GPL question
Mike Cox
is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
(specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
(2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system,
can I include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
--
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
mikeco...@yahoo.com
John Hasler
> (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
> libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
> (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system, can I
> include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
See above.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
mike3
> Mike Cox writes:
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> > present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
> > libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
>
And of course they'd probably never grant permission or alternative
licenses to do it since that would go against the principle of freedom
for all, right?
> > (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system, can I
> > include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
>
> See above.
> --
> John Hasler
Mike Cox
> Mike Cox writes:
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> > present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
> > libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
do is not possible? If not, why? I mean, off the top of my head I
could probably think of a dozen packages that already do the same;
heck, they even distribute GPL'ed dll's on Windows without source.
I mean, we're talking about dynamic linking, not extending some GPL
software. Anyways, there should be enough precedence.
> > (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system, can I
> > include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
>
> See above.
See above.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
> > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
do is not possible?
Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
If not, why?
The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.
From the GNU GPL FAQ:
| I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
| system. Can I do this?
| You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
| system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
| copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
| could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
| it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
| non-free too.
| A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended
| version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version
| of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released
| at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get
| the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage
| people to give back improvements that they make.
| 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.
| The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
| software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
| substantive part is this: 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.
| If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and
| the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat
| them as two separate programs--but you have to do it
| properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what
| you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to
| make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the
| GPL-covered software in the collection.
| If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it
| "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users
| might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered
| software. But if they know that what they have received is a
| free program plus another program, side by side, their rights
| will be clear.
rjack
> I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to do
> is not possible?
>
> Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
>
> If not, why?
>
> The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
> that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.
>
Link with GPL'd code and Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen will own your
program, your wife and kids, the family dog and your primary residence
-- tax free. Since you have encountered their universal and omnipotent
GPL license, if you even converse with your friends, their programs also
become GPL licensed works. Such is the power of the GPL, only a shaman
from the Ug!atia tribe of southern Ethiopia can undo its control over
your life.
rjack
Mike Cox
> > > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
> > > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
> > > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
> >
> > Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> > Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> > their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
>
> I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
> do is not possible?
>
> Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
>
> If not, why?
>
> The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
> that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain*
code from a GPL program?
For example, if you go to
<http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-win32/index.shtml> ,
download and install lccwin32.exe and look in its "lib" folder, there
is a gdbmdll.dll library, yet the package neither is GPL nor are the
sources publically available.
Now go to
<http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-linux32/index.shtml>
and click through and download lccdist.tar.gz. In the "bin" folder
there is a "lcc" program that requires libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, the
same folder contains a binary libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, yet the package
neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available.
How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
> From the GNU GPL FAQ:
Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?
> | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> | system. Can I do this?
Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
software"?
rjack
> Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
It is legally binding in all courts exercising jurisdiction under the
the authority of the GNU Republic.
> Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
> software"?
17 USC Sec. 117 protects dynamic linking in memory unless contractually
prohibited. Why do I say unless contractually prohibited?
In 1976 Congress authorized The Commission on New Technological Uses:
"This is the area of computer uses... the The Commission on
New Technological Uses is, among other things, now engaged
in making a thorough study of the emerging patterns in this
field and it will, on the basis of its findings, recommend
definitive copyright provisions to deal with the situation."
--- House Report No. 94-1476
See http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/contu6.html
(See the last sentence of this CONTU report quoted below)
"One who rightfully possesses a copy of a program, therefore, should be
provided with a legal right to copy it to that extent which will permit
its use by that possessor. This would include the right to load it into
a computer. . . Should proprietors feel strongly that {Page 14} they do
not want rightful possessors of copies of their programs to prepare such
adaptations, they could, of course, make such desires a contractual matter."
**The federal courts follow these recommendations very closely**
> Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox) mikeco...@yahoo.com
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> *contain* code from a GPL program?
Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.
> How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
> > From the GNU GPL FAQ:
> Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?
Did you even try? Search in Google for gpl faq, click on I'm Felling Lucky
The GNU GPL is normative, and legally binding. The FAQ aims to list a
series of questions you may have and put clear answers. Otherwise you
have to study the license and find out the questions & answers yourself.
It's there to help you understand the license.
> > | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> > | system. Can I do this?
>
> Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
> software"?
You seem say it's "mere" as if it isn't anything important, are you a
programmer or someone trying to circunvent the nice license?
Rui
--
Or is it?
Today is Setting Orange, the 66th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
mike3
> > > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
> > > already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
> > > (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
> >
> > Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
> > Software law. The FSF says that what you propose to do would infringe
> > their copyrights. Perhaps you could be a teat case.
>
> I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to
> do is not possible?
>
> Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library.
>
> If not, why?
>
> The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states
> that the whole work has to be licensed under the same terms.
>
> From the GNU GPL FAQ:
>
> | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> | system. Can I do this?
>
> | You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
> | system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
> | copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
> | could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
> | it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
> | non-free too.
May I jump in here for a moment? I've never really been able to
understand this exactly. Why wasn't the license made so that it
would only require you release the _GPL-covered parts_ under
GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free --
why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO
in order to keep the GPL stuff free?
John Hasler
> I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the
> license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered
> parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free
> -- why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO in
> order to keep the GPL stuff free?
The point is to increase the amount of Free Software. Otherwise you might
just as well use the BSD license.
mike3
> mike3 writes:
> > I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the
> > license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered
> > parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free
> > -- why does it take releasing the original parts of the package TOO in
> > order to keep the GPL stuff free?
>
> The point is to increase the amount of Free Software. Otherwise you might
> just as well use the BSD license.
That's what I've thought, but why doesn't the FAQ mention
that? It makes it seem like somehow that in order for the
GPL parts of your combined work to still be Free, the original
stuff you made must also be GPL as well, even though the
point of *that*, *specifically* is not to simply keep the GPL
stuff Free but to actually *increase* the amount of Free
software in existence.
> --
> John Hasler
> j...@dhh.gt.org
mike3
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> > *contain* code from a GPL program?
>
> Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
> so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
> lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
>
> Otherwise, feel free to run the risks of getting fired or bankrupt.
>
> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>
> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
> It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
>
I'd find it a little strange that a Free software author -- no, not
just
that, but one for the *GNU Project*, as I think "libbfd" is GNU --
would agree to a proprietary (ie. goes against the ideals of
"Freedom") license, unless of course they realized that _their_
stuff would still be free as you could get the code for it from
some place, eg they just gave a license that overrode the virality.
However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would
even support a proprietary project...
Alfred M. Szmidt
Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the
authors? It could also be the case that they haven't been caught
yet...
BFD is a GNU project, so no.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> states that the whole work has to be licensed under the same
> terms.
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Yes.
For example, if you go to
<http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-win32/index.shtml>
, download and install lccwin32.exe and look in its "lib" folder,
there is a gdbmdll.dll library, yet the package neither is GPL nor
are the sources publically available.
Now go to
<http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-linux32/index.shtml>
and click through and download lccdist.tar.gz. In the "bin" folder
there is a "lcc" program that requires libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, the
same folder contains a binary libbfd-2.11.92.0.12.so, yet the
package neither is GPL nor are the sources publically available.
How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
They aren't allowed to do that (assuming that the license for those
programs is really not compatible with the GNU GPL). I'll forward
this to the FSF lawyers. Thank you.
> From the GNU GPL FAQ:
Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Is it normative? Legaly binding?
Only the court can decide what is binding or not.
> | I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> | system. Can I do this?
Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating
GPL-covered software"?
Yes.
Alfred M. Szmidt
First of all, the GNU GPL is not viral. You are free to not accept
it. Secondly, Rui is simply confused, most probobly not knowing that
BFD is part of the GNU projetc, and that the FSF is the copyright
holder. One cannot remeber what every tiny bit of software is part
of.
However it still seems odd that a GNU Project author would
even support a proprietary project...
He didn't. All Rui noted was that the copyright holder (not knowing
that it was the FSF) could have licnesed the program under a
proprietary license. This is a simple fact.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> it. Secondly, Rui is simply confused, most probobly not knowing that
> BFD is part of the GNU projetc, and that the FSF is the copyright
> holder. One cannot remeber what every tiny bit of software is part
> of.
>
> even support a proprietary project...
>
> that it was the FSF) could have licnesed the program under a
> proprietary license. This is a simple fact.
Yes, I had no idea it was a GNU project. If I did I wouldn't even
raise the possibility :)
Rui
--
P'tang!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 67th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
mike3
Thank you, and Alfred too, for the clarification.
As for the "viral", that's just what I call it. *If you choose* to use
GPL code in your program, even if only a few lines, then you
are legally obligated to release the entire program, not just the
GPL code, (ie. all the parts that are your own work as well)
under the GPL (unless of course you remove the GPL code so
it once again is 100% original). That is a fact. What other word
is there for it? Oh, that's right, copyleft. Oops, my bad :(
John Hasler
> As for the "viral", that's just what I call it.
Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like
fashion. According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL
code onto your property every piece of software you ever have or ever will
write might become infected and have to be released under the GPL.
> ...If you choose to use GPL code in your program, even if only a few
> lines, then you are legally obligated to release the entire program, not
> just the GPL code,
You are not required to release it at all. It is just that if you choose
to release it you must do so under the terms of the GPL.
> What other word is there for it?
How about GPL?
BTW "a few lines" generally don't qualify for copyright at all.
Mike Cox
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
> > I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
> > *contain* code from a GPL program?
>
> Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
> so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
> lawyer and obtain a binding legal opinion.
We're not at that stage yet but of course are going to have a lawyer
look at it at some later time.
Question is, what is the difference between
(1) calling a function in a GPL shared library
(2) running an external GPL program and parsing its output
Upon further investigation, (1) could be illegal but (2) may be
not, but what is the difference?
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1)
is legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to
think the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible.
Confusion arises again.
> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>
> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
My engineer thinks that's unlikely for a number of reasons...
(sorry for picking on afformentioned project again, nothing
personal, it's just the first result on my research list)
(1) afformentioned project is free for personal use.
(2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied
version of GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main
window, "This is adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."),
yet no source code available; plus it's distributed as part of
a proprietary project.
(3) afformentioned project's runtime contains a function named
'edit_distance()' that, according to runtime docs, is released
under GPL terms, and goes on,
|
| The source code is distributed in the lcc directory,
| "\lcc\src\editdistance" as required by this license.
|
i.e., runtime is closed source, only sources for GPL part are
provided. With a proprietary license, this surely wouldn't be
necessary, but under GPL the whole library must be GPL, right?
Also from talking to other people, what this boils down to is the
GPL is way too complicated for average to advanced programmers
to understand; I'm not even sure I myself understand it completely
at this time.
> It could also be the case that they haven't been caught yet...
Possibly, just like a dozen other such projects I found during
my research. But most probably aren't knowingly violating the
GPL, it's just the GPL is way too complicated.
So let me rephrase my initial question, "If I do get caught, what
are the consequences. Are there any?"
> > Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as "incorporating GPL-covered
> > software"?
>
> You seem say it's "mere" as if it isn't anything important, are you a
> programmer or someone trying to circunvent the nice license?
I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking
and, say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort
of IPC mechanism.
John Hasler
> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
> arises again.
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.
> (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied version of
> GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main window, "This is
> adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."), yet no source code
> available; plus it's distributed as part of a proprietary project.
Please identify the project so that the matter can be brought to the
attention of the copyright owners.
> Also from talking to other people, what this boils down to is the GPL is
> way too complicated for average to advanced programmers to understand;
> I'm not even sure I myself understand it completely at this time.
GPLv2 is quite simple. Quit studying it and learn a bit about copyright.
> So let me rephrase my initial question, "If I do get caught, what
> are the consequences. Are there any?"
Google "statutory damages".
> I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking and,
> say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort of IPC
> mechanism.
Some say there is none. Others say there is. Some of the latter own
significant copyrights and have lawyers. The issue has not yet been tested
in court but you could be the first.
Miles Bader
> Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> writes.
FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.
-Miles
--
"1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"
Byung-Hee HWANG
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
> > Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> > writes.
>
> FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
> than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.
BTW, who is rjack? There is no domain like 'come.izb.knu.ac.kr'.
Anyway, we deployed DKIM (RFC4871) because unknown user like rjack.
So from now on, please do not trust rjack's word at all.
--
Byung-Hee HWANG <b...@izb.knu.ac.kr>
"He's a responsible man in his own way."
-- Michael Corleone, "Chapter 25", page 363
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.
Otherwise, shun the offer.
Rui
--
You are what you see.
Today is Boomtime, the 68th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
mike3
<snip>
> Possibly, just like a dozen other such projects I found during
> my research. But most probably aren't knowingly violating the
> GPL, it's just the GPL is way too complicated.
>
So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
mike3
> > As for the "viral", that's just what I call it.
>
> Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like
> fashion. According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL
> code onto your property every piece of software you ever have or ever will
> write might become infected and have to be released under the GPL.
>
That's not what I mean by the term. What I mean is if you choose to
use
GPL code in your programs, then if you wish to distribute those
programs, you must do so under GPL -- and not just the GPLed part,
but the entire original part that you put your little heart and soul
into
making as well. Otherwise, you cannot use the GPL code in them,
unless of course you managed to secure an alternative licensing
agreement from the author(s). That's what "viral", in _my_ book,
means.
> > ...If you choose to use GPL code in your program, even if only a few
> > lines, then you are legally obligated to release the entire program, not
> > just the GPL code,
>
> You are not required to release it at all. It is just that if you choose
> to release it you must do so under the terms of the GPL.
>
That's what I meant. I thought that's "understood". Of *course* you
don't have to release it. I'm talking about from the perspective
of what happens if you do want to release it.
> > What other word is there for it?
>
> How about GPL?
>
> BTW "a few lines" generally don't qualify for copyright at all.
No, I guess not. What I'm talking about is where you _do_ use
enough material that qualifies for copyright. Then since you
have agreed to the terms of the license, you must now release
any original work that uses that scrap of GPL code as GPL,
or not release it at all (or not use the code, but that's understood,
no?).
> --
> John Hasler
> j...@dhh.gt.org
mike3
> > > What other word is there for it?
>
> Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
> that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.
>
Well, alright.
> Otherwise, shun the offer.
>
And I did not preclude that in my postings. One can either accept
the offer or reject it. But if one accepts, one must also accept
the strings.
John Hasler
> So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
"Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler" --A. Einstein
The GPLv2 is as simple as possible given it's goals. If you want something
simpler for your software use the BSD.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
John Hasler
> What I mean is if you choose to use GPL code in your programs, then if
> you wish to distribute those programs, you must do so under GPL -- and
> not just the GPLed part, but the entire original part that you put your
> little heart and soul into making as well.
So choose not to use GPL code.
> What I'm talking about is where you _do_ use enough material that
> qualifies for copyright. Then since you have agreed to the terms of the
> license, you must now release any original work that uses that scrap of
> GPL code as GPL, or not release it at all (or not use the code, but
> that's understood, no?).
Yes. So what? Would you rather be told that you cannot release the source
at all and must pay $$ for every binary you distribute?
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Alexander Terekhov
Miles Bader wrote:
>
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
> > Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> > writes.
>
> FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
> than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.
Greetings to Mike Cox. Troll brigade growing!!! Oh poor GNUtians.
regards,
alexander.
--
"The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."
-- The GNU Monk Harald Welte
rjack
When replying to a legal argument or belief supported by
reference to applicable legal principle or citation to case
precedent, attacking the character of the person advancing the
argument i.e. calling them a "troll" renders the reply irrelevant.
You must base your reply upon citation to appropriate legal
principle or case law that refutes the original sources.
Attempting to refute rational argument utilizing ad hominen
attack implies no reasonable reply is available.
People participating in this forum are obviously capable of
checking cited legal authorities for themselves. Denigrating the
character of someone citing to a legal resource does nothing to
disprove the content of the resource. Appealing to base emotional
reaction instead of urging rational thought should be left to
political campaign managers
jack
Mike Cox
[bah, google groups seems broken]
> Mike Cox writes:
>> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
>> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
>> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
>> arises again.
>
> Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> writes.
I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
to be very fluent in copyright law.
>> (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied version of
>> GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main window, "This is
>> adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."), yet no source code
>> available; plus it's distributed as part of a proprietary project.
>
> Please identify the project so that the matter can be brought to the
> attention of the copyright owners.
Like I said upthread, the project is lcc-win32 / lcc-linux32,
availabe at
<http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-win32/index.shtml>
and
<http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-linux32/index.shtml>
(1) Its runtime uses GPL code for its "edit_distance()" function, but
only provides source for this one function but not the entire library.
(says so in the docs that code for this function is provided to
comply with its license)
Does the GPL allow that? Can I do the same in my own project?
(2) Included in the distribution is a binary copy of gdbm. It appears
it is not otherwise used but is redistributed without source and
documented, but its GPLness is not otherwise mentioned. Is there a
problem here, and if yes, what is it?
(3) The linux version links with and distributes binary copies of
BFD. From previous replies I gather I can not do that in my projects?
(4) Also included in the win32 version is a program called
"windent", a version of GNU indent 1.10.0 with added GUI, but no
source code. This one is really confusing. GNU indent is derived
from some BSD licensed code, but also contains source files licensed
under GPL. That would make the whole work GPL, right? Yet in the
manual page it says it's a BSD license. But the COPYING file says
it's GPL.
Very confusing!!!
What is the real license here, and why? Are modified versions allowed?
>> I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking and,
>> say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort of IPC
>> mechanism.
>
> Some say there is none. Others say there is. Some of the latter own
> significant copyrights and have lawyers. The issue has not yet been
> tested in court but you could be the first.
But before going to court, what *IS* the difference. Some say dynamic
linking started exactly like that, loading shared code as a separate
"process" and talking to it via some obscure mechanism. I hear some
of those are still in use today. So where do you draw the line?
Mike Cox
> > In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
> > legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
> > the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
> > arises again.
>
> Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> writes.
I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
to be very fluent in copyright law.
> > (2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied version of
> > GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main window, "This is
> > adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."), yet no source code
> > available; plus it's distributed as part of a proprietary project.
>
> Please identify the project so that the matter can be brought to the
> attention of the copyright owners.
Like I said upthread, the project is lcc-win32 / lcc-linux32,
availabe at
> > I'm just trying to understand the difference between dynamic linking and,
> > say, running an external program and talking to it via some sort of IPC
> > mechanism.
>
> Some say there is none. Others say there is. Some of the latter own
> significant copyrights and have lawyers. The issue has not yet been tested
> in court but you could be the first.
But before going to court, what *IS* the difference. Some say dynamic
linking started exactly like that, loading shared code as a separate
"process" and talking to it via some obscure mechanism. I hear some
of those are still in use today. So where do you draw the line?
rjack
> On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> [bah, google groups seems broken]
>> Mike Cox writes:
>>> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
>>> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
>>> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
>>> arises again.
>> Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
>> writes.
>
> I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
> is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
> to be very fluent in copyright law.
Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text
of published United States statutes and federal court case law
for his personal observations.
Ultimately, the Constitution and the Copyright Act mean exactly
what the men in the black robes say it means (especially the
Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals).
If rjack sees the name of a copyright "expert" repeatedly cited
to by the courts for legal authority (i.e. Nimmer, Goldstein,
Patry) he listens closely. Conversely, when he sees someone (i.e.
Eben Moglen at the FSF or Pamela Jones at Groklaw) make claims
that obviously contradict established precedental rulings by the
appellate courts he suspects that someone may be spreading
nonsense propaganda.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> >>Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> >>writes.
> >
> of published United States statutes and federal court case law
> for his personal observations.
... then adds pure lies to create magic steps into which a schizofrenic
reality suddenly makes sense with what he reads in the law books.
Treat your self... Therekhov's dual personality...
Rui
--
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 71st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
Byung-Hee HWANG
> Mike Cox wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> > [bah, google groups seems broken]
>
> >> Mike Cox writes:
> >>> In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
> >>> legal too "unless contractually prohibited" but he also seems to think
> >>> the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
> >>> arises again.
>
> >> Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
> >> writes.
> >
> > I'm new here; how am I supposed to know who is a troll and who
> > is not. Last time I was here he was not. To the naked eye he seems
> > to be very fluent in copyright law.
>
> Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer.
You would better change your mail address. There is no domain like
'com.izb.knu.ac.kr'. If you do not change your mail address, people
won't trust your words at all.
--
Byung-Hee HWANG <b...@izb.knu.ac.kr>
InZealBomb, Kyungpook National University, KOREA
"Life is so beautiful."
-- Vito Corleone, "Chapter 29", page 406
Alfred M. Szmidt
How about GPL?
Copyleft works as well.
Alfred M. Szmidt
(1) calling a function in a GPL shared library
(2) running an external GPL program and parsing its output
One shares code, the other doesn't (unless the output contains
copyrightable bits).
As for rjack, ignore him.
> > How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
>
> Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the authors?
My engineer thinks that's unlikely for a number of reasons...
(sorry for picking on afformentioned project again, nothing
personal, it's just the first result on my research list)
(1) afformentioned project is free for personal use.
(2) afformentioned project comes with 'windent', a gui'fied
version of GNU indent 1.10.0 (says so right there in its main
window, "This is adaption of Indent 1.10.0, Copyright GNU."),
yet no source code available; plus it's distributed as part of
a proprietary project.
(3) afformentioned project's runtime contains a function named
'edit_distance()' that, according to runtime docs, is released
under GPL terms, and goes on,
|
| The source code is distributed in the lcc directory,
| "\lcc\src\editdistance" as required by this license.
|
i.e., runtime is closed source, only sources for GPL part are
provided. With a proprietary license, this surely wouldn't be
necessary, but under GPL the whole library must be GPL, right?
Yes, this has been repeated now several times. If you use GPL
licensed code (either linking, copying, or whatever), then the *WHOLE*
work must be licensed under the terms of the GPL.
So let me rephrase my initial question, "If I do get caught, what
are the consequences. Are there any?"
You get sued, and you get to pay legal fees and damages. Or you
settle, if you get the chance, and release your deriviate work under
the GPL.
Alfred M. Szmidt
That is the key, if _you_ choose. Nobody forced you, a virus attacks
a host without asking.
Alfred M. Szmidt
but only provides source for this one function but not the entire
library. (says so in the docs that code for this function is
provided to comply with its license) Does the GPL allow that? Can I
do the same in my own project?
As I already answer: No, and No.
(2) Included in the distribution is a binary copy of gdbm. It
appears it is not otherwise used but is redistributed without
source and documented, but its GPLness is not otherwise
mentioned. Is there a problem here, and if yes, what is it?
As I already answered: Yes, the GPL states that the WHOLE work must be
licensed under the GPL. Since it isn't, it is a license violation.
(3) The linux version links with and distributes binary copies of
BFD. From previous replies I gather I can not do that in my projects?
Correct.
(4) Also included in the win32 version is a program called
"windent", a version of GNU indent 1.10.0 with added GUI, but no
source code. This one is really confusing. GNU indent is derived
from some BSD licensed code, but also contains source files
licensed under GPL. That would make the whole work GPL, right?
Correct.
Yet in the manual page it says it's a BSD license. But the COPYING
file says it's GPL. Very confusing!!! What is the real license
here, and why?
The man page might be licensed under the GPL, the man page might be
refering to a BSD indent, your question is to vauge to answer.
Are modified versions allowed?
Ofcourse, both the modifed BSD license, and the GNU GPL are free
software licenses.
Please refer to the GNU GPL FAQ in the future: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Alfred M. Szmidt
And I did not preclude that in my postings. One can either accept
the offer or reject it. But if one accepts, one must also accept
the strings.
Obviously.
mike3
> mike3 writes:
> > What I mean is if you choose to use GPL code in your programs, then if
> > you wish to distribute those programs, you must do so under GPL -- and
> > not just the GPLed part, but the entire original part that you put your
> > little heart and soul into making as well.
>
> So choose not to use GPL code.
>
Sure. I never said I _had_ to use GPL code.
> > What I'm talking about is where you _do_ use enough material that
> > qualifies for copyright. Then since you have agreed to the terms of the
> > license, you must now release any original work that uses that scrap of
> > GPL code as GPL, or not release it at all (or not use the code, but
> > that's understood, no?).
>
> Yes. So what? Would you rather be told that you cannot release the source
> at all and must pay $$ for every binary you distribute?
"So what?" Well, I'm talking about what I consider "viral". Would
I rather be told I could not release the code for my program and
must pay the author? Well, if I did not want to release the code,
maybe, but if I don't want to pay the author, that's a problem, now
isn't it? If I wanted to release the code and was told I couldn't that
would be a problem too. With the GPL, I may not have to pay the
author, but if I do not want to release the source, I have a problem.
If I do want to release the source, then it's fine. However you look
at it, if your interests clash with the license, then the only right
and
legal thing to do is to simply not enter into the agreement, and not
use the code. That's the bottom line.
> --
> John Hasler
> j...@dhh.gt.org
mike3
> mike3 writes:
> > So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
>
> "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler" --A. Einstein
>
> The GPLv2 is as simple as possible given it's goals. If you want something
> simpler for your software use the BSD.
OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the
version 3 more complicated, then?
> --
> John Hasler
> j...@dhh.gt.org
John Hasler
> OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
> more complicated, then?
By orders of magnitude. Do you know patent law?
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Tim Smith
rjack <rjack@com> wrote:
> Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text
> of published United States statutes and federal court case law
> for his personal observations.
>
> Ultimately, the Constitution and the Copyright Act mean exactly
> what the men in the black robes say it means (especially the
> Supreme Court and the Federal Courts of Appeals).
>
> If rjack sees the name of a copyright "expert" repeatedly cited
> to by the courts for legal authority (i.e. Nimmer, Goldstein,
> Patry) he listens closely. Conversely, when he sees someone (i.e.
> Eben Moglen at the FSF or Pamela Jones at Groklaw) make claims
> that obviously contradict established precedental rulings by the
> appellate courts he suspects that someone may be spreading
> nonsense propaganda.
Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright
law: first sale. As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more
and more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to
become very relevant.
--
--Tim Smith
John Hasler
> Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright law:
> first sale. As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more and
> more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to become
> very relevant.
First sale does not impinge on GPLv2 in any way whatosever.
Alexander Terekhov
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Tim Smith writes:
> > Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright law:
> > first sale. As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more and
> > more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to become
> > very relevant.
>
> First sale does not impinge on GPLv2 in any way whatosever.
Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
"However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works." It also ignores Section 117,
which gives "the owner of a copy of a computer program" the right to
"make or authorize the making of another copy OR ADAPTATION of that
computer program" if it is "an essential step in the utilization of
the computer program in conjunction with a machine".
As for GPLv3, Professor Hollaar (who worked on Internet, copyright,
and patent issues as a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Fellow) has
commented regarding GPLv3 wording (and apparently his comments were
simply dismissed from consideration by RMS, Eben & Co.) on
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments system:
-----
comment 388: Not a correct statement of copyright law
Regarding the text: However, nothing else grants you permission to
propagate or modify the Program or any covered works.
In section: gpl3.notacontract.p0.s3
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
This is not a correct statement of copyright law, at least in the
United States. With respect to "propagate", it is likely a tautology
because of the defintion of "propagate" covering only things "that
require permission under applicable copyright law". But for "modify",
17 U.S.C. 117 permits the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to
make an "adaptation" in particular circumstances, and makes it clear
that making that adaptation does not "infringe copyright if you do not
accept this License." It also does not seem to recognize the "first
sale" doctrine codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, that permits the transfer of
a lawfully-made copy "without the authority of the copyright owner".
Perhaps the interplay between the definition of "propagate" and this
section covers it, but it is certainly not made clear and, in fact,
misleads one in thinking that the only way to redistribute a lawful
copy is to accept the License.
noted by hollaar
comment 389: Not a correct statement
Regarding the text: You may not propagate, modify or sublicense the
Program except as expressly provided under this License.
In section: gpl3.termination.p0.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
As I noted in more detail in my comments on Paragraph 9, this is not
an accurate statement. In the United States, 17 U.S.C. 109 ("first
sale") and 117 ("computer programs") allow the owner of a
lawfully-made copy to modify it in certain circumstances and to
redistribute it without permission of the copyright owner.
noted by hollaar
comment 570: Just saying it doesn't make it so
Regarding the text: No covered work constitutes part of an effective
technological protection measure
In section: gpl3.drm.p1.s1
Submitted by: hollaar
comments:
A covered work will be "part of an effective technological protection
measure" (a term that mimics the DMCA "technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work", much like "derived from"
mimics "derivative work") based on what it does, not what you say. For
example, you can't exempt yourself from patent law by simply stating
that the "covered work is not a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter" (the classes of patentable things in the United
States).
noted by hollaar
-----
Recently one guy from "freedom camp" told me that the GPLv3 statement
"This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other
equivalent, as provided by copyright law."
fixes all that, should read
"This License acknowledges all limitations on exclusive rights as
provided by copyright law."
and that it overrides all other statements in the GPL contradicting it
(all other statements including all those erroneous proclamations
pointed out by Hollaar).
No wonder nobody can grok the GPL having undrunken state of mind...
rjack
> Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
> "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> the Program or its derivative works."
The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
what a "condition" means with respect to a copyright license. A
"condition" is not a legal term concerning *formation* of a
contract but refers to *performance* of a contract.
"Regarding plaintiff's first argument that the credit requirement
was a condition precedent to the granting of the license, the
court does not agree. According to the Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 224 (1981), a condition is "an event, not certain to
occur, which must occur, unless its nonoccurrence is excused,
before performance under a contract becomes due." See also Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (quoting In re Matthieson, 63 B.R. 56, 60 (D. Minn. 1986),
for the statement that "a condition precedent is a condition
precedent to performance under the contract, not formation of the
contract. When a condition precedent is not satisfied, it
relieves a party to the contract of the obligation to perform. It
does not negate the existence of the contract or the binding
contractual relationship of the parties."), cert. denied, 520
U.S. 1116 (1997). "Conditions precedent are disfavored and will
not be read into a contract unless required by plain, unambiguous
language." Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d at 559 n.7;
accord Jacob Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d at 754; I.A.E.,
Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d at 778."; RT Computer Graphics v, United
States,(USCFC 1999.)
Alexander Terekhov
I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court. The answer is due
October 22.
U.S. District Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07-cv-08205-JES
Andersen et al v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Assigned to: Judge John E. Sprizzo
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Date Filed: 09/19/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Erik Andersen
an individual represented by Daniel B. Ravicher
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10023-5882
(212)580-0800
Fax: (212)580-0898
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Rob Landley
an individual represented by Daniel B. Ravicher
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.
Date Filed # Docket Text
09/19/2007 1 COMPLAINT against Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.. (Filing Fee $
350.00, Receipt Number 627415)Document filed by Erik Andersen, Rob
Landley.(jpo) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
09/19/2007 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. (jpo)
(Entered: 09/20/2007)
09/19/2007 Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (jpo)
(Entered: 09/20/2007)
09/19/2007 Case Designated ECF. (jpo) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
10/10/2007 2 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER: It is
hereby ordered that Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. until October 22,
2007 to answer the Complaint filed on 9/19/07 by Plaintiffs Erik
Andersen and Rob Landley. (dle) (Entered: 10/10/2007)
Alexander Terekhov
> Date Filed: 09/19/2007
> Jury Demand: None
> Nature of Suit: 820 Copyright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jurisdiction: Federal Question
This is golden:
"Like the programmer in Graham v. James and the songwriter in Maxwell,
RT Graphics never formally withdrew previously-given permission which
allowed the alleged infringer to use the copyrighted material. See also
Fosson v. Palace (Waterland), Ltd., 78 F.3d 1448, 1455 (9th Cir. 1996)
(even assuming that movie producer materially breached licensing
agreement to use composer's song in film, composer never attempted to
exercise any right of rescission and summary judgment of
noninfringement of copyright was proper); Cities Serv. Helex, Inc. v.
United States, 543 F.2d 1306, 1313 (Ct. Cl. 1976) ("A material breach
does not automatically and ipso facto end a contract. It merely gives
the injured party the right to end the agreement; . . . ."). In the
case at bar, the court finds that there was no rescission of the
contract by plaintiff. Moreover, the Postal Service's conduct was
insufficient to justify any rescission which could have taken place,
and did not indicate a repudiation of the licensing agreement.
Accordingly, the court holds that the Use Agreement was at all times
valid and enforceable during the course of this dispute, and any
remedy which the plaintiff may seek for its failure to receive credit
cannot properly be based on a theory of copyright infringement. "
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Horn/99/RTCOMP.htm
So much about GNU legal theory of automatically and ipso facto
termination on a slightest breach without ability to cure and without
any formal withdrawal of previously-given permission by the injured
party.
n.torre...@gmail.com
> I am currently developing a closed source application that
> is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
>
> (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
> already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
> (specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> (2) If a required GPL library is missing on the user's system,
> can I include a copy of this library in my software distribution?
Mike
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product may
or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
Thus, the only claim the library author may have is to the part of the
interface you included. If the interface is not owned by him, the
library author can not dictate what conditions you distribute your
product under.
rjack
> rjack wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
> nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court.
The GPL myth gives rise to another problem.
That problem is "legal standing". A license such as the GPL
contains terms that direct "designated third party
beneficiaries". The GPL's term 2(b) demands:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this License.
Any consideration flowing from the GPL is assigned to "all third
parties". This consideration is certainly sufficient under
contract law to form a valid contract:
“In addition, under contract law, a contract is supported by
consideration even if the consideration flows solely to a third
party. See Mencher v. Weiss, 114 N.E.2d at 181(“[I]t is
fundamental that a benefit flowing to a third person or legal
entity constitutes a sufficient consideration for the promise of
another.”); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 71, cmt. e (1981)
(“It matters not from whom the consideration moves or to whom it
goes. If it is bargained for and given in exchange for the
promise, the promise is not gratuitous.”); see generally 3
WILLISTON § 7:5, at 60 (“It is well settled that a detriment
suffered by the promisee at the promisor’s request and as the
price for the promise is sufficient, despite the fact that the
promisor is not benefited as well.”); In re: Asia Global
Crossing, Ltd., et al. 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., March 21,
2005).
There is a fundamental principle underlying all actions in
federal courts:
“Standing doctrine delimits federal jurisdiction to, among other
things, cases involving real injuries to plaintiffs, the
so-called "injury-in-fact" requirement.”; Brooklyn Legal Services
Corp. v. Legal Services Corp., 462 F.3d 219 (Second Cir. 2006).
Although the copyright owners filed the action in federal court
in the Monsoon case they have suffered no "injury in fact" from
the claimed breach of the GPL -- which is stated in the complaint
as failure to provide access to the work's source code under sec.
2(b) requirements. As we have seen, sec. 2(b) requires access to
source code be provided to "all third parties" and not the
original licensor. In the legal arena you can't claim damages
from some else's injuries. A plaintiff must suffer a personal
"injury in fact" before he has standing in court. In the United
States designated third party beneficiaries have standing to sue
in their own right.
"The "irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains
three elements": "[T]he plaintiff must have suffered an injury in
fact," "there must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of, " and "it must be likely . . . that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. At
560-61 (internal quotations omitted).(5) The plaintiffs, as the
party invoking federal jurisdiction, bear the burden of
establishing these elements. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). Failure to establish any one
deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the suit.;
Elizabeth Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (01-40122) (5th
Cir. 2002)
Alfred M. Szmidt
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
You are including code as well, macros for example. The
binary is also combined into one big blob when run, which means that
it does not only share `interface', but memory and everything else as
would be done during static linking.
n.torre...@gmail.com
> I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
>
> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
> When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
> but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
> may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
>
> You are including code as well, macros for example.
If they are part of the interface (e.g. some convenience macros), and
the interface is not owned by the library author, how does this even
modify anything I said?
OTOH if the macro usage is an "interface", but their implementation is
not, the situation is similar to C++ templates and static linking.
> The
> binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all I
care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library, which
he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.
> which means that
> it does not only share `interface', but memory and everything else as
> would be done during static linking.
P.S. Please reply to newsgroup.
Miles Bader
>> I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
>>
>> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
>
> I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
-Miles
--
/\ /\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.
Alexander Terekhov
Miles Bader wrote:
>
> n.torre...@gmail.com writes:
> >> I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense" opinion:
> >>
> >> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
> >
> > I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
>
> Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
He is uber GNUtian. Next step in the evolution of GNUtians like you Bader.
Alexander Terekhov
10/18/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. served on
9/24/2007, answer due 10/22/2007. Service was accepted by Loretta Alger,
Account Manager. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
10/19/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER that
Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. has until November 5, 2007 to answer
the Complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2007 by Plaintiff Erik Andersen and Rob
Landley. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. answer due 11/5/2007. SO ORDERED.
(Signed by Judge Peter K. Leisure on 10/17/2007) (jmi) (Entered:
10/19/2007)
regards,
Alfred M. Szmidt
> but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
> may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
>
> You are including code as well, macros for example.
If they are part of the interface (e.g. some convenience macros), [...]
A macro is code, which gets expanded into the program, that code which
was licensed under say the GPL is now part of the compiled program,
that compiled program must be licensed under the GPL if it is going to
be distributed. Nothing to do with convience or interfaces, but
everything to do with derivative work and how code becomes part of the program.
> The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all I
care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library, which
he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.
A compiled work still contains code, and that is all that matters.
The compiler will expand macros, it will inline parts of the code, etc
etc etc. Interfaces cannot be copyrighted to begin with.
P.S. Please reply to newsgroup.
gnu-misc-discuss is actually a mailing list.
Alfred M. Szmidt
>> opinion:
>>
>> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
>
> I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really can't
state that now can you?
Snide remarks aside, as a GNU developer and maintainer one does indeed
represent and speak for the GNU project. We are after all the faces
out for the packages that we hack on, the mailinglists we read and
reply to.
Alexander Terekhov
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
> >> I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a "common sense"
> >> opinion:
> >>
> >> Which sadly, is not much common sense.
> >
> > I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
>
> Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
>
> Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really can't
> state that now can you?
Relax, Alfred. Ignore all those Bader-like under uber GNUtians like you.
n.torrey.pines in me (so to speak): but dear Alfred, can you please
reply to your GNUtian mailing list ONLY, *not including individual
newsgroup subscribers*. This entire newsgroup *IS* subscribed to your
GNUtian mailing list. Save energy/reduce global warming, please.
David Kastrup
> On Oct 19, 9:47 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
>
> But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all
> I care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library,
> which he may even write himself, with a compatible interface.
If there is a library with compatible interface, you might be right.
If there isn't, and if the only reasonable way in which the user can
sensibly make any use of your code is to link with a particular
library, the the user is acting as your agent when assembling the
product, and you can't excuse yourself from responsibility.
In a similar vein, you can't evade weapon laws by removing an
essential, but standard part from guns and include instructions
"please don't insert an M5x18mm screw into that and that place, or you
might be liable of having assembled a fully functioning weapon".
Or "don't fill in one pound of powdered sugar here and stir, or this
will be an illegal exploding device".
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
John Hasler
> If there is a library with compatible interface, you might be right. If
> there isn't, and if the only reasonable way in which the user can
> sensibly make any use of your code is to link with a particular library,
> the the user is acting as your agent when assembling the product, and you
> can't excuse yourself from responsibility.
Under US law you cannot have contributory infringement without primary
infringement to contribute to. You must show that the user does not have
the right to do that linking (and I don't see how he can be my agent: he
owns all the property involved free and clear and has no obligation do as I
tell him.)
> In a similar vein, you can't evade weapon laws by removing an essential,
> but standard part from guns and include instructions "please don't insert
> an M5x18mm screw into that and that place, or you might be liable of
> having assembled a fully functioning weapon".
If you distribute those kits only to people who have the requisite permits
you will not be liable as a accessory to violation of the weapons laws as
there will be no violation.
Miles Bader
> Alfred does not represent or speak for "GNU".
>
> Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really can't
> state that now can you?
Sure I can.
Anyway, to reiterate: Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
-Miles
--
Run away! Run away!
Alexander Terekhov
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
Hey Alex,
Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
then mail Stevie Balmer?
Rui
--
Or is it?
Today is Boomtime, the 5th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
Celebrate Maladay
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> FYI:
>
> 10/18/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. served on
> 9/24/2007, answer due 10/22/2007. Service was accepted by Loretta Alger,
> Account Manager. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
> (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
>
> 10/19/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER that
> Defendant Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. has until November 5, 2007 to answer
> the Complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2007 by Plaintiff Erik Andersen and Rob
> Landley. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. answer due 11/5/2007. SO ORDERED.
> (Signed by Judge Peter K. Leisure on 10/17/2007) (jmi) (Entered:
> 10/19/2007)
Number five just showed up in the docket:
5 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Loretta A. Preska. Judge John E.
Sprizzo is no longer assigned to the case. (laq) (Entered: 10/23/2007)
------
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Office of the Clerk
U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT
Anderson
V. 07cv8205
Monsoon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the
above-entitled action is reassigned to the calendar of
Judge Preska
All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the
Clerk’s Office of the Southern District Court for filing and shall bear
the assigned judge’s initials after the case number.
The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of
the Notice of Reassignment on all defendants.
J. Michael McMahon, CLERK
Dated: 10/17/7
By: Lourdes Aquino
Deputy Clerk
cc: Attorneys of Record
PS REASSIGNMENT FORM
Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001
Case 1:07-cv-08205-LAP Document 5 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
------
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
>
> Hey Alex,
>
> Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> then mail Stevie Balmer?
What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer,
dear mini-RMS?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> > > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> > > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> > > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
> >
> > Hey Alex,
> >
> > Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> > then mail Stevie Balmer?
>
> What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer,
> dear mini-RMS?
Your theories. Go sell copies of Windows that you make.
Rui
--
Grudnuk demand sustenance!
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
> > > > there is no "library with compatible interface") creating "acting as
> > > > your agent" liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
> > > > GNUtians take it seriously, don't you? Just curious.
> > >
> > > Hey Alex,
> > >
> > > Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> > > then mail Stevie Balmer?
> >
> > What exactly do you want me to test and then mail Stevie Balmer,
> > dear mini-RMS?
>
> Your theories. Go sell copies of Windows that you make.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensing/windows.mspx
Quick inspection revealed that Windows shared source licenses do not
grant rights of reproduction and/or adaptation of Windows (apart from
17 USC 117 defaults, that is).
You can't compare it to GPL (or Ms-PL/RL for this matter) with its
broad scope of granted rights (all rights are granted).
Now please mail this message to Stevie Balmer yourself, mini-RMS.
Alfred M. Szmidt
>
> Since you don't either represent or speak for "GNU", you really
> can't state that now can you?
Sure I can.
Anyway, to reiterate: Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for GNU. So he
cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project.
danw...@insightbb.com
> Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
> then mail Stevie Balmer?
Betcha' my dog can whup your dog.
Richard Tobin
>cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project.
Anyone can state facts. Who you find more reliable depends on lots
of factors.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
mike3
> mike3 writes:
> > OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
> > more complicated, then?
>
> By orders of magnitude. Do you know patent law?
So then how the heck can one ever hope to understand
or use it?
> --
> John Hasler
> j...@dhh.gt.org
John Hasler
> OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
> more complicated, then?
I wrote:
> By orders of magnitude. Do you know patent law?
mike3 writes:
> So then how the heck can one ever hope to understand or use it?
A good question. I certainly do not intend to use it (not that anyone will
care).
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org