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
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.
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
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
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:
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
