David Schwartz wrote:
>>That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
>>collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
>>If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
>>ordering the parts. The creation of works that "can be
>>linked together" is not protected
David Schwartz wrote:
>> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
>> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
>
>
>>No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
>>non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
>>collective work where the real
David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was
to
David Schwartz wrote:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be
linked together is not protected by copyright:
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to
>>> agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If
>>> you were able to create the derivative work under first
>>> sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the
>>>
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you buy a
>>W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
>>image of your installation, under the fair use rights
>>(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
>>
>
>I would say that if not for the EULA, you
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The only way to
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The only way to
David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you buy a
W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
image of your installation, under the fair use rights
(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could
transfer
David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to
agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If
you were able to create the derivative work under first
sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the
contract would not apply
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
>>
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
place. See,
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to where
one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its initialization,
without having the "source" that generated that microcode, we are in
a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their designs away.
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
> could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
> simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
> fine.
Then I would
David Schwartz wrote:
>>Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that
>>the openfirmware package was were the firmware came from.
>>The person obviously made a lot of statements without
>>bothering checking out the real source. Well it didn't come
>>from there, I got it from Alteon
David Schwartz wrote:
Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that
the openfirmware package was were the firmware came from.
The person obviously made a lot of statements without
bothering checking out the real source. Well it didn't come
from there, I got it from Alteon under a
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
fine.
Then I would
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to where
one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its initialization,
without having the source that generated that microcode, we are in
a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their designs away.
I
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Not
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>
>>>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
>>>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
>&
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
> This ofcourse doesn't actually solve Debian's distribution issues since
> the keyspan firmware can only be distributed as part of 'Linux or other
> Open Source operating system kernel'.
Well, if this is the case, it
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>
>>>You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
>>>other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
>&
Jeff Garzik wrote:
We do not add comments to the kernel source code which simply state the
obvious.
Jeff
Whoa, kind of harsh, isn't it? I'm just trying to help.
Anyway, the problem at hand is: people do *not* think there is anything
obvious.
For instance: many, many people do not consider
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
(and others, I'm sure) take Debian's concerns seriously.
I said in
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Not really...
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
(and others, I'm sure) take Debian's concerns seriously.
I said in
Jeff Garzik wrote:
We do not add comments to the kernel source code which simply state the
obvious.
Jeff
Whoa, kind of harsh, isn't it? I'm just trying to help.
Anyway, the problem at hand is: people do *not* think there is anything
obvious.
For instance: many, many people do not consider
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
This ofcourse doesn't actually solve Debian's distribution issues since
the keyspan firmware can only be distributed as part of 'Linux or other
Open Source operating system kernel'.
Well, if this is the case, it
42 matches
Mail list logo
