In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Code written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative work
of that code by the definition given in the law.
The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
interoperate with other fiction
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
then yes you do.
Here's what the US Copyright Code says:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same
setting/worldview and characters).
Dak, dak, dak.
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf
---
Omega will argue that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
then yes you do.
It is entirely clear that for a work to be derivative, it must
incorporate significant portions of the original work. Code
written to interoperate with other code is
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
then yes you do.
Here's what the US Copyright Code says:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization,
But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by linking or
otherwise
Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything prohibited by
copyright. Even if you include header files and such, that comes
under there's just one way to do it, which makes it OK. So you
don't need
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by linking or
otherwise
Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything prohibited by
copyright. Even if you include header files and such, that comes
Tim Smith wrote:
I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do*
*not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not
have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that
requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners
As long as
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by linking or otherwise
Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything
prohibited by copyright. Even if you include header
files and such, that comes under there's just one
way to do it, which makes it OK. So you don't
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you are just confused.
Pretty much all the time.
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] where j=john and f=forkosh )
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, software doesn't have to be free to protect users from
these kinds of problems, just open -- or visible -- source.
Well, if the source is visible, people can examine it and see where the
problem is, but I think people should also be allowed fix problems
Ciaran O'Riordan writes:
Well, if the source is visible, people can examine it and see where the
problem is, but I think people should also be allowed fix problems (bugs
and security holes) and should be allowed to make modifications to reduce
pointless frustration.
In the US they can.[1]
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought I'd already acknowledged that class of problems in a
preceding post in this thread (quoting myself) ...
Of course, I do condemn big companies, like, sometimes, MicroSoft,
when they try to dominate the market by choking competition rather
than
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
I don't see him addressing pervasive invasion of all
people's rights and actions in order to safeguard
intellectual property, presumably because no one was
doing that in 1855.
By the way, his attempt to counter the
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I thought I'd already acknowledged that class of problems in a
preceding post in this thread (quoting myself) ...
Of course, I do condemn big companies, like, sometimes, MicroSoft,
when they try to dominate the
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, this is a political question and a moral one.
It is, but people approach the ethical questions of labour and software from
different starting points.
Most people have thought about and discussed the ethical aspects of child
labour, and try to some
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
let the best program win. If the commercial application is
truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
let the best program win. If the commercial application is
truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
inspire an open source knock off.
It might, but it's predictable that the developer of the proprietary
application will try to make life
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, this is a political question and a moral one.
It is, but people approach the ethical questions of labour and
software from different starting points.
Most people have thought about and discussed the
JohnF wrote:
But if I couldn't care less what you think,
then what right do you have to tell me what
to do with my own property?
The only thing that makes it your property is the
consensus of society that it benefits by putting its
resources behind granting you a limited monopoly for
a
Hyman Rosen wrote:
JohnF wrote:
But if I couldn't care less what you think,
then what right do you have to tell me what
to do with my own property?
The only thing that makes it your property is the
consensus of society that it benefits by putting its
resources behind granting you a
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Small correction: I didn't say, don't believe. I said, don't
*completely* believe. Small syntactic difference, but I meant
a large semantic one. To wit, you acknowledged the need to make
a living, and permitted an exception, vis-a-vis free software,
in your
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey Hyman, if I recall correctly, you're paying a royalty
to a landlord in New York for renting an apartment.
Why is that?
I own a co-op, actually. But the answer to your implied
question is that physical property, because of its nature,
falls very naturally into a
JohnF wrote:
There's no law forcing authors to publish source code.
That's what decompiling and reverse engineering is for :-)
But I've got no problem with people making royalties from
their work
My problem with it are the restrictions I'm forced to undergo
to protect their royalty
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey Hyman, if I recall correctly, you're paying a royalty
to a landlord in New York for renting an apartment.
Why is that?
I own a co-op, actually. But the answer to your implied
question is that physical property, because of its
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
let the best program win. If the commercial application is
truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
inspire an open source knock off.
It might, but it's predictable that the developer of the
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
let the best program win. If the commercial application is
truly better, maybe its
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF wrote:
But if I couldn't care less what you think,
then what right do you have to tell me what
to do with my own property?
The only thing that makes it your property is the
consensus of society that it benefits by putting its
resources behind
Tim Smith wrote:
I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do*
*not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not
have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that
requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners
I agree with you.
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
the source on
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
deserved.]
Can you give any specific criticism?
The meritlessness of that paper, at least insofar as it could create
problems for GPL enforcers, has been proven by the zero reaction of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
deserved.]
Can you give any specific criticism?
The meritlessness of that paper, at least insofar as it
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
the source on request).
I'd thought
Tim Smith wrote:
What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different
pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the
derivative work preparation right?
There's not much precedent for this question for software,
as far as I know, so if someone demonstrates to
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
the source on request).
I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
John Forkosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
the source on request).
I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the source can be
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different
pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the
derivative work preparation right?
There's not much precedent for
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Read the paper, [...]
I did. It's drivel. Next.
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it deserved.]
--
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/
Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship:
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
These cases are never black and white, and I don't know PocketCAS or
MimeTex, so I can't give any advice on this situation, but here are some
general ramblings anyway...
Hi Ciaran,
Sure. Some general ramblings are exactly what I was
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Read the paper, [...]
I did. It's drivel. Next.
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
deserved.]
Can you give any specific criticism?
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I did. It's drivel. Next.
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
a skim is all it deserved.]
Mostly, it says that if someone wants to fight the restrictions
of the GPL while continuing to distribute software containing
code licensed by it, there are a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Hyman Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I did. It's drivel. Next.
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
a skim is all it deserved.]
...
I don't see why it would be considered drivel. I expect that
O'Riordan says he
Hi John,
These cases are never black and white, and I don't know PocketCAS or
MimeTex, so I can't give any advice on this situation, but here are some
general ramblings anyway...
If PocketCAS is written to specifically work with MimeTex, then PocketCAS
might be a derived work which would mean
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[...]
If PocketCAS is written to specifically work with MimeTex, then PocketCAS
might be a derived work which would mean ...
In the GNU Republic (hilarious brain free zone with system library
exceptions, etc.) it surely might be a derived work.
To JohnF:
Read
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
...and still none of the trolls can say why this paper is ignored by
companies who could gain millions if they could invalidate the GPL.
Even being able to make a credible
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
...and still none of the trolls can say why this paper is ignored by
companies who could gain millions if they could invalidate the GPL.
What are you
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Companies are ignoring the
GPL left and right altogether.
None of them are using that paper to claim that their actions are ok, so
this new point doesn't prove your old point.
The current level of violations is only overwhelming the GPL enforcers
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Companies are ignoring the GPL left and right altogether.
There is a qualitative difference between ignoring the GPL
out of laziness, stupidity, or error and actively deciding
that the GPL does not apply in some circumstance and then
distributing without obeying its
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
All the enforcement activities so far have targeted the
former sort, which is why the cases result in settlements
where they make the GPLed sources available without putting
up any resistance.
I'm not aware of any instances of the latter. Are you?
I'm aware of
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Companies are ignoring the
GPL left and right altogether.
None of them are using that paper to claim that their actions are ok, so
this new point doesn't prove your old point.
Man oh man.
Read the paper, idiot.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
(regarding closed source kernel modules)
I'm still awaiting such an enforcement.
That's unlikely to happen with respect to Linux since
its main copyright holder doesn't object to them.
Linus Torvalds is playing on both sides of the fence.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Linus Torvalds is playing on both sides of the fence.
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
If I were to bet, I would say that works designed to
link with existing computer programs are not going to
be considered derivative works of those
JohnF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL.
Writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library)
and will
JohnF wrote:
[...]
You've probably read this, but just in case:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
Hope that helps.
Thanks, Ciaran, for the discussion and very useful information.
Now read
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
regards,
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now read
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
I just skimmed it.
I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that most of
your mails about the GPL are claims that it isn't enforceable or doesn't
work
Stop shifting the burden of proof, GNUtian ciaran.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now read
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
I just skimmed it.
I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. Thus far, all that
we've seen is just a bunch of moronic complaints warranting automatic
dismissal AND which were dismissed automatically by the SFLC.
The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. Thus far, all that
we've seen is just a bunch of moronic complaints warranting automatic
dismissal AND which were dismissed automatically by the SFLC.
The plaintiffs have to prove their
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief.
Hyman Rosen wrote:
The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that
the defendants challenge them.
According to Hyman if I sue him and shortly dismiss the
complaint prior ... then I'm surely has
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
Even in the Verizon case, on the page to which you always point,
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp, the actual
URL for the firmware download is
Looking for a discussion of the
advantages/disadvantages/repercussions/anything else relevant
of re-licensing my GPL'ed code www.forkosh.com/mimetex.html
under the LGPL instead. I've received several (a handful, not
a ton) of requests to do this, and have so far always just
replied, No. I
Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
will contribute as little as possible.
A permissive licence (such as the
Ciaran O'Riordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
will contribute as little as
63 matches
Mail list logo
