NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ompages.com
On 26 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
> > not defini
Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
> not defining all the legal terms. One huge risk is that 'derivative' and
> 'copyright' will be divergently interpreted in various countries.
That is probably intentional. R
Paul Nathan Puri writes:
> This question will be governed by the click-box case (I need to find it).
> Point and click licenses are enforced because they show that the user has
> read and agreed to the terms of the license. In the case of GPL
> software, this does not usually occur. It's a new is
Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
> not defining all the legal terms. One huge risk is that 'derivative' and
> 'copyright' will be divergently interpreted in various countries. Many
> countries adhere to WIPO,
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RMS is very actively pushing his intentions of the GPL. The GPL has
> > a preambel, he is giving talks about this subject, answers questions
> > privately and in public. It is hard to miss his opinions.
> >
>
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> > However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> > right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
>
> Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Let me first, Paul, thank you for your elaborations on this subject. I think
> it is very helpful, especially for people like me, who have little to none
> education in this area.
>
> Even so little things like the distinction between
Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't think that Paul way even trying to imply that the author of
> > work A has any rights on the completely independent work B.
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case we were talking at cross angles, because I thought we
> were discussing exactly that
Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't think that Paul way even trying to imply that the author of
> work A has any rights on the completely independent work B.
In that case we were talking at cross angles, because I thought we
were discussing exactly that point. (Trying to find the boundary of
"completely
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> > However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> > right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
> of t
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS is very actively pushing his intentions of the GPL. The GPL has
> a preambel, he is giving talks about this subject, answers questions
> privately and in public. It is hard to miss his opinions.
>
> He is also explaining what he thinks of derivative
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
of the GPL'd work, under copyright law, then how can the
Hello,
Let me first, Paul, thank you for your elaborations on this subject. I think
it is very helpful, especially for people like me, who have little to none
education in this area.
Even so little things like the distinction between copyright law and
contract law are easily overlooked in the "h
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> > In copyright law, there are no defined distinctions. For the most part
> > you must judge for yourself. The discussion about the GPL, LGPL, etc., is
> > outside the scope of copyright law, and is governed by Contract law.
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> In copyright law, there are no defined distinctions. For the most part
> you must judge for yourself. The discussion about the GPL, LGPL, etc., is
> outside the scope of copyright law, and is governed by Contract law.
> Therefore, 'What is a derivative' is not a pertinen
I've been observing a lot of this discussion.
I think that it is fair to say a lot of this discussion of header files,
and linking run-time libraries, etc. is mostly academic.
I think what this discussion centers around is the legal distinction
between an original work of authorship and an origin
I wrote:
> No. Gcc *reads* the header files in the compilation process.
> People... this tangent into the inner-workings of gcc is really
> irrelevant.
> I think it's fair to say that in the general case the contents of the
> header files are an important part of the source code for a program.
"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> quoting http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html:
> :Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end
> :proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link
> :them with the rest of GCC, thinking this migh
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> > same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> > gcc does include the header files in the compilation process.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 03:19:22AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > | The legal rules for using the output from GCC are the determined by
> > > | the program that you are comp
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 21:28:55 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> However, the FSF was usccesful to enforce the release of source code under
> the terms of the GPL because of this in the past, so nobody seems to take
> the risk. (For example, ncftp was linked with libreadline).
ncftp is developed
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 03:19:22AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > | The legal rules for using the output from GCC are the determined by
> > | the program that you are compiling, not by GCC.
> > This must mean that the FSF does not think that the
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 03:19:22AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> | It is permissible to compile non-free programs with GCC. Compiling a
> | program with GCC and distributing the binary does not require you to
> | make the program free software or release its source code. This is
> | becaus
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > #include does not mean what it says.
> But it does.
[snip technical explanation]
Yeah, we know that. The point is that the stuff usually found in
headers has such a nature that it cannot be said to get included in
the object file
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Marcus writes:
> > #include
> > It does include them.
>
> #include does not mean what it says.
>
But it does. The compiler proper (cc1?) never touches the header files.
The preprocessor(cpp) reads the C file and spits out a C file that,
among other things, textually inclu
Marcus writes:
> #include
> It does include them.
#include does not mean what it says.
> But anyway, this is not the point. You have certainly read my other mail
> wrt to GPL'ed header files.
If they are not copied it does not matter how they are licensed.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joh
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does that mean the binary is a derivative of gcc?
> that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly
> obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique
> things to a bit of source to turn it into a binary; its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Remove gcc and try to compile again. It won't work. Does that mean the
> binary is a derivative of gcc?
that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly
obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique
things
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 06:38:42PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> > same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
>
> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> > gcc does include the header files in the compilation process.
I wrote:
> I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> gcc does include the header files in the compilation process.
No. Gcc *reads* the header files in the compilation process.
> They ar
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
> > That is a postulate for which you have provided no arguments. The
> > header files are no more a part of the objec
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 07:40:14PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
>
> I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
gcc does include the header files in the c
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
>
> That is a postulate for which you have provided no arguments. The
> header files are no more a part of the object file than this article
> is legally derived fro
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Really? A dynamically linked executable does not include code from the
> > library, so it would take something more argument-like to convince me,
> > at least ;-)
> No, you are confusing it with another case Wichert listed.
Is there any technical
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> If you are bothered about the presence of the original novel, you can say
> the following: The book only can be opened at all if the original novel
> is present in the room you are. Does this now make a difference?
Yes.
> Why?
Because in this case the book does not con
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 04:35:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 11:10:18PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > > 1) program A, statically linked with a library B
> > > 2) program A, dynamically linker with a library B
> >
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 11:10:18PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > 1) program A, statically linked with a library B
> > 2) program A, dynamically linker with a library B
> > 3) program A, only using header-files from library B
> Yes for these thre
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > 4) program A, which can load library B on demand
>
> If it did not include any source before: No. If it included header files or
> anything: Yes.
>
> If it just can load shared object code on demand, and do something useful
> with it, No. (take objdump for e
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 11:10:18PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> The derivate-question itself has much more interesting examples. For
> example for which of the following examples is A a derivative of B?
>
> 1) program A, statically linked with a library B
> 2) program A, dynamically linker
Previously Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> You may not remember me. I was the tall dark haired guy wearing all grey
> at the LWE. I saw you at the debian booth, and I asked you who does law
> work for debian. You said that some law student said he would help on our
> mail list.
I actually do rememb
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 05:37:57PM -0800, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> Yeah! I am...
>
> You may not remember me. I was the tall dark haired guy wearing all grey
> at the LWE. I saw you at the debian booth, and I asked you who does law
> work for debian. You said that some law student said he wou
Yeah! I am...
You may not remember me. I was the tall dark haired guy wearing all grey
at the LWE. I saw you at the debian booth, and I asked you who does law
work for debian. You said that some law student said he would help on our
mail list.
That's me...
PEACE...
NatePuri
Certified Law
Previously Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> A derivative work is any copyrightable work based on another work such
> that the derivative can be said to be a transformation or adaptation of
> the first work. The annotations, editorializations, etc. taken as a whole
> constitute an original work of authors
Vaidhy writes:
> I am planning to right a book on Debian. If I read the Debian User's
> Manual and add it to the list of references, is my book a derivative ?
No.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am planning to right a book on Debian. If I read the Debian User's
> Manual and add it to the list of references, is my book a derivative?
Only if you do things like copy parts of the text to your book I think.
The derivate-question itself has much more
No.
A list of references will not render your book a derivative.
A derivative work is any copyrightable work based on another work such
that the derivative can be said to be a transformation or adaptation of
the first work. The annotations, editorializations, etc. taken as a whole
constitute a
Hi,
I am planning to right a book on Debian. If I read the Debian User's Manual
and add it to the list of references, is my book a derivative ?
Thanks and Regards,
Vaidhy
**
Alike for those who for Today prepare
And those that after a Tomorrow stare
47 matches
Mail list logo
