BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control?
I mentioned it as an aside, because it's interesting, and because one of
the rulings said something about fair use in software (I don't remember
what, though :-).
A similar situation held with the Vectrex game console, which wouldn't run
On 2/24/07, Thaths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include tangent.h
While we are on the topic of Copyrights and Patents, what is the term
on software Copyright? Is it the same Life + XX years (aka.
Forever-minus-1) as in literary works?
So, am I left alone in an echo-y silklist chanber listening
You're not -- I didn't see this earlier, as I sorta zoned out once the talk
of code came back into the foreground ;)
Software copyrights are the same as regular ol' literary copyrights Life of
the Author + 70.
Thank you Walt Disney.
On 2/27/07, Thaths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07,
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:32:23AM -0800, Thaths wrote:
So, am I left alone in an echo-y silklist chanber listening to the
sound of one hand clapping?
Happens to me all the time.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 11:42 -0500, Carey Lening wrote:
Software copyrights are the same as regular ol' literary copyrights Life of
the Author + 70.
or + 50 in many non USian parts of the world.
-rishab
At 2007-02-23 16:26:30 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some forms of interaction are probably not derivative, others (such as
static linking) certainly are
BTW, I don't see why static linking certainly makes a derivative work.
Surely that must be, again, a question of fact, to be decided based
On 2/24/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, I don't see why static linking certainly makes a derivative work.
Surely that must be, again, a question of fact, to be decided based on
copyright law and the nature of what is being linked to what?
Because in static linking, the
At 2007-02-24 19:05:02 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because in static linking, the binary code is directly included in the
executable unlike in dynamic linking in which there are references and
the code is used at runtime.
Thanks, I know what static linking is.
As I understand it,
At 2007-02-24 19:44:36 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it, however, directly including the binary code into
the executable doesn't necessarily constitute a derived work under
copyright law.
BTW: Remember LZEXE?
-- ams
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 19:50 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
BTW: Remember LZEXE?
LZEXE was distributed with a copyright notice that says confusingly that
it is public domain, copyright, and FREEWARE. it clarifies that and
you can therefore use, copy and distribute it freely. You can also
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 19:44 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
Also, since you admit the possibility of a dynamically linked program
not being derived from what it's linked to, are you really saying that
adding -Bstatic while recompiling changes the status of the executable
as a matter of
At 2007-02-24 16:15:34 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but it is rather likely that a court would rule that the work is
derivative.
Has that specific question ever been tested in court?
your printpi program is clearly derivative of printf
Because it significantly transforms, adapts, or
At 2007-02-24 16:28:18 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since it places no restrictions on derived works, there's no problem
with distributing programs compressed with LZEXE (which therefore
include LZEXE components in themselves) under any licence you please.
Oh, that wasn't my point at all.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:22:21PM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control?
the copyright-infringement part of that suit related to a really tiny program
that had to operate in constrained circumstances (i believe 50 bytes long or
so). to the defence that
At 2007-02-24 16:46:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm pretty sure a court would rule that dynamic linking, or static
linking, is a greater indicator of derivation than pure aggregation.
If you really meant (and I think you did) I'm pretty sure a court would
consider dynamic or static
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:22:21PM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
your printpi program is clearly derivative of printf
Because it significantly transforms, adapts, or recasts printf? That
seems a bit of a stretch to me, and I don't think it's unreasonable
to argue that the use of printf to
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:58:20PM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
applies to. If you used a proprietary library in some way you weren't
supposed to, you would (presumably) be in breach of contract, and if
you distributed it, you would be infringing the owner's copyright by
distributing their
At 2007-02-24 16:27:37 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control?
the copyright-infringement part of that suit related to a really tiny
program that had to operate in constrained circumstances (i believe 50
bytes long or so).
Yes, a program on the toner
On 2/24/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of cource, greg's solution is that patents (only) are the means of
protection for software authorship rights, and many may not agree
with that.
#include tangent.h
While we are on the topic of Copyrights and Patents, what is the term
on
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:50:26AM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
In particular, on the linux-kernel list, where there's an ongoing thread
about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and non-GPLed device drivers, and so on.
Greg K-H has always rubbed me the wrong way. I personally got
bitten by his little patch,
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 10:23 +0530, Biju Chacko wrote:
One of the biggest problems, as I see it, is that there is no clear
definition of what constitutes a derived work.
exactly. i should point out that the GPL very carefully avoids
specifying what a derivative work is, within the licence
I caveat this by speaking almost entirely based on U.S. law:
On 2/22/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. ...
Now, clearly, their program itself is not a work derived from the GPLed
one. But one popular perception is that the product (i.e. their program
plus the GPLed
On 2/21/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2007-02-22 12:49:13 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't they write their own anyway ? Unless it is not POP3 at all
and POP3 is a placeholder
(Yes, it's a placeholder for an entirely non-trivial program.)
#include ianal.h
It is
If, however, your software talks to the GPL-ed software through an API
(ergo, libraries compiled or linked into your software), then your
software becomes infected.
I think Thaths has reached the heart of the issue - this is not really a
question of law, it's a question of fact depending on
At 2007-02-22 13:14:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is obvious that the changes you made to the GPL-ed POP3
Er, just a moment.
For the record: *I* didn't modify any GPLed POP3 server (or whatever).
I constructed a simplified scenario (loosely based both on discussions
elsewhere and a
At 2007-02-22 15:57:37 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as copyright is concerned, you're right -- its most likely
_Not_ a derivative work, but would still likely infringe the GPL'ed
code.
How could it? I mean, if it isn't a derived work, by what mechanism
could it possibly infringe on
At 2007-02-22 21:44:06 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is not really a question of law, it's a question of fact
depending on the circumstances of each case.
Great, thanks.
The modified POP3 server will however, almost certainly be a
derivative work of the original POP3 server
OK. As I
On 2/22/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2007-02-22 15:57:37 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as copyright is concerned, you're right -- its most likely
_Not_ a derivative work, but would still likely infringe the GPL'ed
code.
How could it? I mean, if it isn't a
On 2/22/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2007-02-22 13:14:38 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is obvious that the changes you made to the GPL-ed POP3
Er, just a moment.
For the record: *I* didn't modify any GPLed POP3 server (or whatever).
I constructed a simplified scenario
At 2007-02-23 08:55:15 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I constructed a simplified scenario (loosely based both on discussions
elsewhere
In particular, on the linux-kernel list, where there's an ongoing thread
about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and non-GPLed device drivers, and so on.
-- ams
On 23/02/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2007-02-23 08:55:15 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I constructed a simplified scenario (loosely based both on discussions
elsewhere
In particular, on the linux-kernel list, where there's an ongoing thread
about EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
On 2/22/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
Here I am again, trying to abuse the goodwill of the legal initiates
lurking on the list with a hypothetical scenario.
1. Suppose someone writes a GPLed POP3 server.
2. Suppose company X, which develops a proprietary program, needs
At 2007-02-22 17:00:59 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the company's obligations under the GPL?
To open-source their modifications.
[...]
But one popular perception is that the product (i.e. their program
plus the GPLed server) is a work derived from the both their
On 22/02/07, Michael Silk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, clearly, their program itself is not a work derived from the GPLed
one.
Yes, it is. Without the adjustments to the GPLed program theirs
wouldn't work, and they base their program around those said
adjustments so it clearly relies on the
*I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THE GPL* (My copyright experience
has more to do with music than software)
Having said that, my vague recollection of the GPL from years ago is that
if you use even the tiniest amount of GPL'ed code in a new program, then
you have to release the new program
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
3. Suppose they take the GPLed POP3 server and modify it substantially
to suit their needs, and modify their program to talk to it.
Releasing the modifications (in readable and compile-able format or
such) and/or the
At 2007-02-22 12:49:13 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't they write their own anyway ? Unless it is not POP3 at all
and POP3 is a placeholder
(Yes, it's a placeholder for an entirely non-trivial program.)
-- ams
37 matches
Mail list logo
