VFX vs bigForth?
Zuvuya
there a significant difference between the two that would sway me to
make the rather hefty purchase of VFX if I intend tho write apps
licensed under the GPL? A reply from Bernd would be most appreciated.
Thanks.
Bernd Paysan
Well, if you intent to write free software, you should also use free
compilers, free operating systems, and free run-time environments - not just
free of cost, but with all four freedoms. This is clearly a non-technical
issue, and says nothing about the quality of VFX or bigForth.
There are other, more technical differences, as well. VFX has extensive
English documentation, while bigForth's documentation still is mostly
untranslated (so most of it is in German). VFX has an analytic compiler,
while bigForth just uses macro inlining and peephole optimizing (if you need
speed, you can achieve that more easily with VFX). As usual, if you have
seen one Forth, you have seen one Forth, so there are tons of other
differences, as well. Both systems are pretty complex and complete in terms
of functions you will need for complex programs. For "guru code", VFX'
analytic compiler has more traps to fall in than bigForth's much simpler
compiler. If you don't write guru code, this is a non-issue.
The Win32 part of MINOS has not yet been ported to VFX, so if you intent to
also write for Windows using Theseus and MINOS, you have to use bigForth for
now (VFX has separate GUI builder stuff for Windows using standard Windows
components).
Otherwise, I'm clearly biased. bigForth is created for my needs, VFX is
created for Stephens needs (and the needs of his customers), so if you ask
me which Forth I prefer, the answer is obvious ;-). You can use the free-
of-charge evaluation distribution of VFX to judge yourself.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Stephen Pelc
wrote:
VFX Forth is
very well documented,
very fast (see the benchmarks),
and has good technical support.
If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
code!
If you go with the LGPL, as Bernd did with Minos/Theseus for VFX
Forth, then users of commercial Forths can use your code without
conflict.
It appears feasible to use Minos/Theseus under Windows with Xming,
but that project hasn't started yet. VFX Forth has two GUI
construction toolsets, both of which are Windows specific. Both
of them have more documentation than is currently available for
Minos/Theseus.
An alternative interface that is cross-platform is Gtk+ and Glade.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, steph...@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
Anton Ertl
>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>code!
The garbage collector has been released under the GPL, and I certainly
can release an application that uses the garbage collector, even
though I am a user of iForth, a commercial Forth. How the VFX license
comes into this scenario is beyond me. Not even the iForth license is
involved in this scenario.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2009: http://www.euroforth.org/ef09/
Stephen Pelc
(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>>code!
>
>The garbage collector has been released under the GPL, and I certainly
>can release an application that uses the garbage collector, even
>though I am a user of iForth, a commercial Forth. How the VFX license
>comes into this scenario is beyond me. Not even the iForth license is
>involved in this scenario.
Because, according to our GPL guru, applications reliant on a GPL
license portion must must also release their source code. AFAIR
it's all down to the definition of a "derived work". I would
love to be proven wrong, but that's what I'm told.
I tend to leave the legal stuff to other people, but as far as
our clients go, any implication that incorporation of GPL code
requires release of the main application's source code is a no-no.
Clarification from an authority rather than the usual opinions
will be most welcome.
Bernd Paysan
> Because, according to our GPL guru, applications reliant on a GPL
> license portion must must also release their source code.
A program using an LGPL library must be provided in a form so that you can
relink the LGPL library. With C, it's easy: ship the LGPL library as shared
library. With Forth, there is no linking step, so you end up shipping the
source code, as well. You can ship the source code under any license you
like, NDAs, and even obfuscation is allowed (under GPL, obfuscation
obviously is only allowed when the author likes to write and maintain
obfuscated code directly, and NDA is strictly ruled out).
The difference between LGPL and GPL is that you can ship a precompiled
binary with LGPL+proprietary code, but not with GPL+proprietary code - and
only provide the relinkable source on request. Shipping such a binary
requires all the code that constitutes a "derived work" must be licensed
under GPL or a compatible license. Note that "derived work" is a copyright
term, and does not mean "everything compiled together is necessarily
derived". E.g. if you compile MINOS on top of VFX, the resulting binary is
shippable even without the LGPL exeptions, since the VFX part is (from a
copyright point of view) not derived from MINOS, and MINOS can incorporate
VFX through the "system" exception of the GPL.
pliz
Bernd, have you run MINOS of gforth BTW or are you planning to port it
once you're done with VFX port?
Thanks!
--
Sergey
Bernd Paysan
The plan is to port that in the near future (the VFX port is basically
done).
Anton Ertl
>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:41:28 GMT, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>>steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>>>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>>>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>>>code!
>>
>>The garbage collector has been released under the GPL, and I certainly
>>can release an application that uses the garbage collector, even
>>though I am a user of iForth, a commercial Forth. How the VFX license
>>comes into this scenario is beyond me. Not even the iForth license is
>>involved in this scenario.
>
>Because, according to our GPL guru, applications reliant on a GPL
>license portion must must also release their source code.
I don't see the VFX license involved here, either.
>I tend to leave the legal stuff to other people,
Maybe you should also leave giving legal advice to other people.
Sp...@controlq.com
> steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>> I tend to leave the legal stuff to other people,
>
> Maybe you should also leave giving legal advice to other people.
>
> - anton
>
With all due respect Anton, GPL does sow a lot of FUD in commercial
circles. The GPL license is somewhat viral (and intentionally so), and
even LGLP has many ambiguous interpretations. This is why commercial
vendors tend to treat GPL like the plague.
Indeed, you have probably noted the proliferation of dual licensed
software products in recent years as an enabler for commercial
opportunities. GPL for those users who will not (ever) pay, but with
"alternate" licensing arrangements for those who will, or wish to embed
technology in commercial applications.
Rob Sciuk
Andrew Haley
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
> >> I tend to leave the legal stuff to other people,
> >
> > Maybe you should also leave giving legal advice to other people.
> With all due respect Anton, GPL does sow a lot of FUD in commercial
> circles.
Oh, rubbish. The GPL does no such thing: the FUD is sown by people
who (mis)interpret it, not by the licence itself. The only way to
find out what the GPL really means is to *read the licence*. It's not
that difficult.
The biggest problem in interpretation tends to be about what, exactly,
constitutes a "derived work". This is nothing to do with the GPL
itself, but with copyright law.
Andrew.
Richard Russell
wrote:
> The biggest problem in interpretation tends to be about what, exactly,
> constitutes a "derived work".
One often sees this phrase used in the context of the GPL, but the
fact is that it (version 3) doesn't include the word "derived"
anywhere! The closest it gets is the phrase "based on". The most
relevant part of the GPL appears to be this (section 5):
"You may convey a work based on the Program .... provided that you
also .... license the entire work, as a whole, under this
License ....".
You can see why this clause worries those who may be contemplating
incorporating code licensed under the GPL in a commercial product.
The FAQ accompanying the GPL is even more explicit:
"You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
system.... However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered
software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you
must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms
length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them
effectively a single program".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.
Andrew Haley
> On 20 Oct, 16:44, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
> > The biggest problem in interpretation tends to be about what, exactly,
> > constitutes a "derived work".
> One often sees this phrase used in the context of the GPL, but the
> fact is that it (version 3) doesn't include the word "derived"
> anywhere!
Sure, but it doesn't have to: copyright law is what matters in this
case, and copyright law, at least in the US, tends to talk about
derived works. If the product in question isn't a derived work, then
the GPL can have no effect on it.
> The closest it gets is the phrase "based on". The most relevant
> part of the GPL appears to be this (section 5):
> "You may convey a work based on the Program .... provided that you
> also .... license the entire work, as a whole, under this
> License ....".
> You can see why this clause worries those who may be contemplating
> incorporating code licensed under the GPL in a commercial product.
Certainly, but it is possible. It's wholly wrong to say you can't use
GPL'd software in commercial products, or that you can't sell GPL'd
software.
> The FAQ accompanying the GPL is even more explicit:
> "You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
> system.... However, in many cases you can distribute the
> GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this
> validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs
> communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that
> would make them effectively a single program".
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
Yep. Seems pretty clear to me.
Andrew.
Anton Ertl
>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>> I tend to leave the legal stuff to other people,
>>
>> Maybe you should also leave giving legal advice to other people.
>>
>> - anton
>>
>
>With all due respect Anton, GPL does sow a lot of FUD in commercial
>circles.
It's more like: Some people spread FUD about the GPL. One such case
was the posting <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50> by Stephen Pelc.
Another example is:
>The GPL license is somewhat viral (and intentionally so), and
>even LGLP has many ambiguous interpretations. This is why commercial
>vendors tend to treat GPL like the plague.
Red Hat, Novell, IBM etc. obviously don't have as good lawyers as you
and Stephen Pelc, because they don't treat GPL like the plague;
instead, they do a lot of business with GPLed software. Or maybe they
have better advice and don't fall for the FUD.
Stephen Pelc
(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>Red Hat, Novell, IBM etc. obviously don't have as good lawyers as you
>and Stephen Pelc, because they don't treat GPL like the plague;
>instead, they do a lot of business with GPLed software. Or maybe they
>have better advice and don't fall for the FUD.
MPE does not treat GPL software like the plague. This is just the
GPL bigot's version of FUD about proprietary software.
MPE has and does contribute to FOSS projects.
Richard Russell's quotes from the GPL FAQ rather proved my
point. Since the original question was about licensing Forth
source code under GPL, I still believe that licensing Forth
source code under GPL prevents its use in proprietary applications,
but that licensing that source code under LGPL does not.
You are welcome to show me authoritative text that disproves
my point, but handwaving and cries of "FUD" provide no clarification
at all.
Richard Russell
wrote:
> It's wholly wrong to say you can't use GPL'd software in commercial
> products
It's wrong, but not "wholly wrong" because the conditions under which
it is legitimate to do so are so restrictive. The essence is
expressed succinctly by "You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software
in a proprietary system" (pretty close to "you can't use GPL'd
software in commercial products").
> Yep. Seems pretty clear to me.
The FAQ does seem to clarify the issues. Here is another snippet:
"if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two
parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate
programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing".
Sp...@controlq.com
> Richard Russell's quotes from the GPL FAQ rather proved my
> point. Since the original question was about licensing Forth
> source code under GPL, I still believe that licensing Forth
> source code under GPL prevents its use in proprietary applications,
> but that licensing that source code under LGPL does not.
>
> You are welcome to show me authoritative text that disproves
> my point, but handwaving and cries of "FUD" provide no clarification
> at all.
>
> Stephen
To be fair, Stephen, it was *I* who coined the terms FUD and "viral",
Anton was just vigorously denying how some (myself included) might
perceive the GPL. It occurs to me that Richard's quote from the GPL FAQ
does tend to support at least the "viral" nature of the license. As for
FUD, I believe that there is some.
As to the religious fervour of the adherents of GPL ...
The Almighty Stallman and his earthly prophet the Torvalds forbid that
anyone should blaspheme upon the absolute perfection which is the GPL, and
know that all other licenses are *FALSE* licenses, and the non-believers
shall be cast upon the fiery pits of ridicule ... and forced to run
Microsoft products until their brains wither ... or until the 64 bit
time_t wraps ;-)
Cheers,
Rob Sciuk
Stephen Pelc
Pelc) wrote:
>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>code!
>
>If you go with the LGPL, as Bernd did with Minos/Theseus for VFX
>Forth, then users of commercial Forths can use your code without
>conflict.
Well, that produced some conflict!
The following quotes come from:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
lines 123-132
-------------
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
-------------
My reading of this is that VFX Forth and other commercial Forths
constitute proprietary Major Components, providing that the
Major Component can be taken to include all source code shipped
in the distribution of the proprietary Forth. Alternatively you
have to treat the binaries and source code, e.g. examples, as
proprietary System Libraries. If neither of these interpretations
of the GPL hold, then the VFX Forth license does conflict with GPL
code.
This is the key to my statement of conflict btween the VFX license
and the GPL. Note also that GPLv3 is far better in this statement
than GPLv2, but it still isn't clear enough. The GPL FAQ has a useful
section about Major Components:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
However, legal documents must stand alone, and relying on an
FAQ statement is not much defence in law.
lines 151-152
-------------
The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.
-------------
That's Forth source code if the work is shipped in source form.
lines 293-295
-------------
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.
-------------
Hmmm? See my comments to lines 123-132
lines 388-396
-------------
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.
-------------
This appears to say that you cannot grant a license to GPL portion and
keep the rest of the application proprietary. However, this is the
least of the worries for authors of proprietary programs. The last
paragraph of the GPL license is below.
lines 669-674 (reformatted)
-------------
The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library,
you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary
applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use
the GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But
first, please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>.
-------------
I read this as stating that you cannot incorporate GPL code into
proprietary programs.
Andrew Haley
> On 20 Oct, 19:02, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
> > It's wholly wrong to say you can't use GPL'd software in commercial
> > products
> It's wrong, but not "wholly wrong" because the conditions under
> which it is legitimate to do so are so restrictive. The essence is
> expressed succinctly by "You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software
> in a proprietary system" (pretty close to "you can't use GPL'd
> software in commercial products").
No, it's not close at all: "proprietary" and "commercial" are not
synonyms. You certainly can use GPL'd software in commercial
products.
Andrew.
Richard Russell
wrote:
> No, it's not close at all: "proprietary" and "commercial" are not
> synonyms. You certainly can use GPL'd software in commercial
> products.
There is indeed a distinction, but most commercial software is
proprietary. I repeat what I said: the conditions under which it is
legitimate to use GPL-covered components in a commercial product are
very restrictive.
Anton Ertl
>On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:00 GMT, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>>>The GPL license is somewhat viral (and intentionally so), and
>>>even LGLP has many ambiguous interpretations. This is why commercial
>>>vendors tend to treat GPL like the plague.
>>
>>and Stephen Pelc, because they don't treat GPL like the plague;
>>instead, they do a lot of business with GPLed software. Or maybe they
>>have better advice and don't fall for the FUD.
>
>MPE does not treat GPL software like the plague. This is just the
>GPL bigot's version of FUD about proprietary software.
You mean that Sp...@ControlQ.com is a GPL bigot? And that what he
wrote is FUD about proprietary software? I have trouble following
these thoughts, maybe you can explain them.
>Richard Russell's quotes from the GPL FAQ rather proved my
>point.
If it does, please explain it to me. You made a specific claim, I
asked you a question about it, that you did not answer. Instead, you
made another claim, and you did not answer my question about it,
either.
>Since the original question was about licensing Forth
>source code under GPL, I still believe that licensing Forth
>source code under GPL prevents its use in proprietary applications,
That is certainly the intention (to prevent taking away the freedoms
that free software gives you, and to give a competetive advantage to
free software), but that's not what you originally claimed.
Whether it actually works that way depends on whether the application
is a derived work of the GPLed work or not.
Anton Ertl
>I repeat what I said: the conditions under which it is
>legitimate to use GPL-covered components in a commercial product are
>very restrictive.
They are the same as the conditions for using a GPL-covered component
in a non-commercial product, so it's not clear why you mention
commercial products in particular. Also, if you consider these
conditions very restrictive, how does that compare to other licenses,
or "license agreements" (actually contracts) for products that you
use?
Richard Russell
> They are the same as the conditions for using a GPL-covered component
> in a non-commercial product, so it's not clear why you mention
> commercial products in particular.
As I said, 'commercial' products are almost invariably also
'proprietary' so the bar on using a GPL-covered component in a
proprietary system is particularly relevant to them.
> Also, if you consider these conditions very restrictive, how does
> that compare to other licenses, or "license agreements" (actually
> contracts) for products that you use?
The only components of the software I develop, that aren't written and
owned by me, are the C library modules linked into the executable.
Those library modules are licensed in such a way that they may be
incorporated in a proprietary product without any significant
restrictions.
As a developer and vendor of commercial software I consider that, to
all intents and purposes, I cannot incorporate *any* GPL-covered code
in my products at all.
Aleksej Saushev
> Also, if you consider these [GPL]
> conditions very restrictive, how does that compare to other licenses,
> or "license agreements" (actually contracts) for products that you
> use?
Much more restrictive, because I mostly use _free_ software, that is
_not_ covered by GPL.
--
HE CE3OH...
Albert van der Horst
Don't shy back!
Actually copyright law is not on lawyers to decide, despite what
everybody thinks. What is a "derived work" is decided by expert
witnesses, that means us. Then lawyers try to understand what
expert witnesses would testify in a case that is at hand, based
on previous cases. So in a non-corrupted legal system, our
gut-feeling of what is a "derived work" is by definition almost
always about right. In particular if there is no disagreement among
experts what they would consider a derived work: that-is-the-law.
The problems start if we, the experts, ask ourselves "what would
a lawyer say" instead of stating in front of the judge and the
public what is our informed opinion.
>
>Andrew.
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Bernd Paysan
> Actually copyright law is not on lawyers to decide, despite what
> everybody thinks. What is a "derived work" is decided by expert
> witnesses, that means us.
Only in continental Europe, i.e. where civil law is based on Code Napoleon.
full name
I would suggest it is unfair to force a commercial organisation to
reveal its sensitive data (source code) to all.
Under UK law any paragraph or portion of any contract that the courts
consider "unfair" would be deemed void. (Not the whole thing, just the
unfair sections)
(Under such considerations the "fairness" to the original GPL
developers would not be a relevant issue)
All it would take to open up the GPL code to comfortable commercial
use would be for a couple of fairly low cost court judgements.
Assuming of course - the court on the day can be persuaded of
unfairness. My guess would be it could for many reasons.
Personally I have my doubts that GPL as a whole is legal. But that
would be a whole other chanllenge for those with deeper pockets.
j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernd Paysan
> I would suggest it is unfair to force a commercial organisation to
> reveal its sensitive data (source code) to all.
Nobody is forcing anybody. You can stop using GPL'd software any day.
> Under UK law any paragraph or portion of any contract that the courts
> consider "unfair" would be deemed void. (Not the whole thing, just the
> unfair sections)
How is that unfair? You get the full source of the GPL'd program free of
charge. It is just fair to demand to the same from the other side. Tit-
for-tat is the basis of fairness, read your Bible, Buddha, or Confucius if
you have any doubts about that.
> All it would take to open up the GPL code to comfortable commercial
> use would be for a couple of fairly low cost court judgements.
The GPL is fully valid, and several courts have already ruled on that.
Anton Ertl
>I would suggest it is unfair to force a commercial organisation to
>reveal its sensitive data (source code) to all.
Nobody is forcing them. If they decide that they want to incorporate
some work copyrighted by somebody else into their work, they have to
do it on the terms of the license of the incorporated work; but they
can also decide not to incorporate these works if they don't like the
license. No force involved.
I wonder if you feel that it is also unfair for me as a private
individual that, say, MPE "forces" me to pay a professional price for
the professional version of one of its products.
>Under UK law any paragraph or portion of any contract that the courts
>consider "unfair" would be deemed void. (Not the whole thing, just the
>unfair sections)
Contract law does not apply here, because a license is not a contract.
If they don't like the license, they can do with the work whatever
copyright law allows them to do without a license, i.e., "fair use"
(ah, fairness again); incorporating the whole work in their own
product and then distributing that product to any interested consumer
is not a "fair use" according to copyright law.
>All it would take to open up the GPL code to comfortable commercial
>use would be for a couple of fairly low cost court judgements.
Given that they are so low cost, and that many makers of proprietary
software have a vested interest in eliminating the copyleft aspect of
the GPL (because they want to enslave the free software and/or because
they want to discourage the authors of free software (their
competition)), one would expect that many would have already tried.
However, only a few have tried, and those who tried it, have lost; so
you can be pretty sure that the GPL is solid.
>Personally I have my doubts that GPL as a whole is legal. But that
>would be a whole other chanllenge for those with deeper pockets.
Oh, come on, you said yourself that it's fairly low cost.
Aleksej Saushev
>> All it would take to open up the GPL code to comfortable commercial
>> use would be for a couple of fairly low cost court judgements.
>
> The GPL is fully valid, and several courts have already ruled on that.
This doesn't apply universally.
--
HE CE3OH...
Jerry Avins
I have no right to force you to remove your shoes, but I have a right to
require that you not wear shoes in my house. No force is involved there;
you're free to stay out of my house.
I have no right to force you to reveal your source code, but I have a
right to require you to reveal it if you incorporate my copyrighted
work. No force is involved there; you're free to ignore my work.
Is there a philosophical difference between those statements?
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Stephen Pelc
(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>It's more like: Some people spread FUD about the GPL. One such case
>was the posting <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50> by Stephen Pelc.
I posted an explanation of my reading of the GPL with quotations and
interpretation on 20 October. There has been no response. I can only
assume that you agree with my interpretation or cannot refute it.
Thomas Pornin
> I have no right to force you to remove your shoes, but I have a right to
> require that you not wear shoes in my house. No force is involved there;
> you're free to stay out of my house.
>
> I have no right to force you to reveal your source code, but I have a
> right to require you to reveal it if you incorporate my copyrighted
> work. No force is involved there; you're free to ignore my work.
>
> Is there a philosophical difference between those statements?
There is always the root difference between "property" and "intellectual
property". If you burn my house, then I have no house anymore. If you
copy my code onto a CD and then burn the CD, then I still have my code.
That which is covered by intellectual property can be duplicated, and
grabbing some of it does not necessarily mean than someone else is
deprived of the part which is grabbed. This is quite distinct from
tangible goods.
Whether intellectual property is a kind of property is subject to
debate; but at least that discrepancy means that analogies drawn between
software licenses and mundane objects are doomed to fall apart at some
point. Here, one could argue that the ability to copy and incorporate
your code is a basic freedom, which is not by nature to be limited in
any way since it entails no reduction of the abilities of anyone else;
as the saying goes, one's freedom stops only where someone's else
freedom starts. In that view, any restriction (such as embodied by a
license) is an un-natural arbitrary coercion, entitled to be denoted
with the "force" term. I am not saying that I share that viewpoint; but
I know some people who do. In "house" terms, it means that the GPL is
akin to requiring people walking in the _street_ to remove their shoes.
Briefly speaking, invoking the obvious may end up showing that not
everybody has the same notion of "obvious".
--Thomas Pornin
Jerry Avins
I like your analysis. My view is simple. Intellectual property, provided
one can imagine a circumstance in which income can be derived from it,
is property according to the distinction you made in your first
sentence. Suppose you "borrow" my rowboat to cross a river, then later
return with it and tie it where you found it. Stipulate that I was in no
way inconvenienced by its temporary absence. Did you have the
unrestricted right to do that? Would that right survive if I ran a boat
rental dock?
Aleksej Saushev
> I like your analysis. My view is simple. Intellectual property,
> provided one can imagine a circumstance in which income can be
> derived from it, is property according to the distinction you
> made in your first sentence. Suppose you "borrow" my rowboat to
> cross a river, then later return with it and tie it where you
> found it. Stipulate that I was in no way inconvenienced by its
> temporary absence. Did you have the unrestricted right to do
> that? Would that right survive if I ran a boat rental dock?
I wonder how long it takes to discover Proudhon's works.
--
HE CE3OH...
Jerry Avins
Proudhon seems to have been a crypto-anarchist. does he count?
Aleksej Saushev
> I like your analysis. My view is simple. Intellectual property,
> provided one can imagine a circumstance in which income can be
> derived from it, is property according to the distinction you
> made in your first sentence. Suppose you "borrow" my rowboat to
> cross a river, then later return with it and tie it where you
> found it. Stipulate that I was in no way inconvenienced by its
> temporary absence. Did you have the unrestricted right to do
> that? Would that right survive if I ran a boat rental dock?
I wonder how long it takes to discover Proudhon's works.
--
HE CE3OH...
Andrew Haley
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:00 GMT, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
> (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>>It's more like: Some people spread FUD about the GPL. One such case
>>was the posting <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50> by Stephen Pelc.
>
> I posted an explanation of my reading of the GPL with quotations and
> interpretation on 20 October. There has been no response. I can only
> assume that you agree with my interpretation or cannot refute it.
I'm looking at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/bdf53e64cfdad1bb?hl=en&dmode=source
which seems to be <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50>
I don't know which part of that posting Anton is complaining about: it
all seems reasonable to me.
Andrew.
Aleksej Saushev
> Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>> I like your analysis. My view is simple. Intellectual property,
>>> provided one can imagine a circumstance in which income can be
>>> derived from it, is property according to the distinction you
>>> made in your first sentence. Suppose you "borrow" my rowboat to
>>> cross a river, then later return with it and tie it where you
>>> found it. Stipulate that I was in no way inconvenienced by its
>>> temporary absence. Did you have the unrestricted right to do
>>> that? Would that right survive if I ran a boat rental dock?
>>
>> I wonder how long it takes to discover Proudhon's works.
>
> Proudhon seems to have been a crypto-anarchist. does he count?
"Santa Claus wears a Red Suit."
You seem to agree with anarchist views popularized by Makhno and
quoted above by Thomas, senator McCarthy wouldn't like it.
Unfortunatly for you, those who analysed property in past
used to share specific views, otherwise they wouldn't do
what they did. Those who didn't share those views didn't
need any analysis. They simply believed.
--
HE CE3OH...
Anton Ertl
>I posted an explanation of my reading of the GPL with quotations and
>interpretation on 20 October.
Message-Id?
>There has been no response. I can only
>assume that you agree with my interpretation or cannot refute it.
Other explanations are that I have not seen it, that I have not found
the time to read it thoroughly and answer it, or that I have found
that I have had enough of your evasive style of discussion in this
thread (never answering my questions, but replying with an unrelated
claim).
Anton Ertl
>Stephen Pelc <steph...@mpeforth.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:00 GMT, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>> (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>>
>>>It's more like: Some people spread FUD about the GPL. One such case
>>>was the posting <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50> by Stephen Pelc.
>I'm looking at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/bdf53e64cfdad1bb?hl=en&dmode=source
>which seems to be <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50>
>
>I don't know which part of that posting Anton is complaining about: it
>all seems reasonable to me.
I cited the unreasonable part in
<2009Oct1...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> and showed why I
consider it unreasonable.
Anton Ertl
>Whether intellectual property is a kind of property is subject to
>debate;
Why do you use that term at all? It throws together various things
that have little to do with each other. In the present case we were
talking about copyright, so why don't you just talk about copyright,
too?
>Here, one could argue that the ability to copy and incorporate
>your code is a basic freedom, which is not by nature to be limited in
>any way since it entails no reduction of the abilities of anyone else;
>as the saying goes, one's freedom stops only where someone's else
>freedom starts. In that view, any restriction (such as embodied by a
>license) is an un-natural arbitrary coercion, entitled to be denoted
>with the "force" term.
A license does not restrict, a license gives permission. If a license
tries to restrict what would otherwise be allowed (e.g., if it tried
to forbid selling a book second-hand), you can just ignore the license
and do what you are allowed to do ("license agreements", i.e.,
contracts, are trickier, though).
Concerning the basic freedom to copy and incorporate the code, you are
right, but the current copyright laws don't see it that way and don't
allow you to copy and incorporate my or Stephen Pelc's code by
default. You need a license to do that, and the GPL allows that, but
also ensures that you cannot then take away that basic freedom from
others.
Stephen Pelc
(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>I posted an explanation of my reading of the GPL with quotations and
>>interpretation on 20 October.
>
>Message-Id?
Message-ID: <4ade4100....@192.168.0.50>
Bernd Paysan
> Whether intellectual property is a kind of property is subject to
> debate; but at least that discrepancy means that analogies drawn between
> software licenses and mundane objects are doomed to fall apart at some
> point. Here, one could argue that the ability to copy and incorporate
> your code is a basic freedom, which is not by nature to be limited in
> any way since it entails no reduction of the abilities of anyone else;
> as the saying goes, one's freedom stops only where someone's else
> freedom starts. In that view, any restriction (such as embodied by a
> license) is an un-natural arbitrary coercion, entitled to be denoted
> with the "force" term.
This is quite close to the copyleft idea. The point why there is a GPL
license is that we don't live in the copyleft universe. We live in a super-
symmetric copyright universe, where it is allowed to force people with
licenses and to treat copyright like physical property.
The ability to copy and incorporate other code into your code is granted by
the GPL (it's part of the four freedoms) - given that you "join" the
copyleft universe, as well, and grant that right for your code to others,
too.
Economists who have analyzed the effects or rather damages of "intellectual
property rights" (which are just intellectual monopoly grants by the state)
like Boldrin and Levine have come to the conclusion, that copyleft
"restrictions" (i.e. the denial to turn code into trade secrets and treat it
like property) has a good effect, and therefore should be kept, even when
copyright by and large is abandoned. Note that these people look at the
economy as a whole thing, not at the economic situation of individual
contributors (e.g. Microsoft certainly profits a lot from copyright - but
the rest of the world, at the whim of Microsoft, suffers).
Andrew Haley
> Andrew Haley <a...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >Stephen Pelc <steph...@mpeforth.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:54:00 GMT, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
> >> (Anton Ertl) wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's more like: Some people spread FUD about the GPL. One such case
> >>>was the posting <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50> by Stephen Pelc.
> ...
> >I'm looking at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/bdf53e64cfdad1bb?hl=en&dmode=source
> >which seems to be <4ad760cf....@192.168.0.50>
> >
> >I don't know which part of that posting Anton is complaining about: it
> >all seems reasonable to me.
> I cited the unreasonable part in
> <2009Oct1...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> and showed why I
> consider it unreasonable.
Well, your reply was too subtle for me. Steve said:
>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>code!
Presumably he understands the VFX licence well enough to say this.
It's well-known that some software licences conflict in such a way
that no combined works are possible. I have no idea whether the GPL
and the VFX licence are incompatible in that way, but it doesn't seem
impossible.
Andrew.
Thomas Pornin
> We live in a super-symmetric copyright universe, where it is allowed
> to force people with licenses and to treat copyright like physical
> property.
I know that. My point is that treating copyright like physical property
is an arbitrary convention, which could have been taken otherwise. I am
not saying that it is bad or good or whatever, only that it does not
logically follows from the rules which govern physical property. To the
point that analogies drawn between physical property and intellectual
property are ineffective: such analogies work only by illustration of
the obvious, and there is nothing obvious here. There is just an
arbitrary convention.
In other words, the GPL does not "force" anybody to do anything because
it is conventionally accepted that the default legal state of source
code is "do not ever think of touching it". Thus, GPL grants freedom,
instead of restricting freedom. However, there are various schools of
thought on the subject, one of which asserting that the current default
legal state is an accidental historical byproduct, and that the
"natural" legal state of source code is "do what you want with it". In
that view, any license other than public domain is by essence
restrictive, and thus "forces" people. That view is not compatible with
what is currently sanctioned by the Law, but it is a valid philosophical
standpoint, held by many people, and cannot be dispelled by logic, much
less by analogies with physical property. Such analogies simply show
that, really, source code and houses are not the same kind of thing.
--Thomas Pornin
Albert van der Horst
Are Microsoft pockets big enough? They refrain from challenging.
>
>Assuming of course - the court on the day can be persuaded of
>unfairness. My guess would be it could for many reasons.
>
>Personally I have my doubts that GPL as a whole is legal. But that
>would be a whole other chanllenge for those with deeper pockets.
The answer is simple. You don't want to comply with GPL wrt program
A? You write program A yourself.
The same as:
You don't want to pay for Windows? You write it yourself.
(As Linus did.)
>j
Groetjes Albert
Albert van der Horst
Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>Thomas Pornin wrote:
>> According to Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org>:
>>
>> debate; but at least that discrepancy means that analogies drawn between
>> software licenses and mundane objects are doomed to fall apart at some
>> point. Here, one could argue that the ability to copy and incorporate
>> your code is a basic freedom, which is not by nature to be limited in
>> any way since it entails no reduction of the abilities of anyone else;
>> as the saying goes, one's freedom stops only where someone's else
>> freedom starts. In that view, any restriction (such as embodied by a
>> license) is an un-natural arbitrary coercion, entitled to be denoted
>> with the "force" term. I am not saying that I share that viewpoint; but
>> I know some people who do. In "house" terms, it means that the GPL is
>> akin to requiring people walking in the _street_ to remove their shoes.
>>
>> Briefly speaking, invoking the obvious may end up showing that not
>> everybody has the same notion of "obvious".
>
>I like your analysis. My view is simple. Intellectual property, provided
>one can imagine a circumstance in which income can be derived from it,
>is property according to the distinction you made in your first
>sentence. Suppose you "borrow" my rowboat to cross a river, then later
>return with it and tie it where you found it. Stipulate that I was in no
>way inconvenienced by its temporary absence. Did you have the
>unrestricted right to do that? Would that right survive if I ran a boat
>rental dock?
His analysis sucks pretty much. He wants to abandon IP altogether!
Then applies it only on GPL, not to other things.
Abandoning IP altogether is okay in my book. If someone sings a tune
in the street, I can sing whatever I remember. I can record a song
with it. If I have a song on record, I can copy it and make copies.
Those copies are physical objects that I can sell. If someone does an
invention, I hear about it, I implement it in the cars I sell. The
world would be a worse place on some accounts and a better place on
some others.
But ...
what I sketched is in fact the natural, and legal situation.
IP is only temporal! So, let's do it again.
If I have a song on record, I can copy it and make copies. Those
copies are physical objects that I can sell. This is perfectly legal.
AS LONG AS THE SONG IS RECORDED A SUFFICIENTLY LONG TIME AGO.
In mathematical terms: it is almost always legal.
Changing legislation is seriously worth considering, IP has gone too
far. It has begun to look like extortion a long time ago.
Back to your example:
So you can't earn a bit by having a rental dock for boats.
Boats are all free, and all over the place. And there is no
law in place that can force you for paying for it.
Your example suck big time.
A better example would be this. You sell air. If your client
wouldn't pay, you strangle his throat. This looks like a
nice business model where the client is likely to pay.
Fortunately there is no legal basis for this kind of business.
>Jerry
Groetjes Albert
P.S. On a practical note: I predict that in the end Intel will have
the rights to the SEAFORTH chip, TPL will gain money in the process,
Chuck Moore will loose money, and I will never be able to buy a chip
to play with.
Thomas Pornin
> His analysis sucks pretty much. He wants to abandon IP altogether!
I do ? Oh my !
--Thomas Pornin
Jerry Avins
I don't think he said that. He _did_ say that it was one view, not
necessarily his.
> Abandoning IP altogether is okay in my book. If someone sings a tune
> in the street, I can sing whatever I remember. I can record a song
> with it. If I have a song on record, I can copy it and make copies.
> Those copies are physical objects that I can sell. If someone does an
> invention, I hear about it, I implement it in the cars I sell. The
> world would be a worse place on some accounts and a better place on
> some others.
> But ...
> what I sketched is in fact the natural, and legal situation.
> IP is only temporal! So, let's do it again.
>
> If I have a song on record, I can copy it and make copies. Those
> copies are physical objects that I can sell. This is perfectly legal.
> AS LONG AS THE SONG IS RECORDED A SUFFICIENTLY LONG TIME AGO.
> In mathematical terms: it is almost always legal.
>
> Changing legislation is seriously worth considering, IP has gone too
> far. It has begun to look like extortion a long time ago.
It has indeed gone too far in some instances. Is that any worse than not
far enough?
> Back to your example:
> So you can't earn a bit by having a rental dock for boats.
> Boats are all free, and all over the place. And there is no
> law in place that can force you for paying for it.
> Your example suck big time.
I had to buy the boat and keep it caulked. I wouldn't do that if I
couldn't get paid for it. Take away my fee, and you'll end up needing to
carry your own boat. Instead of boat, think car. You have to pay for a
car if you want the convenience of renting one at the airport or parking
one in your garage.
> A better example would be this. You sell air. If your client
> wouldn't pay, you strangle his throat. This looks like a
> nice business model where the client is likely to pay.
> Fortunately there is no legal basis for this kind of business.
Does some things being owned in common imply that all things are?
> Groetjes Albert
>
> P.S. On a practical note: I predict that in the end Intel will have
> the rights to the SEAFORTH chip, TPL will gain money in the process,
> Chuck Moore will loose money, and I will never be able to buy a chip
> to play with.
Yes. That's too bad. Would it be better for people to protect their
inventions with guns?
full name
wrote:
>
>The GPL is fully valid, and several courts have already ruled on that.
A professional opinion was requested - you now have one.
(Purely by chance I may add - this is a friends computer I happened to
be visiting - I have no great intrinsic interest in this.)
US courts are mostly irrelevant to the issue globally.
An example that may suprise some:
As I understand it reverse engineering is illegal in the US.
In Europe it is perfectly legal largely regardless of any clause or
condition of license as a clear legal precedent has already been set.
(In this instance I do mean Europe not specifically the UK)
You have my opinions on a few issues so I shan't repeat them
but a license is a contract and is generally subject to the same
deliberations. And often more.
The GPL license and derivatives could be legally challenged in
many ways, not least of which could be restraint of trade. It was a
simple example.The issue of coercion is also very real in this case
generally (especially in an arenas predominated by GPL such as the
Linux world.) Paradoxically the GPL license makes such cases stronger
not weaker in those environments.
Righteous indignation is neither law nor arguament.
I have given you considered opinion as requested. You can choose to
ignore it of course. After all it is only an opinion. Perhaps I should
have avoided trying to give possible examples.
If you want actual law and potential law cited, for that there is a
fee to be paid.
j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
idknow
> Contract law does not apply here, because a license is not a contract.
Hello folks;
On this point I'd like to offer the following:
1. Since the 1930s all law and contract, within all jurisdictions of
nations based on English law and other non-English countries, all
controversies are evaluated by courts in terms of negotiable
instruments contemporarily called ``Uniform Laws'';
2. the maxim is that All contracts are law, private law between the
parties to the contract;
3. In all laws, there are elements of contract-law requiring a party's
agreement to comply, to do or to not do something;
4. a "license" is permission from one party to another to do something
that is othewise illegal or unlawful. The permission can be private,
as in, my implied permission to Anton to quote this reply using my
name. Actually, on Usenet/Google-groups, that permission is implied
also because of the nature of Usenet. Or the permission can be
explicit, as in, the acquiring of a Permit from local government to
setup a Farmer's Market on some undeveloped land or an unused parking
lot, or to solicit money from the traveling public on the road to some
charitable purpose. Fire departments often use this method.
My point is that law and contract are inextricably linked and can not
be separated. Contract can be explicit or implied; written or parol.
(spoken) Every contract is an agreement and every agreement is a
contract.
The constitution of the UNITED STATES (federal) has the phrase
"consent of the governed." This phrase does not refer to the members
of We the People, but to the things that are legislated into
existence; that is, corporations. We the People didn't surrender our
individual and collective rights to congress, we just gave them some
of our rights so that congress could manage those things that were
enumerated as being under their control. The fourteenth amendment to
the constitution refers to (abridged, paraphrased) "persons born in
the district of Columbia ... and subject to congress." We the People
are not "person" -- person is a corporation, trust, partnership or one
of its agent-representatives; ie, a lawyer, or an officer of the
corporation.
I hope this helps.
idknow
Hello folks;
Thomas, I disagree that property and intellectual-property are
different. The word "intellectual" is a modifier of the word
"property" and as such does not specify a new kind of object to be
made, formed, created, traded, transferred or hoarded. :)
Property is the word used to gather all the rights together that a Man
has concerning objects, whether real or imagined (software) or
intangible. In the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) the word "rights" is
defined as "remedy" which means that if I perceive a violation of my
property, I have a remedy, either by private complaint to the
offending party or to a judicial proceeding
On the matter of someone "burning my house down", My choice of remedy
is to file a tort complaint with the clerk of courts naming the
arsonist. A Tort is a private action of wrong against me; no
government official need be involved.
[snipd]
> There is always the root difference between "property" and "intellectual
> property". If you burn my house, then I have no house anymore.
[snipd]
> Whether intellectual property is a kind of property is subject to
> debate;
All property exists because one Man or another thinks he possesses
it. Either he does or he doesn't. Since property is an abstract
mental condition, it is ALL intellectual. There's no physicality in
"property" as referring to one's rights.
Land is never sold, it's given away; read a deed to see. The same is
also true of your car, boat, really big-ticket items. The house on
the land is given to government as improvement to land. What is sold,
traded, exchanged is the right[s] to the land and the permanant things
built upon it.
[snipd]
> --Thomas Pornin
hope this helps.
Jonah Thomas
> Thomas Pornin <por...@bolet.org> wrote:
> Thomas, I disagree that property and intellectual-property are
> different. The word "intellectual" is a modifier of the word
> "property" and as such does not specify a new kind of object to be
> made, formed, created, traded, transferred or hoarded. :)
These are subtle words that connect to deep pschological meanings which
do not necessarily make sense.
MINE has deep resonances. My cookie. My icecream. My bowl. My spoon. I
had a blue bowl with a picture of Roy Rogers on the bottom. Nobody used
it but me. One time I found my father using my bowl and I had a
screaming tantrum until he gave up and switched to another bowl. Later
it broke and my mother showed me the pieces. I cried and cried. We
haven't done that with my children. Every now and then they get special
children's dishes but there are always two of them and I use them
sometimes.
In theory we each have the right to remain 100% unharmed by other
people, and anybody who harms you had better make it up to you. I wish I
could find whoever it was that gave me the swine flue and make him pay
me about $6000. Also he should clean my house. But for all I know I may
have passed it on....
> Property is the word used to gather all the rights together that a Man
> has concerning objects, whether real or imagined (software) or
> intangible. In the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) the word "rights" is
> defined as "remedy" which means that if I perceive a violation of my
> property, I have a remedy, either by private complaint to the
> offending party or to a judicial proceeding
We try to turn those into clear crisp concepts, and they just are not.
When it's people having to somehow get along with each other in reality,
it takes a lot of common sense and give-and-take. Consider water rights.
In the east where there's adequate water people naturally felt that you
don't own total control of running water just because it passes through
land you own. You have obligations to the community, and the community
has obligations to you. If you want to dam off the stream to build a
lake just for you, leaving nothing for anybody downstream, that's
something you'd better settle with your neighbors and the solutions are
not necessarily simple or obvious.
In the US west, though, where it's easy to die of thirst, they decided
on a different approach. The first one to divert the water to use it for
something profitable -- stockponds, dust reduction, snow-making etc --
establishes his right to the water. The more he uses, the more he has a
right to. As long as no one is making money off the water nobody has a
right to it, but as soon as you find a way to suck it away at a profit,
it's yours.
> On the matter of someone "burning my house down", My choice of remedy
> is to file a tort complaint with the clerk of courts naming the
> arsonist. A Tort is a private action of wrong against me; no
> government official need be involved.
> [snipd]
>
> > There is always the root difference between "property" and
> > "intellectual property". If you burn my house, then I have no house
> > anymore.
>
> [snipd]
>
> > Whether intellectual property is a kind of property is subject to
> > debate;
>
> All property exists because one Man or another thinks he possesses
> it. Either he does or he doesn't. Since property is an abstract
> mental condition, it is ALL intellectual. There's no physicality in
> "property" as referring to one's rights.
That's right! It is entirely a shared fantasy.
> Land is never sold, it's given away; read a deed to see. The same is
> also true of your car, boat, really big-ticket items. The house on
> the land is given to government as improvement to land. What is sold,
> traded, exchanged is the right[s] to the land and the permanant things
> built upon it.
>
> hope this helps.
Probably not. The ideas are deeply rooted and they don't have to make
sense. MINE!
A few months ago I was looking over an algorithm and came up with some
improvements that were far better than anything I could find on the net.
And it was something important for computer graphics! Of course I looked
at how to patent it. At the absolute cheapest I might manage at about
#4000. $8000 looked more reasonable. And there are always the
#incidentals that come in when you feed lawyers.... I wouldn't know
#whether it was patentable at all until the professional search was
#completed. Even then it could fail. Ten years later somebody might find
#the methods had been published in 1934 in the Bavarian Journal of
#Undergraduate Excursions and that's prior publication. A patent is the
#right to sue -- to feed more lawyers. Better to sell the patent rights
#and let somebody play that game who has kennels of lawyers. Would
#anyone want to buy? I wouldn't find out until I had a patent to sell
#them. In the meantime the lawyers would tell me how enthusiastic they
#were about our chances.
What did I know about advanced computer graphics? Maybe none of that
stuff gets put on the net. And it seemed like the big money would be in
graphics hardware, but how do you tell whether they're infringing your
design? Their stuff is designed by GA AIs anyway, the hardware graphics
guys probably don't know themselves what their chips are doing. So I
think for this sort of thing the best approach is to first establish
your work, and then go to an expert in the field who is not competing on
that topic, and ask his advice. That will cost money but at least it
gets you advice from an expert instead of a lawyer. If he suggests you
follow a patent then I can't suggest a way to choose an IP lawyer except
that your mother's cousin's husband should probably not be far in the
lead.
So -- the patent process -- a long involved sequence of deadlines,
retypings, extension requests, new deadlines, etc. You have to spend
money to get money. Only, if I could write up my method in an
interesting way -- make it clear and fun to read -- I could probably
find someplace that would pay me a few thousand dollars for it. I get
the money now. Not a lot but enough for my time. I get to spread the
ideas. If somebody tells me it's been done before in prewar japan I can
nod my head and say "very interesting". It seems like there's good
reason to stay away from the IP trap.
And yet, and yet, when that insidious idea of me getting a royalty on
every graphics hardware chip in the world first insinuated itself, is it
any wonder I'd say MINE!
Bernd Paysan
>>The GPL is fully valid, and several courts have already ruled on that.
>
> A professional opinion was requested - you now have one.
Doesn't sound very professional to me. Come on, the GPL was found valid
in various courts in the US, Germany, France, and maybe other countries.
This is a really professional opinion.
> The GPL license and derivatives could be legally challenged in
> many ways, not least of which could be restraint of trade.
All copyright is extreme restraint of trade - you aren't allowed to
trade copies of copyrighted stuff without permission of the right holder
at all - it is a criminal offence to do so. Depending on the
jurisdiction even for originals (not in Europe, but certainly in the US;
Microsoft prevents their OEMs to resell OEM versions without hardware).
> If you want actual law and potential law cited, for that there is a
> fee to be paid.
Sorry, the free of charge advice was already so bad that it's not worth
to pay for more crap ;-).
Sp...@controlq.com
> MINE has deep resonances. My cookie. My icecream. My bowl. My spoon. I
> had a blue bowl with a picture of Roy Rogers on the bottom. Nobody used
> it but me. One time I found my father using my bowl and I had a
> screaming tantrum until he gave up and switched to another bowl. Later
> it broke and my mother showed me the pieces. I cried and cried. We
> haven't done that with my children. Every now and then they get special
> children's dishes but there are always two of them and I use them
> sometimes.
I seem to recall that the Roy Rogers' show was pre-empted for JFK's
funeral. Boy was I mad! Still, I can understand how you might want an
exclusive license on your Roy Rogers bowl. Makes perfect sense to me.
Cheers,
Rob.
Anton Ertl
>Well, your reply was too subtle for me. Steve said:
>
>>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>>code!
>
>Presumably he understands the VFX licence well enough to say this.
>It's well-known that some software licences conflict in such a way
>that no combined works are possible.
Yes. But his claim was far more far-reaching: He claimed that, if
Zuvuya releases code (let's call it Z) under GPL, no user of any
commercial Forth can release an application (let's call it A) based on
Z, apparently irrespective of the license of A; and somehow the VFX
license achieves this interesting feat. Given that the only pieces of
software combined in this scenario are Z and A, I don't see that the
VFX license has any say in this, nor that it plays any role that the
programmer of A used some commercial Forth at some time.
Anton Ertl
>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:03:18 GMT, steph...@mpeforth.com (Stephen
>Pelc) wrote:
>
>>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
>>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
>>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
>>code!
>The following quotes come from:
> GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 3, 29 June 2007
>
>lines 123-132
>-------------
> The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
>than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
>packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
>Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
>Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
>implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
>"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
>(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
>(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
>produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
>-------------
>
>My reading of this is that VFX Forth and other commercial Forths
>constitute proprietary Major Components
Whether they are proprietary depends on their licenses. For VFX Forth
you know, but have you studied all of them?
In any case, the Forth system and its license only comes into play if
somebody produces a derived work of the Forth system (e.g., a turnkey
executable of the application); that's not required in the scenario
you described.
>I read this as stating that you cannot incorporate GPL code into
>proprietary programs.
Yes. So if Zuvuya licenses his code under the GPL, a user who wants
to release an application that is derived from Zuvuya's code can only
distribute that application under a GPL-compatible (free) software
license. But the user can release that application. The VFX Forth
license does not come into play unless the user wants to release a
work that's derived from both Zuvuya's code and from VFX Forth.
Andrew Haley
> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >Well, your reply was too subtle for me. Steve said:
> >
> >>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
> >>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
> >>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
> >>code!
> >
> >Presumably he understands the VFX licence well enough to say this.
> >It's well-known that some software licences conflict in such a way
> >that no combined works are possible.
> Yes. But his claim was far more far-reaching: He claimed that, if
> Zuvuya releases code (let's call it Z) under GPL, no user of any
> commercial Forth can release an application (let's call it A) based on
> Z, apparently irrespective of the license of A; and somehow the VFX
> license achieves this interesting feat.
Oh, I see. I understand that the cited paragraph could be interpreted
that way, but it's such an absurd interpretation that I didn't give it
a thought. Clearly, it only applies to combinations of VFX Forth and
GPL'd code.
Andrew.
Stephen Pelc
<andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>Anton Ertl <an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Yes. But his claim was far more far-reaching: He claimed that, if
>> Zuvuya releases code (let's call it Z) under GPL, no user of any
>> commercial Forth can release an application (let's call it A) based on
>> Z, apparently irrespective of the license of A; and somehow the VFX
>> license achieves this interesting feat.
>
>Oh, I see. I understand that the cited paragraph could be interpreted
>that way, but it's such an absurd interpretation that I didn't give it
>a thought. Clearly, it only applies to combinations of VFX Forth and
>GPL'd code.
There are plenty of examples of apparently absurd interpretations
being upheld in court.
My points were about proprietary apps for which source code is
not generally available.
If a proprietary Forth can be treated as a "Major Component" or
"System Library" then there is no conflict between a GPLv3 library
and the VFX Forth license. I've said this before.
The last paragraph of the GPLv3 specifically says that you cannot
ship a proprietary app dependent on GPL code. The consequence of
this is that if App A depends on GPL library Z which in turn is
dependent on VFX Forth, then the conditions of the GPL for Z
require the author to make source code for A available.
Bernd Paysan
> The last paragraph of the GPLv3 specifically says that you cannot
> ship a proprietary app dependent on GPL code. The consequence of
> this is that if App A depends on GPL library Z which in turn is
> dependent on VFX Forth, then the conditions of the GPL for Z
> require the author to make source code for A available.
Of course. However, that's even true if Z is under LGPL, because the LGPL
requires the application to be "relinkable to another version of the LGPL'd
library". Since libraries in Forth are source libraries, and not object
libraries as in C, "relinking" means "recompiling". Therefore, the author
has to make source code for A available anyway or ask for a special
permission by the author (which may cost some Euros).
Sidenote on the "GPL on VFX" problem: the GPL allows special permissions
from the author. E.g. I ship a MINOS program which uses the FTDI library.
The FTDI library is a proprietary library that might or might not fall under
this "System Library"/"Major Component" condition, but I can clarify: I just
add a special permission to distribute this library alongside my GPL
program.
So if Zuvuya writes a GPL program to be shipped with VFX, Zuvuya would also
write a special permission, where he states that shipping VFX together with
his GPL program is ok - e.g. he states that his interpretation of the
"System Library" means VFX is such a "System Library" or "Major Component"
for his program. If such a special permission or clarification is written
by the author, it's binding, because the only one who can sue you over
license violations is the copyright owner himself.
Of course anybody redistributing such a work can always drop all special
permissions (including the LGPLv3, which is also just a special permission
added to the GPLv3). E.g. if someone else ports Zuvuya's program to Gforth,
where the special permission is no longer necessary, he can also drop the
special permission.
Anton Ertl
It may seem absurd to you, but that's what he wrote. And I would not
be surprised if some others did not recognize that it is absurd.
Especially since there are some people around who spread all kinds of
FUD about GPL.
>Clearly, it only applies to combinations of VFX Forth and
>GPL'd code.
That may be clear to you, but is it clear to everyone? I doubt it. I
especially doubt that it is clear to someone who knows very little
about copyright law (which seems to be the intended audience of the
statement).
Andrew Haley
> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >Anton Ertl <an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> >> Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> >> >Well, your reply was too subtle for me. Steve said:
> >> >
> >> >>If you really want to release your code under GPL, the VFX Forth
> >> >>license and the GPL license conflict in such a way that no user
> >> >>of any commercial Forth can release applications based on your
> >> >>code!
> >> >
> >> >Presumably he understands the VFX licence well enough to say this.
> >> >It's well-known that some software licences conflict in such a way
> >> >that no combined works are possible.
> >
> >> Yes. But his claim was far more far-reaching: He claimed that,
> >> if Zuvuya releases code (let's call it Z) under GPL, no user of
> >> any commercial Forth can release an application (let's call it A)
> >> based on Z, apparently irrespective of the license of A; and
> >> somehow the VFX license achieves this interesting feat.
> >
> >Oh, I see. I understand that the cited paragraph could be
> >interpreted that way, but it's such an absurd interpretation that I
> >didn't give it a thought.
> It may seem absurd to you, but that's what he wrote.
I don't think so. I suppose we shall have to agree to differ.
Andrew.