and dreams of an entire
industry. [0]
[0] This appears to be the way it is explained to four-year-olds
You apparently do not have kids. Especially four-year-olds. Mine is
already 6 and he
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:53:10PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
Now seriously, can you please explain to me:
1. do you think programX is a derivative work of libopenssl?
2. why?
3. do you think programX is a derivative work of libnovossl?
4. why?
I keep making questions, and
Now seriously, can you please explain to me:
1. do you think programX is a derivative work of libopenssl?
2. why?
3. do you think programX is a derivative work of libnovossl?
4. why?
I keep making questions, and you keep giving me non-sequiturs.
You keep asking questions that
On 9/14/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
As an anarchist I
You're brainwashed GNUtian.
regards,
alexander.
On 9/12/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assume every work eligible for copyright protection, for the
sake of the argument, and for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking
ONLY about dynamic linking. AND, to boot, that those bits that
end up in a compiled work by way of
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
saying that all along.
You were also saying that C is probably
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you
have to
accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
you can depart with any of their assertions.
And where can I find more details
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how
to qualify an
act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the
parties intent
of the act's intended effects, in the
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander [...]
Alexander Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
and then you have to
Alexander accept them all (including the dynamic linking
On 9/14/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[... FSF: assert(!is_contract(GPL)); ...]
Alexander Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative
and then you have to
Alexander accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you
admit
Alexander you can
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
That may be true in the GNU Republic.
Exclusive distribution right is about copies (material objects),
not works.
On 9/14/05, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:14:21AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.
That may be true in the GNU Republic.
Exclusive
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:20:51PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Michael Are you saying these people are on record in believing that the GPL
Michael works in the sense we are discussing -- forbidding the distribution,
Michael on terms other than the GPL's, of code that uses a GPL library (or
** Raul Miller ::
On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric.
Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could
be anywhere from begging the question to a desire to focus on some
useful 10% of my questions.
Yorick Cool wrote:
[...]
The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the
understanding that the GPL is a contract.
Yeah. Except that everybody and his dog knows that the FSF's
position is that GPL != contract. Moglen and RMS now call it
The Constitution (of the GNU
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:22:27PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Yorick Cool wrote:
Alexander On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:32:13PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Alexander Michael On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Michael I am acutely disinterested in
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:39:14PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Alexander Yorick Cool wrote:
Alexander [...]
Alexander The reasoning is pretty simple. As Sean said, it is based on the
Alexander understanding that the GPL is a contract.
Alexander
Alexander Yeah. Except that everybody and
On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Alexander Larry Lessig?
Alexander
Alexander CC share-alike licenses don't try to infect compilations
(collective
Alexander works).
So? That changes nothing to the fact Lessig considers the GPL -- the license
we're
talking about
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
[...]
I will grant you Lawrence Lessig even though a few minutes' Googling
http://www.google.com/search?q=Lessig+GPL+insane
yields
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2005/02/thoughts_on_sof.html
Quite refreshing. ;-)
quote
Similar concerns from an another
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:32:13PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Michael On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and
Michael boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think
that
Michael the
On 9/9/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric.
Given the context, I haven't a clue what that means. This could be anywhere
from begging the question to a desire to focus on some useful 10% of
my questions.
Assume every work
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument isn't.
The argument, simplified, basically
On 09 Sep 2005 17:52:00 +0200, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:
1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute A.
Library M is licensed under the GPL. = Debian can distribute M.
Program B is a derivative of A,
Raul, 90% of your questions (below) are rethoric. Assume every work
eligible for copyright protection, for the sake of the argument, and
for $DEITY's sake. AND we're talking ONLY about dynamic linking.
AND, to boot, that those bits that end up in a compiled work by way
of being in a .h file (for
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
saying that all along.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to
come up with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Färber) writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:54:04AM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa
Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:30:17PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
No, you are not telling me why my argument is broken. If you are
trying, you're not being very clear. Why is my argument broken exactly?
By trivially continuing it to the next obvious point, it concludes
that the GPL doesn't
On 9/9/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am acutely disinterested in that debate because it's long and
boring, but there's a lot of law professors who like it and think that
the GPL does work. I suggest you go argue with them instead.
Name one other than Mr. Moglen.
- Michael
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:08:51PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of
the library directly with your program is
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing is that the kernel is indeed much like a library, but not
like a static one. The kernel is a lot like a shared library in
that it exists in memory, and has functions that can be called. It
is different mainly in that it stays in memory, and on
* Måns Rullgård:
The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a
library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted
per
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Måns Rullgård:
The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a
library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
running
** Mark Rafn ::
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact
that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program
is equivelent to linking the library with the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that
Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because
if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it
in my system just
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were
doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL.
Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library
and
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they
were doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:22 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were
doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually
Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
linking against a
dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:47 am, Humberto Mass Guimarães wrote:
Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
linking against a
dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
Good save The linked work is still
Here is the US definition of a derivative:
-
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such
as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization,
motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
abridgment,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But what is clear is that a derivative work requires an act of copying the
original work of authorship. The caselaw in question is Lee v. A.R.T. Co.
(125 F.3d 580) where someone took a piece of art they purchased, fused it to
an
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:27:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with
Remember: DERIVATIVE == TRANSFORMATION.
Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that Only the
verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications,
can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal.
The rest of your mail just ranted the same thing
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:32:26PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
I did _not_ just ranted the same. I did offer you an example of how you
are simply plain wrong -- as is the GPL FSF FAQ -- when you say that linking
to a library creates a derivative work.
Argument from authority and a
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments
surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
I can't argue with someone who
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think
that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal
arguments surrounding the GPL,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:53:57AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of the
library directly with your program is equivelent to linking the library with
the object files of your
On Wednesday 07 September 2005 03:50 pm, Joe Smith wrote:
If that statement is true and if it does not qualify as a licence
exception, then
I think Linus and the KernelDev team has been pretty consistent that they
consider it their interpretation of the GPL as applied to their software. As
a
78 matches
Mail list logo
