On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, cszigetv wrote:
> The GPL is not specific on when the modifications have to be made
> available, though I always assumed that it should happen simultaneously
> with the binary distribution. The delay imposed by TurboLinux is not
> much (2 months), but then again, next time so
IL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Again - How To Break The GPL
>
>
>
>
> At the end of this mail is part of an article from OS Opinion about
> TurboLinux' delays the distribution of their modified code, while (as I
> assume) they distribute binaries.
>
> The GPL is not spe
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:04:38 +0100
From: cszigetv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At the end of this mail is part of an article from OS Opinion about
TurboLinux' delays the distribution of their modified code, while (as I
assume) they distribute binaries.
I assume they are distributing the
At the end of this mail is part of an article from OS Opinion about
TurboLinux' delays the distribution of their modified code, while (as I
assume) they distribute binaries.
The GPL is not specific on when the modifications have to be made
available, though I always assumed that it should happe
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> If so, the FSF position would be that they own the
> copyright interest and THEY are assigning YOU a non-excusive copyright
> interest to make derivative works under the terms and conditions of the GPL.
In the case of works published by the FSF, certainly. In t
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> However, my sense of the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation is relying
> only on Copyright for the GPL, and that there is nothing but a conditional
> (non-exclusive and royalty free) license of copyright conveyed in the GPL
> (apart from the "no warranty" aspec
ubject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Copyright versus Contract
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Open-Source License Discussion
> Subject: RE: How To Brea
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I guess here it is a matter of asking the FSF whether they see themselves as
> having accomplished anything else, since when we employ the GPL we appear to
> be assigning copyright to the FSF.
Although members of GNU, and a few other people, assig
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Open-Source License Discussion
> Subject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Copyright versus Contract
>
>
> My apologies
unlike many EULAs and all contracts I
have ever entered into.
-- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 09:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ken Arromdee; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Direct Functio
> "Why should we care how the laws against robbery are drafted?
If Alice doesn't care, at least we should care.
The point I wanted to make (not clear enough as it seems) is that a license
is only part of protecting the GPL source base. The license by itself will
probably not be enough to do th
cszigetv wrote:
> After following this thread for a few days I have to raise the question:
>
> "Why should Alice care at all about any legal tricks to workaround the GPL?"
"Why should we care how the laws against robbery are drafted? Most
robbers are never captured."
--
Schlingt dreifach ei
After following this thread for a few days I have to raise the question:
"Why should Alice care at all about any legal tricks to workaround the GPL?"
In my scenario Alice takes all the GPL code that she can use, hires an
interface designer to hide the functionality behind a smashy interface
, March 06, 2000 2:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
>
> > Well, it is obvious why this hypo does not quite work. Assuming, for the
> > sake of argument, that Alice's derivative work is
the author of
the program that runs on Bob's PC.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Brea
terms to facts
is difficult.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Schilling, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 3:17 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> BT (here it comes) . . . in the third setence, (starts with "But
> when you distribute . . .") if Alice's Program is BASED ON software
> licensed under the GPL, then the GPL applies to Alice's program. In the
> original scenario, wher
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:26:00PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> What breach? Bob is, from Trent's viewpoint, modifying Trent's
> work for his own use, which the GPL permits, using Alice's
> proprietary additions.
I wonder if the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act", with all its attendent
evil, would
:27 PM
To: Schilling, Richard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: How To Break The GPL
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> Generally, if the program Alice writes for Bob references *anything* in
the
> GPLed library, Bob's program could be considered a deriverative work. If
>
tion to deal with complete, independent
programs, and added an additional section to deal with code written to be
included in a larger framework of an application.
-Original Message-
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 7:02 AM
To: Mark Wells
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> Well, it is obvious why this hypo does not quite work. Assuming, for the
> sake of argument, that Alice's derivative work is a french translation of
> Trent's article
For that case, the trick I have in mind won't work, because a translation
into another language
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> Remember, you can't even make an original Star Trek story without it being
> considered a derivative work of the series and movies.
Sure you can, provided you don't distribute it. Otherwise it would violate
the author's copyright to make marginal notes in a book. If you
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:27:53PM +0100, Martin Konold wrote:
> Recent comments from RMS have shown that he does not accept the "system
> component exception" anymore.
That's not true. The "system component exception" was designed to let
you link to proprietary libc's and libX11's on proprietary
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> > According to RMS, plugins are *also* derivative works, so both your examples
> > would come under the GPL. (Which produces the odd result that it is legal
> > to write a GPL plugin for Internet Explorer bu
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> According to RMS, plugins are *also* derivative works, so both your examples
> would come under the GPL. (Which produces the odd result that it is legal
> to write a GPL plugin for Internet Explorer but not for Netscape 4, since
> Internet Explorer come
John,
Your hypo is interesting. I think it highlights how different software is
from other literary works protected by copyright. I have a couple of
thoughts on this.
> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
>
> > Under the law of copyright, a derivative work is an original work of
> > authorship based
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
> Under the law of copyright, a derivative work is an original work of
> authorship based on a pre-existing work.
What we have here is analogous to the following: Trent writes an article
which he copyrights. He then grants to the public (i.e. anyone) the
right
.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 10:54 AM
> To: Ken Arromdee; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Direct Functionality versus
> Copyrighted Exp
d farther into the center of the lake for resolution.
>
> -- Dennis
>
> --
> Dennis E. Hamilton
> InfoNuovo
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm)
> fax. +1-425-793-0283
> http://www.infonuovo.com
>
> -Original Message-
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:56 PM
> To: John Cowan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > Ah, but then you ra
org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 8:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jonathan Marks;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2000
>
> > I would like to draw attention away from "Derived from" and move it to
> > "Direct Functionality". Make sense?
>
> But what does "direct functionality" mean in terms of licensing? I can see
> functionality being added to a GPL application in ways that both would and
> would not violate t
: Sunday, March 05, 2000 07:54
To: Ken Arromdee; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Direct Functionality versus
Copyrighted Expression
[ ... ]
I just want to suggest being mindful that we are talking about copyrighted
subject matter here and not other things. When we are di
nnis
--
Dennis E. Hamilton
InfoNuovo
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel. +1-206-779-9430 (gsm)
fax. +1-425-793-0283
http://www.infonuovo.com
-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 23:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ho
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 2:12 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> > But what does "direct functionality" mean in terms of
> licensing? I can see
> > functionalit
I am interested in this point. Do people think that the GNU GPL applies to
run-time linking? If so, what provision in the GPL leads you to believe
this?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I'm not just talking about the run-time vs. compile-time linking
> > > quest
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> Ah, but the question is whether everything is a derivitive or not. If they
> are, then it is only because of provisions within the Linux and Glibc licenses
> that allow many of them to exist in their current form. In other words, if
> there were no Lin
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> But what does "direct functionality" mean in terms of licensing? I can see
> functionality being added to a GPL application in ways that both would and
> would not violate the GPL. If I wrote a new plugin for Gimp, it would add
> functionality, but would
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, Jonathan Marks wrote:
> > I would agree with everything expect for the "added to" part. In code terms, it
> > may very well be derivitive, but it hardly demands an identical copyright or
> > license. As an example, neither the GTK nor the Qt libraries require that
> > additio
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > If everything that *works* with some piece of code is derived from that code,
> > then everything in my current OS distribution is ultimately derived from
> > Linux and Glibc!
>
> Glibc is deliberately not under the GPL, so the issue doesn't arise.
> The
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> We definitely need to define the term "derive", both in the copyright sense,
> and as it applies to code. My Dodge automobile works with my Bridgestone tires,
> but it is hardly derivitive of the tires :-)
>
> A sometimes useful tool of logic is to take
David Johnson scripsit:
> If everything that *works* with some piece of code is derived from that code,
> then everything in my current OS distribution is ultimately derived from
> Linux and Glibc!
Glibc is deliberately not under the GPL, so the issue doesn't arise.
The Linux kernel is under the
>
> > If a body of software has it's
> > direct funcionality added to, modified or changed, then the resulting outcome
> > should become part of the body of software in terms of copyright and
> > licensing.
>
> I would agree with everything expect for the "added to" part. In code terms, it
> m
aces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 1:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:56:06 -0500, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000, Jonathan Marks wrote:
> From my understanding of the GPL,
> Alice's work is derived from Trent's as Alice's *intent* is for her software to
> work with Trent's library.
We definitely need to define the term "derive", both in the copyright sense,
and as it applies to code.
Hi People.
Attempting to follow the Alice / Trent thread here:
1. Alice's software requires Trent's library to work; much like a car needs
wheels to work. A manufacturer of cars could choose to supply you the vehicle
without wheels and give you the option to get the wheels from the wheel
man
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:56:06 -0500, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
>> Says who? If she distributed a derivative work of GPL'ed software,
>> then it must be GPL'ed. The question is whether or not Alice has
>> a derivative work.
>In my first scenario, Alice
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:44:09 -0500, Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think a court would have a hard time
>finding consideration.
Yes. There is much judicial discretion regarding consideration. The concept
has come under considerable academic attack, mainly because its flexibili
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> What if there were a non-GPL and a GPL implementation written to the same
> interface definition? I don't want to drag in the *ix kernel here, but there must be
> other cases.
For an excercise in creative but totally useless semantics, seek out and exami
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> Generally, if the program Alice writes for Bob references *anything* in the
> GPLed library, Bob's program could be considered a deriverative work. If
> the program Alice write does not reference anything in the GPLed library,
> there is no point i
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
> contract, where's the consideration? Shrink-wrap contracts are on
> shaky ground (nobody but Microsoft, AFAIK, has ever been able to
> enforce one in court), and since neither money nor an
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:> > I would very much like to hear
that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> > where is it?
>
> In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
> in her design and testing. It would be very hard to avoid this
> in practice
> This is probably the most legally controversial part of the GPL. It's
> difficult to say whether or not a program which uses a library is a
> derived work of that library. If I were a judge (and IANAL so this is
> unlikely to say the least), I would probably decide on a case-by-case
> basis.
G'day all.
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 10:45:47AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> This is offered in the spirit of "How To Make Atomic Bombs", and does
> *not* mean that the author approves of the conduct described herein.
[deletia]
> Now who has violated Trent's copyright? Not Alice: she did not modi
Mark Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:47 AM
To: Forrest J. Cavalier III
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If
-Original Message-
From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 9:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
This basically sounds like "user does the link".
The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only
Justin Wells wrote:
> -- fame from becoming well known as the author of a free software work
>
> -- expectation that you will receive further copyrighted material in
> return, from someone who contributed to your project (this is
> explicitly mentioned as being of value in US title
On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 04:51:03PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
> contract, where's the consideration?
There's lots of consideration:
-- fame from becoming well known as the author of a free software work
-- expectation that you
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Says who? If she distributed a derivative work of GPL'ed software,
> > then it must be GPL'ed. The question is whether or not Alice has
> > a derivative work.
>
> In my first scenario, Alice made a derivative work but didn't distribute
> it. S
h 03, 2000 4:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
>
> > 1. The issue raised may be breach of the terms of a license
> (Trent's GPL)
> > rather than a copyright infringement.
>
>
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> 1. The issue raised may be breach of the terms of a license (Trent's GPL)
> rather than a copyright infringement.
Ah, but then you raise this question: If the GPL is an ordinary
contract, where's the consideration? Shrink-wrap contracts are on
shaky ground (no
evant
in the first instance).
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 3:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: R
Rod
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 10:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> This is offered in the spirit of "How To Make Atomic B
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 15:39:23 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The law considers intent, and ignores technical detail. If a person's
> actions are clearly intended to make a copyright ineffective, and if
> the copyright does in fact become
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
> Says who? If she distributed a derivative work of GPL'ed software,
> then it must be GPL'ed. The question is whether or not Alice has
> a derivative work.
In my first scenario, Alice made a derivative work but didn't distribute
it. She then distributed her o
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be
> > run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of
> > the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it.
> What if there were a non-GPL a
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The law considers intent, and ignores technical detail. If a person's
> actions are clearly intended to make a copyright ineffective, and if
> the copyright does in fact become ineffective, then the person has
> violated the copyright.
Well, sometimes. The creators of
From: Mark Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
>
> > > I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> > > where is it?
> >
> > In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
> > in her design
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:45:47 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
where is it?
The flaw is in treating the law as though it were a computer program.
The law considers intent, and ignores technical de
I wrote:
> Alice could test using the unfree library (for which, perhaps, she does not
> have a distribution license) and distribute the unfree application to run
> with Trent's freely available clone.
Two little ironies that I thought of just after posting:
1) The harder Trent works to make hi
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be
> run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of
> the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it.
That strikes me as unlikely to be the law.
Consider t
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> > I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> > where is it?
>
> In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
> in her design and testing. It would be very hard to avoid this
> in practice
--
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 2:01 PM
> To: Ken Arromdee
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: How To Break The GPL
>
>
> RMS may be correct in this case. I am not a lawyer. The counter-argument
> that MSFT could b
RMS may be correct in this case. I am not a lawyer. The counter-argument
that MSFT could ban people from making Windows software doesn't fly.
They CAN ban you from creating derivitive works based on their copyrighted
material, they have every right to do that. By encouraging people to
create th
This basically sounds like "user does the link".
The FSF takes the position that if you distribute software that can only be
run by linking it with something GPLed, your software is a derivative work of
the GPLed software even if you don't include any parts of it. So by these
standards, Alice wo
This is very similar to the fiasco involving some Quake patches that have been
flying around (check out slashdot's archives froma few days ago to get
links). Basically someone had taken the GPL'd Quake source and tried to clean
up some server security problems. They released the changes in the
> I would very much like to hear that there is a flaw in this logic. If so,
> where is it?
In my understanding, Alice must not have used the GPL'ed software
in her design and testing. It would be very hard to avoid this
in practice. Claiming to have avoided it, and still distributing
instructio
This is offered in the spirit of "How To Make Atomic Bombs", and does
*not* mean that the author approves of the conduct described herein.
A close reading of the GPL suggests the following way to distribute
unfree software that contains GPL-specific components.
1. Alice designs, debugs, and tes
78 matches
Mail list logo
