This is a quote of one person's opinions, not of a decided case, so it needs to be understood in that light.
> "A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its > software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights > are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking > to control external activities and subject matter namely, the use of > independent programs.
Fortunately, the GPL does not prohibit this, so any analysis of the consequences of such a prohibition is irrelevant to the GPL.
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> A covered work means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program. .... You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
Uh stupid Hyman... yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL doesn't cover non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka collective works, aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak).
"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)"
Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49) Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49) Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
ICE MILLER One American Square Box 82001 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 317.236.2100
regards, alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
"What I mean is that the purpose of copyright is (as Yglesias says) to encourage creation of works -- by (as Bunch says) "protect[ing] the intellectual property created by artists so they are rewarded for their efforts." But what's important isn't what I think; what really matters is what Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme Court, said in footnote 18 of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) about this very subject:
Justice Stevens’ characterization of reward to the author as “a secondary consideration” of copyright law, post, at 6, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted), understates the relationship between such rewards and the “Progress of Science.” As we have explained, “[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause … is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). Accordingly, “copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge…. The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science.” American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (SDNY 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913 (CA2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and “promot[ing] … Progress” are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright “[t]he public good fully coincides … with the claims of individuals.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Justice Breyer’s assertion that “copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends” post, at 6, similarly misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones. "
regards, alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL > doesn't cover non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka collective > works, aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak).
You are wrong in every way. Permission from the rights holders of components is is required in order to copy and distribute a collective work which contains those components, and such a collective work may or may not be "mere aggregation" as defined by the GPL depending on the nature of the collective work.
You are very confused. Copyright law indeed does not require permission from the rights holders of components in order to create a collective work containing them if the collective work is not a derivative work. However, copyright law does not give the creator of the collective work the right to copy and distribute the components without permission. For GPL-covered works, the GPL uses the nature of the collective work to determine how it may be copied and distributed.
> [t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause is the conviction > that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way > to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties.
> For GPL-covered works, the GPL uses the nature of the collective > work to determine how it may be copied and distributed.
Go to doctor, Hyman.
regards, alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 4/1/2010 9:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL doesn't cover >> non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka collective works, aka >> "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak).
> You are wrong in every way. Permission from the rights holders of > components is is required in order to copy and distribute a > collective work which contains those components, and such a > collective work may or may not be "mere aggregation" as defined by > the GPL depending on the nature of the collective work.
> You are very confused. Copyright law indeed does not require > permission from the rights holders of components in order to create a > collective work containing them if the collective work is not a > derivative work. However, copyright law does not give the creator of > the collective work the right to copy and distribute the components > without permission. For GPL-covered works, the GPL uses the nature of > the collective work to determine how it may be copied and > distributed.
Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you sit around and dream about it first?
Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 4/1/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> [t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause is the >> conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal >> gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents >> of authors and inventors.
CAFC:
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Traditionally, > copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for > money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing > should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic > consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including > economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted > works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license > royalties.
CAFC:
"Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. ... The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc).
"as is evident on the face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement ... "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)"
"In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law[1] or by binding arbitration. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises with a specific remedy for breach."
regards, alexander.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf > "as is evident on the face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is > the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing > agreement ... "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract > conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." > Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)"
Rather, <http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf>: Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005).
The quote about contracts merely reinforces the fact that the court can read the GPL for itself, and not rely on cranks who misinterpret it. It does not imply that the GPL is a contract.
Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 4/3/2010 8:00 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "as is evident on the >> face of the agreement itself ... the GPL, which is the target of >> Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement >> ... "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract >> conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract >> controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 >> (7th Cir. 2005)"
[...] > The quote about contracts merely reinforces the fact that the court > can read the GPL for itself, and not rely on cranks who misinterpret > it.
Thanks for removing solipsistic deniers like yourself from the picture.
> It does not imply that the GPL is a contract.
Denial through solipsism is unfalsifiable and unassailable through rational argument. Stick to solipsism and you shall forever prevail Hyman. Construct for yourself a comfortable cocoon. If truth dares to intrude into your GNU World just deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeny it.
RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the > plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law.
"delusional" and "deliberately" are not quite compatible.
> The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under > contract law and is a misuse of copyright.
Now _that_ is at its surface delusional, but likely a deliberate utterance of a mixture of nonsense, non-sequiturs and half-truths.
The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't "preempt" a permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee _retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However, _copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make use of the GPL in order _not_ to be liable to state law for certain uses of the copyrighted material, you have to adhere to the conditions of the GPL. In that case, your compliance with the GPL's conditions will be held to pretty much the same standards as contract law, with some exceptions pertaining to the difference between licenses and contracts.
> All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional > tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible thing to > waste.
David Kastrup wrote: > RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
>> As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the >> plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law.
> "delusional" and "deliberately" are not quite compatible.
>> The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under >> contract law and is a misuse of copyright.
> Now _that_ is at its surface delusional, but likely a deliberate > utterance of a mixture of nonsense, non-sequiturs and half-truths.
> The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't "preempt" a > permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee > _retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However, > _copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make > use of the GPL in order _not_ to be liable to state law for certain > uses of the copyrighted material, you have to adhere to the > conditions of the GPL. In that case, your compliance with the GPL's > conditions will be held to pretty much the same standards as contract > law, with some exceptions pertaining to the difference between > licenses and contracts.
>> All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is >> delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a >> terrible thing to waste.
> The GPL is not preempted by any law, since a law can't "preempt" a > permission. It _is_ unenforceable and states so itself: the licensee > _retains_ the option to use it or ignore it, at will. However, > _copyright_ is enforceable under _state_ law. If you want to make use > of the GPL in order _not_ to be liable to state law for certain uses of > the copyrighted material, you have to adhere to the conditions of the > GPL. In that case, your compliance with the GPL's conditions will be > held to pretty much the same standards as contract law, with some > exceptions pertaining to the difference between licenses and contracts.
P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'
-- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
