[OT} How to un-GPL parts of a GPL'd module.
Anton Vredegoor
how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
unwilling.
So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the problem and
start writing a new script.
But here's where the problem begins. Having seen the algorithm it's
almost impossible for me to forget it and write code as if I had never
seen it. On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste, change
maybe a few variable names, credit the author for the original concept
in the sourcode, send some email to inform the author and go on with
life?
I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If someone
has a problem with that, hire me.
Anton.
Steve Holden
news:anujeq$qdk$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> Hello All,
>
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
>
whole point of copyleft.
> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
> unwilling.
>
Indeed. Perhaps you should consider releasing your own code under the GPL
rather than some other license. That way there's no problem incorporating
GPL'd code.
> So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the problem and
> start writing a new script.
>
> But here's where the problem begins. Having seen the algorithm it's
> almost impossible for me to forget it and write code as if I had never
> seen it. On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste, change
> maybe a few variable names, credit the author for the original concept
> in the sourcode, send some email to inform the author and go on with
> life?
>
Definitely not, if you take licensing seriously.
> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
> have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
> of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
> alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
> hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If someone
> has a problem with that, hire me.
>
Sort of like "send money or I'll shoot the dog"? Not a very promising
aproach to potential employers. I would encourage you to contact the
original author and see if you can't get permission to include the code
under license terms acceptable to you. Otherwise you'll need a clean room
implementation (which, if the algorithm is obvious, might be similar to the
GPL'd code, but should be your own work rather than someone else's).
regards
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/pwp/
Previous .sig file retired to www.homeforoldsigs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gonnerman
From: "Anton Vredegoor" <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl>
> Hello All,
>
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module
> (cut-and-paste style) in a module with BSD or public
> domain style release?
Basically, you can't. If you cut-and-paste it, you drag the
original author's license along with it, whatever that
license is.
> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I
> would have to wait for them to answer, it would slow my
> coding process down to a snail's pace, and there's always
> the possibility of the author being unwilling.
People who use the GPL usually aren't real willing to agree
to such plans. The GPL is a political statement, after all.
(Note to flamers: I use the GPL sometimes, but not often.)
> So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the
> problem and start writing a new script.
>
> But here's where the problem begins. Having seen the
> algorithm it's almost impossible for me to forget it
> and write code as if I had never seen it.
Ouch.
> On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste,
> change maybe a few variable names, credit the author for
> the original concept in the sourcode, send some email to
> inform the author and go on with life?
No.
If the algorithm being used is common knowledge, you can
implement it yourself without worry about the other author's
license, since he or she probably used the same common
knowledge.
If it ISN'T common knowledge/standard practice/etc. you have
a problem.
What sort of algorithm are we talking about here? How long
is it?
> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a
> living but I have been unemployed as a programmer for so
> long know that the concept of owning sourcecode or getting
> payed for producing it is completely alien to me. I think
> I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just hoping
> some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If
> someone has a problem with that, hire me.
Cool. Welcome to the club!
Chris Gonnerman -- chris.g...@newcenturycomputers.net
http://newcenturycomputers.net
Alexander Schmolck
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
Not at all.
>
> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
> unwilling.
Well, that's life.
> Having seen the algorithm it's almost impossible for me to forget it and
> write code as if I had never seen it.
As long as your implementation of the algorithm is sufficiently different from
the original author's I think you should be fine. Determining what qualifies
as sufficiently different is likely to be not that trivial for someone who
isn't a copyright expert, however (just changing variable names or even
translating the code directly into another programming language is *not*
enough).
> On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste, change
> maybe a few variable names, credit the author for the original concept
> in the sourcode, send some email to inform the author and go on with
> life?
No it isn't.
I think your best bet in this case is to ask for permission (involves little
effort and if it fails, you can still recode).
Bear in mind that I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I might be wrong.
alex
Anton Vredegoor
<chris.g...@newcenturycomputers.net> wrote:
>What sort of algorithm are we talking about here? How long
>is it?
It's not about a specific algorithm, but in case it's relevant for the
discussion I could provide two cases. In one case I wrote a new module
using a different algorithm. There are now at least 3 different python
implementations of this module and I think one would be better. In the
other case I need only a few lines out of a module. It's not a complex
function, but the problem is: "I didn't think of it". I could rewrite
it easyly but I can't credit the author without admitting that I read
the code and rewrote the function. So I have to think of a new
algorithm while the obvious way to do it is right before my nose.
I'd rather not discuss specific cases however, because I would like to
solve the case in general.
Anton.
Anton Vredegoor
<sho...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>"Anton Vredegoor" <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
>news:anujeq$qdk$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
>
>> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
>> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
>> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
>> unwilling.
>>
>Indeed. Perhaps you should consider releasing your own code under the GPL
>rather than some other license. That way there's no problem incorporating
>GPL'd code.
That would solve the problem at the cost of passing on the problem to
the next coder. It's this kind of "chain letter like" property that I
want to adress.
<some stuff deleted for brevity>
>> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
>> have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
>> of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
>> alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
>> hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If someone
>> has a problem with that, hire me.
>>
>Sort of like "send money or I'll shoot the dog"? Not a very promising
>aproach to potential employers. I would encourage you to contact the
>original author and see if you can't get permission to include the code
>under license terms acceptable to you. Otherwise you'll need a clean room
>implementation (which, if the algorithm is obvious, might be similar to the
>GPL'd code, but should be your own work rather than someone else's).
>
In case it's not clear, the chance of me finding an employer is
remote. Contacting the original author consumes time and the outcome
would probably not be good since I don't agree with the "pass the
problem to the next guy" property of the GPL. Since the dog metaphore
was brought up, I would like to add the comparison of having a GPL dog
using a specific tree for some known purpose and forbidding any other
dog to use it for that same purpose ...
Regards,
Anton.
dsavitsk
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:03:44 -0400, "Steve Holden"
> <sho...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
> >"Anton Vredegoor" <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
> >news:anujeq$qdk$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> >
> >> there's always the possibility of the author being
> >> unwilling.
> >>
> >Indeed. Perhaps you should consider releasing your own code under the GPL
> >rather than some other license.
> That would solve the problem at the cost of passing on the problem to
> the next coder. It's this kind of "chain letter like" property that I
> want to adress.
Perhaps you should not be reading the GPL'd code in the first place. The
GPL is a quid-pro-quo agreement. You get insight into others code, and in
exchange you contine to pass on the knowledge. If it seems unfair or
burdensome to benefit others in the same way you were benefited then keep
your eyes on your own paper.
> >> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
> >> have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
> >> of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
> >> alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
> >> hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If someone
> >> has a problem with that, hire me.
> >>
> >Sort of like "send money or I'll shoot the dog"? Not a very promising
> >aproach to potential employers. I would encourage you to contact the
> >original author and see if you can't get permission to include the code
> >under license terms acceptable to you. Otherwise you'll need a clean room
> >implementation (which, if the algorithm is obvious, might be similar to
the
> >GPL'd code, but should be your own work rather than someone else's).
> >
>
> In case it's not clear, the chance of me finding an employer is
> remote.
:-(
> I don't agree with the "pass the
> problem to the next guy" property of the GPL.
Then don't read other's code.
> Since the dog metaphore
> was brought up, I would like to add the comparison of having a GPL dog
> using a specific tree for some known purpose and forbidding any other
> dog to use it for that same purpose ...
The metaphore makes no sense, or rather, is misplaced. The better one might
be a dog saying that there is a tree in the woods where peeing is extra fun.
He will only tell you which one if you agree to tell the next dog under the
same conditions. Thus, you can learn which tree for free, but you must pass
on the knowledge, OR you can pee on every damn tree until you find the fun
one. Your calculus, as you are generally selfish at heart, should be based
on the number of trees and how quickly you can pee on them. In this case,
you asked, and you can't give the knowledge back ... even if you make a
showing of peeing on every tree.
Your best out is probably if the code in question is generic and not
copyright-able. From the length of the discussion this seems to not be the
case. In the future, you should do less peeking to avaoid this problem.
This is particularly the case as this discussion is archived and will be dug
up if you are ever sued.
-d
Michael Stenner
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:03:44 -0400, "Steve Holden"
> <sho...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
> >"Anton Vredegoor" <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
> >news:anujeq$qdk$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
> >
> >> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
> >> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
> >> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
> >> unwilling.
> >>
> >Indeed. Perhaps you should consider releasing your own code under the GPL
> >rather than some other license. That way there's no problem incorporating
> >GPL'd code.
>
> That would solve the problem at the cost of passing on the problem to
> the next coder. It's this kind of "chain letter like" property that I
> want to adress.
But that is the fundamental point of the GPL. You're not pointing out
some subtle side-effect burried on clause 53d here. You're asking how
you remove the GPL-ness from the GPL. It's a silly question.
> In case it's not clear, the chance of me finding an employer is
> remote. Contacting the original author consumes time and the outcome
> would probably not be good since I don't agree with the "pass the
> problem to the next guy" property of the GPL.
You're not willing to GPL your code. The GPL states that you can't
use this other guy's code UNLESS you GPL your code. You've got two
options.
1) Get the other guy to license it differently for you.
2) Don't use his code.
You correctly note that you've been tainted since you looked at his
code. That leaves you in a bit of a quandry, but you got yourself
into it. Why did you look at his code in the first place? You knew
it was GPL'd. You knew you weren't willing to use the GPL! What
LEGITIMATE benefit could you gain?
> Since the dog metaphore was brought up, I would like to add the
> comparison of having a GPL dog using a specific tree for some known
> purpose and forbidding any other dog to use it for that same purpose
> ...
I don't understand this at all, but I'm guessing you're drifting into
a more philosophical discussion of the benefits/drawbacks of the GPL.
That's not relevant here at all. You may not like the GPL, but
ultimately, the guy who wrote it gets to choose his license. Sure it
puts restrictions on you. I don't like Microsoft's licenses either,
because it puts restrictions on me. But they wrote it and they can
license it any way they want.
Sorry I don't have many warm fuzzies for you, but it really seems to
me that you're simply trying to sneak around this guy's license, and
that just ain't cool.
-Michael
--
Michael Stenner Office Phone: 919-660-2513
Duke University, Dept. of Physics mste...@phy.duke.edu
Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> I love the GNU "Play by my rules or i'm taking my toys and going home"
> attitude. It's so beneficial to humanity.
> If it was about passing on knowledge it would be in the public domain
> commons for the benefit of man. As someone stated earlier the GPL is a
> political statement. And we all know where politics get us.
>
> Chris
Perhaps you should read the recent article Lessig put out about "public
domain" software. He basically states there is no piece of copyright law
which actually allows you to place a work in the public domain. At least in
the US. His statement is the closest thing is something like the BSD license
which also has the benefit of removing your legal liability in case of a
lawsuit.
Of course we could argue the pros and cons of GPL and other licenses all day,
would not get any of us very far though.
Chris Watson
> Perhaps you should not be reading the GPL'd code in the first place.
> The
> GPL is a quid-pro-quo agreement. You get insight into others code,
> and in
> exchange you contine to pass on the knowledge. If it seems unfair or
> burdensome to benefit others in the same way you were benefited then
> keep
> your eyes on your own paper.
I love the GNU "Play by my rules or i'm taking my toys and going home"
attitude. It's so beneficial to humanity.
If it was about passing on knowledge it would be in the public domain
commons for the benefit of man. As someone stated earlier the GPL is a
political statement. And we all know where politics get us.
Chris
--
Help stop the stalinist bush administration from killing thousands in
an unjustified war on IRAQ. Sign the petition make you voice heard!
http://www.nion.us/
sism...@hebmex.com
>
> > Perhaps you should not be reading the GPL'd code in the
> > first place. The GPL is a quid-pro-quo agreement. You
> > get insight into others code, and in exchange you contine
> > to pass on the knowledge. If it seems unfair or burdensome
> > to benefit others in the same way you were benefited then
> > keep your eyes on your own paper.
>
> I love the GNU "Play by my rules or i'm taking my toys and
> going home" attitude. It's so beneficial to humanity. If it
> was about passing on knowledge it would be in the public domain
> commons for the benefit of man. As someone stated earlier the
> GPL is a political statement. And we all know where politics
> get us.
>
> Chris
>
Well, there *is* the problem of corporations trying to take
technology which isn't theirs and gaining zillions off it,
and then burying said technology so other's won't benefit
from it. It's happened with plenty of BSD technology which
ended up in NT, and then became patented by M$ (IIRC).
Then you see plenty of other technologies which *were* public
domain, or at least didn't have any heavy licensing (or rather,
*formal* licensing) behind them, and then they were copied
by some opportunist and subsequently patented, resulting in
the net loss of said tech. Take a look at the IRC robot
fiasco going on.
So there actually *is* a need for the GPL, to help keep things
fair; it's no fun to be inventing stuff and then setting it free,
if there's others with no notion of playing fairly taking all,
making zillions, and shutting others out. There's countless
evidence of it going on every day, you just need take a look
and read around.
Good luck on your search.
-gustavo
Terry Reedy
"Chris Watson" <op...@voodooland.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1034093591...@python.org...
> I love the GNU "Play by my rules or i'm taking my toys and going
home"
> attitude. It's so beneficial to humanity.
I love the Statist "Play by our rules or we'll shoot you" attitude.
Ditto for the Corporatist "Play by our rules or we'll sue you until
you wish you *had* been shot" attitude.
> If it was about passing on knowledge it would be in the public
domain
> commons for the benefit of man.
About 10 years ago, the US Patent office issued a patent something
like the following:
Method for Getting the Correct CDRom into a Computer CD Drive
while correct CD is not in CD drive:
ask user to put correct CD in CD drive
.
.
.
.
.
.
Looking for more? Sorry, that's it, the patented software algorithm.
So much for public domain commons when Statists help Corporatists to
fence it in.
> As someone stated earlier the GPL is a political statement.
As is, it seems to me, GPL bashing.
Well, back to Python,
Terry J. Reedy
Chris Watson
On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 11:20 AM, sism...@hebmex.com wrote:
>
> Well, there *is* the problem of corporations trying to take
> technology which isn't theirs and gaining zillions off it,
> and then burying said technology so other's won't benefit
> from it. It's happened with plenty of BSD technology which
> ended up in NT, and then became patented by M$ (IIRC).
Wrong. I don't know how this myth got started but linux people just
love to cite this. There is *very little* BSD code in any windows
products.
What the real story is... Microshaft bought out a small company
(typical MS action) that had network tools based on standard BSD
utilities. MS simply inherited them as part of the buyout. And as far
as the "omg! corporate monster X stole my code!!!! and made a fortune
on it!!!" thats just the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard
spewed. Look a company cant make money using a block of code that is
under the BSDL just by making that exact block a binary. The only way
they can make money is to take that block and *add value to it*. Which
means bolting on all the cool/hard crap that open source people never
want to do. Because it is not fun. I get tired of hearing how someone
stole BSD code. BSD code is *free*. If you don't want people to USE
your code then just don't give it out. Period. But don't pull a GPL
strong arm tactic by trying to force people into your socialist view of
life. The GPL is just as evil and bad as MS except on the other end of
the spectrum.
> Then you see plenty of other technologies which *were* public
> domain, or at least didn't have any heavy licensing (or rather,
> *formal* licensing) behind them, and then they were copied
> by some opportunist and subsequently patented, resulting in
> the net loss of said tech. Take a look at the IRC robot
> fiasco going on.
That is a totally different issue. And has nothing to do with either
licensing scheme. Your beef here is with the completely
stupid/retarded/jack ass US patent system. The whole damn patent office
should be abolished. It is a blatant train wreck. Pure and simple.
Write your congressman/woman.
> So there actually *is* a need for the GPL, to help keep things
> fair; it's no fun to be inventing stuff and then setting it free,
> if there's others with no notion of playing fairly taking all,
> making zillions, and shutting others out. There's countless
> evidence of it going on every day, you just need take a look
> and read around.
To destroy IP, kill capitalism, and put programmers out or work isn't
quite what id call fair.
Write GPL app
???
PROFIT!!!
Realize no one is buying what you are giving out for free.
File chapter 11.
Again the whole GNU/FSF/GPL gang is as evil as MS, it's just the other
side of the coin.
*waits for the ensuing gang of GPL thugs to attack*
Chris
--
"I feel..thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much
bread. I need a holiday a very long holiday."
sism...@hebmex.com
>
> >
> > Well, there *is* the problem of corporations trying to take
> > technology which isn't theirs and gaining zillions off it,
> > and then burying said technology so other's won't benefit
> > from it. It's happened with plenty of BSD technology which
> > ended up in NT, and then became patented by M$ (IIRC).
>
> Wrong. I don't know how this myth got started but linux people just
> love to cite this. There is *very little* BSD code in any windows
> products.
Of course there's very little BSD code, *actual* BSD code, inside
M$ products, it'd be as tough to use as any unix, and more stable
to boot. On the other hand, there's lots of derived technology
inside.
> What the real story is... Microshaft bought out a small company
> (typical MS action) that had network tools based on standard BSD
> utilities. MS simply inherited them as part of the buyout.
Yup, typical, like you said.
> I get tired of hearing how someone
> stole BSD code. BSD code is *free*. If you don't want people to USE
> your code then just don't give it out. Period.
SURE!!!
But I don't give a damn about BSD code, although I do acknowledge
that much of what's possible now is thanks to that code being
available in the first place. The developers of BSD put that
license to their code because they wanted to publish it and "leave
me alone about it, I don't want your trouble." And so, I'm forever
in their debt, because many of the tools I use were created
originally by them.
Python also has a kinda "Don't bother us" license, and it's perfectly
valid; it's possible to *sell* something that uses python internally
without needing their explicit permission, because it's already
permitted. All my python stuff is under their license, because
it's usually small, simple, neat, and I don't want to hear any
trouble about it.
> But don't pull a GPL strong arm tactic by trying to force people
> into your socialist view of life. The GPL is just as evil and bad
> as MS except on the other end of the spectrum.
Why the hell not?
If you're using MY ideas, MY development, MY work, MY time,
why the hell should I let YOU use it **FOR FREE** (please do
note that last part) if YOU are not willing to release your
code for others (or myself) to benefit from it?
How does that make me a socialist or a communist? Most probably
I'd be willing to sell a separate-licensed version for a bunch
of cash, why not? (BTW, "socialist" and "communist" don't really
mix all that well, get your politics straight).
How does that make me evil?
How does that make me unfair?
How does that give you a moral higher ground to attack my
licensing preferences? Or how does that give me a lower moral
ground to defend my work and preferences? Must I give away
for free my ideas, work, time, to any opportunist who comes
around, and not expect anything back?
Is *that* what's right?
>
> > Then you see plenty of other technologies which *were* public
> > domain, or at least didn't have any heavy licensing (or rather,
> > *formal* licensing) behind them, and then they were copied
> > by some opportunist and subsequently patented, resulting in
> > the net loss of said tech. Take a look at the IRC robot
> > fiasco going on.
>
> That is a totally different issue. And has nothing to do with either
> licensing scheme. Your beef here is with the completely
> stupid/retarded/jack ass US patent system. The whole damn patent
> office should be abolished. It is a blatant train wreck. Pure and
> simple. Write your congressman/woman.
Of course not; patents are a way for an inventor to obtain
retribution for his ideas, time and work; on the other hand,
it's badly implemented, the whole patent law system; you do
have problems with it, but it should not be abolished, it
should be corrected.
(BTW, I've no beef here, I don't use irc; it's merely an example)
>
> > So there actually *is* a need for the GPL, to help keep things
> > fair; it's no fun to be inventing stuff and then setting it free,
> > if there's others with no notion of playing fairly taking all,
> > making zillions, and shutting others out. There's countless
> > evidence of it going on every day, you just need take a look
> > and read around.
>
> To destroy IP, kill capitalism, and put programmers out or work isn't
> quite what id call fair.
> Write GPL app
> ???
> PROFIT!!!
> Realize no one is buying what you are giving out for free.
> File chapter 11.
This is your perception of the process, but you're seeing it in
the same colorblind way that M$ and other software pushers
(not "publishers", "pushers") want you to see it.
On the other hand, nowhere in the GPL does it say that software
must be free (as in "gratix"), but that you have to give your
customer access to the source code. Charge them a mill for the
package, sure; but you have to give them the source code *if they
ask for it*. Simple.
But I don't know why you're getting all incensed about it; you want
to release your code under a BSDish license, and the GPL is another
free software license; so I don't understand your anger against it.
So you can't use a certain piece of software because it's GPL,
you have the choice of using GPL, or of writing an analogous
software.
But then again, that's YOUR choice, you can use the GPL or not
use it; it's a perfectly valid choice, and it's only yours to
make.
But, if others have published their software using the GPL, they've
chosen to make a certain political statement with their product,
and I believe you should respect it just the same as they would
respect your political statement about releasing your code
under the BSD licence ("use it if you wanna, but don't bother me").
>
> Again the whole GNU/FSF/GPL gang is as evil as MS, it's just
> the other side of the coin.
>
Naa, I think you're being a bit extreme about it.
After all, it's a bit different when one gang says "Take this
software; you can't do anything with it that we haven't listed
here; don't ask us if it's any good; maybe you'll die because
of it but it's not our fault; ahh, it costs $600 bucks"
from "Here's this software; use it if you want to; if you
use it, you have to let your users read your code; it's not
our fault if you die from it; ah, it doesn't cost you a cent."
>
> *waits for the ensuing gang of GPL thugs to attack*
>
Naa man, just chill.
> Chris
> --
> "I feel..thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over
> too much bread. I need a holiday a very long holiday."
>
That's why bread is bad for you.
-gustavo
Erno Kuusela
Watson <op...@voodooland.net> writes:
| As someone stated earlier the GPL is a
| political statement. And we all know where politics get us.
looking at how people relate to politics in many places and what sort
of people get to play in politics as a result, i'd say it's more like
we all know what despising and and not parttaking in politics gets
us...
-- erno
Chad Netzer
> Hello All,
>
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
Well, if you use a GPL function, directly in your code, you need to release
your software as GPL (assuming you release it). But you can also release
your original code as BSD, or some other compatible license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLModuleLicense
Note, you cannot release the code that you didn't write, as BSD, only your
own.
If the code is LGPL (rather than just GPL), then using the code as-is does
not require you to release your code as GPL (but, you must make the LGPL part
available, if you distribute the whole work).
If you want to reimplement the "algorithm", then find a book or other
resource that discusses the algorithm (not code of the algorithm), and
reimplment from first principles. What is the algorithm in question?
If this is all for internal use (an in-house project, etc.) than the GPL
doesn't really come in to play; except that it should be documented so that
it doesn't accidentally get released later under improper terms of usage.
--
Chad Netzer
cne...@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Mark McEahern
> Yeah, I have a similar problem. There's a really nice watch in the
> store window up the street. But the price pinned on it is more money
> than I have. I guess I -could- go in to see if I could negotiate a
> better price, but that would be a hassle, and they might not agree to it
> at all. So I was thinking the best approach would be to break into the
> store at night, and take the watch.
>
> Can list readers give me some advice on the best glass cutting tools to
> use on plate glass?
This is not quite the same thing. When you're done taking the watch, it's
no longer there for anyone else to enjoy. Not so in the case of
intellectual property.
Sadly, that's about all I have to contribute to this discussion right now.
Cheers,
// mark
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
|style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
|I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
|On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste, change
|maybe a few variable names
Yeah, I have a similar problem. There's a really nice watch in the
store window up the street. But the price pinned on it is more money
than I have. I guess I -could- go in to see if I could negotiate a
better price, but that would be a hassle, and they might not agree to it
at all. So I was thinking the best approach would be to break into the
store at night, and take the watch.
Can list readers give me some advice on the best glass cutting tools to
use on plate glass?
Yours, Lulu...
--
---[ to our friends at TLAs (spread the word) ]--------------------------
Echelon North Korea Nazi cracking spy smuggle Columbia fissionable Stego
White Water strategic Clinton Delta Force militia TEMPEST Libya Mossad
---[ Postmodern Enterprises <me...@gnosis.cx> ]--------------------------
TeaAndBikkie
How does the licence stand wrt reverse engineering?
Say Alice who has seen the GPL'd code fragment, asks Bob who hasn't, to produce
something with X inputs and Y outputs, and Bob reinvents the same algorithm,
would Bob's code then be free from the GPL? Does it depend on complexity,
common knowledge, or anything?
--Misha
"""My opinions are purely theoretical, until I put them into practice."""
(author unknowing)
Ian Bicking
GPL, this is my opinion of what you can do:
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 07:33, Anton Vredegoor wrote:
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
You can cut and paste it in. This means that the *over-all* work falls
under the requirements of the GPL, but you can apply a GPL-compatible
license to the portions of the code you wrote (BSD, public domain,
etc). At a later time if someone has a problem with the GPL, they can
rewrite just the portion that's under the GPL. You should make clear
that there are GPL components, and what those are, keeping copyright
messages in tact, etc. You can also use a dual-license for your code,
if you want to make it more explicit -- you own the copyright to the
code you write, and you can license it however you choose, under
multiple licenses if you choose.
> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
> unwilling.
It's unlikely this would be a problem, but sometimes people are hard to
contact or otherwise unwilling. If your ultimate intention were to
integrate this into a proprietary piece of code, the author would
probably not cooperate. If a permissive license is a sneaky way to
achieve this, you could probably defraud the author into thinking
otherwise, and then all you'd lose is your soul. But I don't think
that's your intention -- lots of people change to permissive licenses to
facilitate integration.
> So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the problem and
> start writing a new script.
>
> But here's where the problem begins. Having seen the algorithm it's
> almost impossible for me to forget it and write code as if I had never
> seen it. On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste, change
> maybe a few variable names, credit the author for the original concept
> in the sourcode, send some email to inform the author and go on with
> life?
Well, if you want to do it right, rewrite the module with no cutting and
pasting, and without looking at the original module side-by-side with
yours (though you don't have to try to forget what you saw). It's fine
if you are using algorithms and ideas you got from reading the original
module. You signed no NDA or other contract, and the GPL does not
assert any rights over the algorithms used. It is entirely okay to get
ideas from GPL code, and use them in whatever way you want. Ideas are
not copyrighted -- implementations are. Also, no copyright is asserted
over the API, and copying the module's API should be fine.
I don't know where people are getting ideas that you are somehow tainted
by having read this module. I like the GPL, I use the GPL, I agree with
GNU philosophy, and that sort of coercion does not fit into its
philosophy. They are projecting the sorts of coercions that proprietary
companies use onto the GPL and the software in question, and that's
simply not correct.
> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
> have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
> of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
> alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
> hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity. If someone
> has a problem with that, hire me.
Well, then I don't see any particular reason why you couldn't just use
the GPL yourself, but that's up to you.
Ian
sism...@hebmex.com
>
> [Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]
> > Yeah, I have a similar problem. There's a really nice watch in the
> > store window up the street. But the price pinned on it is
> > more money than I have. I guess I -could- go in to see if
> > I could negotiate a better price, but that would be a hassle,
> > and they might not agree to it at all. So I was thinking the
> > best approach would be to break into the store at night, and take
> > the watch.
> >
> > Can list readers give me some advice on the best glass
> > cutting tools to use on plate glass?
>
> the watch, it's no longer there for anyone else to enjoy.
> Not so in the case of intellectual property.
It *is*, if you ask your friendly BSA spokesperson.
Someone else on this thread (sorry, I erased that post) acknowledged
that despising and staying out of politics is the wrong thing to do
("Look where it gets you"); the same can be said here, staying out
of politics and despising it has made possible the appearance of
such organizations as the BSA, and their ilk; namely, that those
whom you despise and shun are those who are controlling policy in
the country.
I suppose I shouldn't say anything, being a Mexican Citizen and all
--politics is truly hideous here--, but that's what we get for
letting ourselves be shut out of the political system ("us" being
the general citizenry) for some two or three centuries; so I really
hope that y'all get a bit more involved, at least in a token form
("here, have this $x dollar token" for some political agency of
your liking) to keep checks on those who would use political
power as a way to enhance their social and monetary power (we all
know who *they* are).
This is my last participation in this thread.
Good afternoon.
-gustavo
Paul Rubin
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
Release the modified BSD-licensed module under the GPL. The BSD license
allows you to do that.
> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
> unwilling.
Correct. Also, if there are multiple contributors, you have to get
permission from all of them.
> So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the problem and
> start writing a new script.
That is the correct thing to do if you can't or won't release the
combined result under the GPL.
> But here's where the problem begins. Having seen the algorithm it's
> almost impossible for me to forget it and write code as if I had never
> seen it. On the other hand, is it enough to just cut and paste, change
> maybe a few variable names, credit the author for the original concept
> in the sourcode, send some email to inform the author and go on with
> life?
No.
> I know a lot of people rely on writing sourcecode for a living but I
> have been unemployed as a programmer for so long know that the concept
> of owning sourcecode or getting payed for producing it is completely
> alien to me. I think I'll be writing free sourcecode till I die just
> hoping some pieces of my code will survive into eternity.
Me too, which is why I GPL the free code that I write. I want the
source code to be available to all users. It is not up to anyone else
to substitute their decision for mine in that matter. If someone
takes GPL code that I wrote and re-licenses it without my permission,
I'm going to have a big problem with it.
At first it sounded like you wanted to use a GPL'd component in a
non-free program. But now I see you're writing a free program, so why
not use the GPL?
dsavitsk
news:20021008160322...@mb-fe.aol.com...
Most people consider licenses to derive their power from copyright. afaik,
under copyright laws, independedt creators are not infringers. this is
different from either trademark or patent. otoh, copyright does not usually
protect function, instead protecting the "useful arts," so what this is
implies is difficult to say. probably, a truly independent creator is fine.
-d
Steve Holden
news:mailman.103409425...@python.org...
> > From: Chris Watson [mailto:op...@voodooland.net]
> >
> > > Perhaps you should not be reading the GPL'd code in the
> > > first place. The GPL is a quid-pro-quo agreement. You
> > > get insight into others code, and in exchange you contine
> > > to pass on the knowledge. If it seems unfair or burdensome
> > > to benefit others in the same way you were benefited then
> > > keep your eyes on your own paper.
> >
> > I love the GNU "Play by my rules or i'm taking my toys and
> > going home" attitude. It's so beneficial to humanity. If it
> > was about passing on knowledge it would be in the public domain
> > commons for the benefit of man. As someone stated earlier the
> > GPL is a political statement. And we all know where politics
> > get us.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Well, there *is* the problem of corporations trying to take
> technology which isn't theirs and gaining zillions off it,
> and then burying said technology so other's won't benefit
> from it. It's happened with plenty of BSD technology which
> ended up in NT, and then became patented by M$ (IIRC).
>
which use the same technology are invalidated by the existence of "prior
art". A lot of the problems with software patents seem to arise because the
examiners simply aren't familiar enough with the existing state of software
technologies.
> Then you see plenty of other technologies which *were* public
> domain, or at least didn't have any heavy licensing (or rather,
> *formal* licensing) behind them, and then they were copied
> by some opportunist and subsequently patented, resulting in
> the net loss of said tech. Take a look at the IRC robot
> fiasco going on.
>
But ultimately the current intellectual landgrab is making it clear that
patents are unfair primarily because the system behind them now clearly
operates to the benefit of wealthy organizations, such as corporations and
research institutes. The individual inventor no longer sees a level playing
field.
> So there actually *is* a need for the GPL, to help keep things
> fair; it's no fun to be inventing stuff and then setting it free,
> if there's others with no notion of playing fairly taking all,
> making zillions, and shutting others out. There's countless
> evidence of it going on every day, you just need take a look
> and read around.
>
> Good luck on your search.
>
The OP's real mistake, as has already been pointed out, was reading GPL'd
code when he doesn't agree with, or want to abide by, the GPL.
of...@sgi.com
>
>
>> In case it's not clear, the chance of me finding an employer is
>> remote. Contacting the original author consumes time and the outcome
>> would probably not be good since I don't agree with the "pass the
>> problem to the next guy" property of the GPL.
>
>You're not willing to GPL your code. The GPL states that you can't
>use this other guy's code UNLESS you GPL your code. You've got two
>options.
>
>1) Get the other guy to license it differently for you.
>
>2) Don't use his code.
The GPL (like all copyrights) cover an implementation. It does not cover
an idea (that is what patents are for)
To un-GPL something re-do the implementation such that a court would
not see it as a derivative work.
One way obvious way to do this is to convert the algorithm into an
English specification, then to hand that specification off to someone else
(who has not seen the GPL code) for implementation.
Of course you can do this in your head, but if you're concerned then do
it on paper and store it away somewhere safe.
> -Michael
richard.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology.
"Specialization is for insects"
__________________________________________http://reality.sgi.com/offer/
Erik Max Francis
> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
>
> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
> unwilling.
>
> So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the problem and
> start writing a new script.
You really have only three options:
1. Don't use the snippet and be safe.
2. Use the snippet and be bound to GPL your code.
3. Contact the author and ask him to make a private release of the
material for you with an altered license.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms.
\__/ George Wald
REALpolitik / http://www.realpolitik.com/
Get your own customized newsfeed online in realtime ... for free!
Tim Churches
> You correctly note that you've been tainted since you looked at his
> code. That leaves you in a bit of a quandry, but you got yourself
> into it. Why did you look at his code in the first place? You knew
> it was GPL'd. You knew you weren't willing to use the GPL! What
> LEGITIMATE benefit could you gain?
and Steve Holden wrote:
> The OP's real mistake, as has already been pointed out, was reading GPL'd
> code when he doesn't agree with, or want to abide by, the GPL.
The GPL exerts Copyleft by modifying rights granted to authors
by legislated Copyright. As pointed out by someone else,
Copyright extends only to implementations, not to algorithms.
Thus, merely studying GPLed code does not 'taint' your mind with
the GPL, no more so than reading Marx makes you a communist.
Note that many companies have pseudo-open source arrangements (such
as Microsoft's 'shared source' arrangements), but these companies ask
you to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) which effectively _does_
taint your mind as soon as you look at the code - which is why such
NDAs should be avoided. But the GPL does not contain any NDA or similar
provisions, so you can read the code to your heart's content.
Indeed, if you have a look at the free Software Foundation (FSF) Web
site,
you will see that Richard Stallman and fellow FSFers are implacably
opposed to software patents, which _do_ impose restrictions on the use
of algorithms. <Deity-of-your-choice> bless the FSF for their opposition
to software patents! At least someone cares. However, it would be the
height
of hypocrisy for the FSF to oppose software patents on the one hand
while
claiming that the GPL extends to algorithms. The FSF people are not
hypocrits,
and they do not make that claim.
Your problem is then how to re-implement the algorithm in Python without
reproducing the orginal code. Superficially, Python's "There should be
only one obvious way to do it" philiosphy might seem to make this
harder, but that philosophy only really extends to syntax, and low-level
constructs. There is still plenty of scope to implement most
things differently. Of course, Perl makes it easy to re-implement
even the most trivial code in a completely unrecognisable way, so
if re-implementing GPLed code is your thing, Perl is the language
of choice...
But you _do_ have to re-implement the GPLed code, not just make trivial
changes. And as others have pointed out, since you are writing free code
anyway, the easiest path is just to GPL your code as well.
Tim C
Andy Robinson
>Bear in mind that I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I might be wrong.
The distinctive thing about copyright lawyers is that they get
rich form arguing with each other, not that they are right :-)
- Andy
Dave Cole
Anton> It's not about a specific algorithm, but in case it's relevant
Anton> for the discussion I could provide two cases. In one case I
Anton> wrote a new module using a different algorithm. There are now
Anton> at least 3 different python implementations of this module and
Anton> I think one would be better. In the other case I need only a
Anton> few lines out of a module. It's not a complex function, but the
Anton> problem is: "I didn't think of it". I could rewrite it easyly
Anton> but I can't credit the author without admitting that I read the
Anton> code and rewrote the function. So I have to think of a new
Anton> algorithm while the obvious way to do it is right before my
Anton> nose.
If it is only a few lines of GPL code why don't you post it so we can
have an informed discussion?
Few means around three and certainly less than 10. It is likely to be
a cookbook example if it really is "only a few lines of code".
- Dave
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|This is not quite the same thing. When you're done taking the watch, it's
|no longer there for anyone else to enjoy. Not so in the case of
|intellectual property.
I feel compelled to respond. Mostly just because I fear that Gustavo's
other post following this vaguely insinuates I would be sympathetic with
the BSA (they're a bunch of evil bastards who act like thugs).
Moreover, I do know that "IP" is different than physical object in
respect to cost of reproduction. And that actual difference ought to be
recognized and embraced in law rather than having the distinction denied
and obfuscated in ideology and law.
My silly little parody was just trying to point to a case of
-permission- (or lack thereof) where no one would even think to ask for
help with circumvention. Whatever differences there are between a watch
and some GPL code, they have in common that the owner doesn't authorize
me to use their thing except under certain (reasonable) restrictions.
My hypothetical jewler puts the condition on the watch that I have to
pay a certain amount of money before I can have it... he doesn't have
to, it's well in his rights to give it to me, or to reduce the price,
but that's what he does. Likewise, the author of the GPL code decides
to require compliance with the GPL is a condition for redistribution of
derived works. Maybe she'll change her mind if asked, but that's what
she has stated for now. I don't *need* to have the watch, and I don't
*need* to use someone else's codebase.... if I want to, I'll pay the
price.
Yours, Lulu...
--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of
the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the
underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual
property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
Michael Stenner
> Michael Stenner wrote:
> > You correctly note that you've been tainted since you looked at his
> > code. That leaves you in a bit of a quandry, but you got yourself
> > into it. Why did you look at his code in the first place? You knew
> > it was GPL'd. You knew you weren't willing to use the GPL! What
> > LEGITIMATE benefit could you gain?
>
> and Steve Holden wrote:
>
> > The OP's real mistake, as has already been pointed out, was reading GPL'd
> > code when he doesn't agree with, or want to abide by, the GPL.
>
> The GPL exerts Copyleft by modifying rights granted to authors
> by legislated Copyright. As pointed out by someone else,
> Copyright extends only to implementations, not to algorithms.
> Thus, merely studying GPLed code does not 'taint' your mind with
> the GPL, no more so than reading Marx makes you a communist.
> < much more (supporting arguments) snipped >
Rereading my statement (quoted above) I agree that it was a bit too
firm. (I was annoyed because it seemed the OP was trying to do
something naughty.) As poetic as the word "taint" is, it's
connotations are too strong for this situation. I also agree that
there are indeed legitemate reasons to look at the code.
Basically, I have no major arguments with what you (Tim) said. If you
read the GPL'd code of a program that does X, it is certainly not
IMPOSSIBLE to write a non-infringing program that also does X. But
there is increased risk of infringing compared to the case where you
haven't read the code.
The problem is, it CAN get real murky if you've read the code, and had
a real live light-bulb realization as a direct result. The OP
basically admitted having such a realization.
Sure, you can use algorithms (I'll take your word for it anyway, at
least for the purpose of this discussion) but you can't cut-n-paste.
You also can't just change a few variable names. Somewhere in
between, there's a line that's hard to pin down. Sure, everybody has
a 5-word description of where that line is, but most disagree, and
they STILL leave ambiguity in real-world situations. This is all
completely avoided by not reading the original code.
This is all usually moot. Most snippets that one person wants from
another are either small enough that they're not affected by the
license/copyright or large enough that when rewritten (after viewing)
they're quite different.
Here's my little "rule of thumb" type guideline (that I'm making up
right now) that I think we'll agree on (at least Tim and I): if you
read casually, or for understanding (as opposed to memorization) and
then a few days later write up your version, then you're probably
fine. If you write your version with the "original" open in another
window or or refer to it frequently, that's not so safe.
Anton Vredegoor
wrote:
>Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>
>> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
>> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
>>
>> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
>> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
>> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
>> unwilling.
>>
>> So that's not an option for me. I would rather rethink the problem and
>> start writing a new script.
>
>You really have only three options:
>
>1. Don't use the snippet and be safe.
>2. Use the snippet and be bound to GPL your code.
>3. Contact the author and ask him to make a private release of the
>material for you with an altered license.
This is a strange coincidence. The reason why I started this thread
was that your lindenmeyer system simulator works very well with the
sequencer class I use in my screensaver. I would not use it the way
one might think at first, but it is clear from only a superficial look
at the sourcecode that a sequence produced by the lindenmeyer system
simulator can be uniquely indexed by my sequencer class. So I wrote a
test script implementing a two way conversion using the lindenmeyer
system to filter out unwanted tuples and then converted back to
sequencer tuples. This produced "softer" output and I have been
watching my screensaver for a good part of the night using different
calibrations :-)
In the end I decided not to use the lindenmeyer system simulator
because I can just as soon write a tuple conversion script as wait for
you to answer my email. I do not want to imply that you are not
answering e-mail, just that the time it would take would be longer
than just writing a convertor myself. That's what I thought *then*.
By the way the lindenmeyer system algorithms themselves *are* in the
public domain, I think?
However, just because the two systems would work so well together for
other implementations I got a bit frustrated about the license
imcompatibilities and started this thread in order to adress the issue
in a more general way. Now it seems not so hard at all to get in
contact with the author: The author contacts me voluntarily!
Since my program is public domain I have no problem with someone
relicensing (parts of) it as GPL, but then the problem for me would be
that I could not use the GPL'd derivates myself, because I want my
code in the public domain. I could get into a lenghty explanation
about this but lets just say I am a postmodernist and I want my code
snippets to survive seperately if my complete script would not be
used.
Maybe we can work something out? Thanks for writing free sourcecode,
regards,
Anton.
Neil Hodgson
> The problem is, it CAN get real murky if you've read the code, and had
> a real live light-bulb realization as a direct result. The OP
> basically admitted having such a realization.
A "light-bulb realization" makes it safer to use the knowledge as you
have understood the idea behind the code so should be able to reimplement
it. It is when you don't really understand the code and are mechanically
copying or transforming the code that you are more likely to be infringing
copyright. Copyright covers expressions of ideas, not the ideas or
algorithms themselves.
The GPL is interested in protecting several freedoms. One of the most
important is the freedom to read code. I'd hate to see discussions like this
discouraging anyone from reading source code.
Neil
Erik Max Francis
> This is a strange coincidence.
You just weren't wearing your foil cap, so I could read your mind :-).
For the record, the software he's referring to is:
http://www.alcyone.com/pyos/lsystem/
which is a really simple implementation of some Lindenmayer systems.
> In the end I decided not to use the lindenmeyer system simulator
> because I can just as soon write a tuple conversion script as wait for
> you to answer my email. I do not want to imply that you are not
> answering e-mail, just that the time it would take would be longer
> than just writing a convertor myself. That's what I thought *then*.
I didn't receive any email (my response to you in this thread was indeed
mere coincidence). I checked my recent spam filters and didn't find
anything either; when did you send me this?
> By the way the lindenmeyer system algorithms themselves *are* in the
> public domain, I think?
Algorithms are patentable (whether that's wise or not), not
copyrightable, so "public domain" doesn't quite have the same
applicabilty. It's certainly not the case that Lindenmayer systems are
patented (that I'm aware of), and I certainly wouldn't hold any such
patent. Perhaps you were referring to the "obviousness" of the
algorithm, which I'll address below.
I'm presuming the algorithm you're referring to is that which is used to
updated the Lindenmayer system each generation; i.e., the core routine
inside LSystem.step.
> However, just because the two systems would work so well together for
> other implementations I got a bit frustrated about the license
> imcompatibilities and started this thread in order to adress the issue
> in a more general way. Now it seems not so hard at all to get in
> contact with the author: The author contacts me voluntarily!
At your service! If you tried to contact me in the past, I didn't get
the email for whatever reason.
> Since my program is public domain I have no problem with someone
> relicensing (parts of) it as GPL, but then the problem for me would be
> that I could not use the GPL'd derivates myself, because I want my
> code in the public domain. I could get into a lenghty explanation
> about this but lets just say I am a postmodernist and I want my code
> snippets to survive seperately if my complete script would not be
> used.
>
> Maybe we can work something out? Thanks for writing free sourcecode,
As others have pointed out, GPL involves copyright, not patents, and
copyright only applies to fix works; i.e., ideas, algorithms, and the
like are not copyrightable and so a GPL license for some software
implementing them does not apply to them directly.
Furthermore, reading some copyrighted (GPL or otherwise) code that
implements and algorithm doesn't preclude you from using the
_algorithm_, even if it really didn't occur to you before seeing the
code how to do it. This preclusion doesn't happen anymore than a
company paying for training you in some skill now owns your skill.
Despite however proud I might feel about my code, the Lindenmayer system
implementation in question is really a very straightforward
implementation of a well-defined, very well-known algorithm. Even if it
were patented (by me or someone else contemporary), there would
certainly be obviousness (can't remember the legal term) and prior art
objections to it. This is even a special case, where usually a
description of what a Lindenmayer system _is_ contains an outline of the
algorithm for implementing one, so it's hard to see anybody could defend
a patent on the algorithm (should one hypothetically exist).
The core algorithm which I presume you're referring to is implemented in
less than ten lines of Python code. That you read the copyrighted code
and realized the algorithm doesn't preclude you from using the
_algorithm_, just the _code_.
So go ahead and reimplement the algorithm in your own code, just don't
cut and paste. (If you're feeling nice you can credit me with the
inspiration.) It's likely that another implementation of the algorithm
would look very similar, but that shouldn't be too surprising in an
expressive but concise language like Python.
Certainly you should be commended on your presence of mind to actually
publicly ask such questions rather than just making up your own mind to
begin with, or, worse yet, ignore the GPL restrictions on the lsystem
code and just use it to your heart's content anyway.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Granted that I must die, how shall I live?
\__/ Michael Novak
Max Pandaemonium / http://www.maxpandaemonium.com/
A sampling of Max Pandameonium's music.
David Mertz, Ph.D.
|relicensing (parts of) it as GPL, but then the problem for me would be
|that I could not use the GPL'd derivates myself, because I want my
|code in the public domain.
That's the thing about releasing code to the public domain: You give up
control of what other folks do with it. They might do something fairly
benign like release it as GPL. Or the might do something rather evil
like release it with MS EULAs.
In either case, you don't have any rights to use the derived works in
public domain projects. But then, it's not clear why you think you
*should* be able to use someone else's code in a public domain project.
If they want to put their stuff in public domain, you are welcome to use
it so, but you've explicitly given up any leverage to require them to do
so.
If you want to put openness requirements on the creators of derived
works, that's pretty much exactly what the GPL is for. Maybe you should
use GPL yourself, since it seems to meet your goals.
I write this comment as someone who, in fact, puts his own code in the
public domain. In fact, I have some projects that a fair number of
other folks have contributed to that remain this way. I just let them
know that if they want to contribute, they should release the code to
public domain... otherwise I'm not interested in using their code (I
might still use their *idea* though). If someone wants to fork my
projects into GPL derivative works, it's no skin off my nose. I don't
use that code for my stuff... but there's no reason I should be allowed
to do so (it's their fork, they can do what they want).
Yours, David...
--
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[me...@gnosis.cx]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Fernando Pérez
"GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our
stuff, please keep it our stuff."
Credit: user #46721, whoever that is. (I quote my sources :)
Cheers,
f.
ps. No, I won't get into the flamewar. I just liked the soundbite.
Greg Ewing
> Seen on slashdot:
>
> "GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our
> stuff, please keep it our stuff."
>
> Credit: user #46721, whoever that is. (I quote my sources :)
I would put it as: "If you add your stuff to our stuff,
your stuff is now our stuff too. Resistance is futile."
:-)
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
dsavitsk
"Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote in message
news:mailman.1034121132...@python.org...
> "Mark McEahern" <mark...@mceahern.com> wrote previously:
> |This is not quite the same thing. When you're done taking the watch,
it's
> |no longer there for anyone else to enjoy. Not so in the case of
> |intellectual property.
* * *
> Moreover, I do know that "IP" is different than physical object in
> respect to cost of reproduction. And that actual difference ought to be
> recognized and embraced in law rather than having the distinction denied
> and obfuscated in ideology and law.
I am not sure what lawyer/law professor/judge told you otherwise, but the
distinction is widely recognized. Whether the recognition is done so wisely
is another point, however.
-d
Anton Vredegoor
wrote:
>Anton Vredegoor wrote:
>
>> This is a strange coincidence.
>
>You just weren't wearing your foil cap, so I could read your mind :-).
>For the record, the software he's referring to is:
>
> http://www.alcyone.com/pyos/lsystem/
>
>which is a really simple implementation of some Lindenmayer systems.
Lsystem.py says Lindenmeyer instead of Lindenmayer. I also found the
following link about Lindenmayer system simulators:
http://www.csu.edu.au/complex_systems/tutorial2.html
I am interested in finding other interesting axiom/rule combinations.
>I didn't receive any email (my response to you in this thread was indeed
>mere coincidence). I checked my recent spam filters and didn't find
>anything either; when did you send me this?
Sorry, I didn't actually send e-mail. But I thought about doing it.
Are you sure you didn't read my mind? If you did, my mind has a very
strong end user licence agreement accompanying it, I hope you signed
it before entering?
<some good explanations and kind remarks deleted>
I am happy to get out of discussing such a dangerous subject with only
minor scratches so I am out of here {],
Regards,
Anton.
Steve Holden
news:mailman.1034119693...@python.org...
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 08:32:28AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
> > Michael Stenner wrote:
> > > You correctly note that you've been tainted since you looked at his
> > > code. That leaves you in a bit of a quandry, but you got yourself
> > > into it. Why did you look at his code in the first place? You knew
> > > it was GPL'd. You knew you weren't willing to use the GPL! What
> > > LEGITIMATE benefit could you gain?
> >
> > and Steve Holden wrote:
> >
> > > The OP's real mistake, as has already been pointed out, was reading
GPL'd
> > > code when he doesn't agree with, or want to abide by, the GPL.
> >
> > The GPL exerts Copyleft by modifying rights granted to authors
> > by legislated Copyright. As pointed out by someone else,
> > Copyright extends only to implementations, not to algorithms.
> > Thus, merely studying GPLed code does not 'taint' your mind with
> > the GPL, no more so than reading Marx makes you a communist.
>
prose could have apparently set parts of the world on fire the way it did.
> > < much more (supporting arguments) snipped >
>
[ ... ]
> Here's my little "rule of thumb" type guideline (that I'm making up
> right now) that I think we'll agree on (at least Tim and I): if you
> read casually, or for understanding (as opposed to memorization) and
> then a few days later write up your version, then you're probably
> fine. If you write your version with the "original" open in another
> window or or refer to it frequently, that's not so safe.
>
I also agree. The OP's statements appeared to indicate that he couldn't,
having read the GPL's code, think of an original way to express the
algorithm. Of course, until we know what the algorithm was we're kind of
debating in a vacuum.
but-that-never-stopped-c.l.py-ly y'rs - steve
Steve Holden
"Greg Ewing" <see_repl...@something.invalid> wrote in message
news:3DA3B3A2...@something.invalid...
> Fernando Pérez wrote:
>
> > Seen on slashdot:
> >
> > "GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our
> > stuff, please keep it our stuff."
> >
> > Credit: user #46721, whoever that is. (I quote my sources :)
>
>
> I would put it as: "If you add your stuff to our stuff,
> your stuff is now our stuff too. Resistance is futile."
>
Or, more concisely: "All your stuff belong to us"? :-)
Really, though, the GPL simply says "If you want to use our stuff you have
to make your stuff available on the same terms". It always amuses me to read
people calling the FSF "fascist" when they don't like the restrictions the
GPL places on usage. Nobody calls Microsoft "fascist" ... oh, sorry, maybe
that's going a bit too far.
anyway-they-deserve-all-they-get-ly y'rs - steve
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|no longer there for anyone else to enjoy. Not so in the case of
|intellectual property.
I feel compelled to respond. Mostly just because I fear that Gustavo's
other post following this vaguely insinuates I would be sympathetic with
the BSA (they're a bunch of evil bastards who act like thugs).
Moreover, I do know that "IP" is different than physical object in
respect to cost of reproduction. And that actual difference ought to be
recognized and embraced in law rather than having the distinction denied
and obfuscated in ideology and law.
My silly little parody was just trying to point to a case of
Mark McEahern
> Moreover, I do know that "IP" is different than physical object in
> respect to cost of reproduction. And that actual difference ought to be
> recognized and embraced in law rather than having the distinction denied
> and obfuscated in ideology and law.
>
> My silly little parody was just trying to point to a case of
> -permission- (or lack thereof) where no one would even think to ask for
> help with circumvention. Whatever differences there are between a watch
> and some GPL code, they have in common that the owner doesn't authorize
> me to use their thing except under certain (reasonable) restrictions.
> My hypothetical jewler puts the condition on the watch that I have to
> pay a certain amount of money before I can have it... he doesn't have
> to, it's well in his rights to give it to me, or to reduce the price,
> but that's what he does. Likewise, the author of the GPL code decides
> to require compliance with the GPL is a condition for redistribution of
> derived works. Maybe she'll change her mind if asked, but that's what
> she has stated for now. I don't *need* to have the watch, and I don't
> *need* to use someone else's codebase.... if I want to, I'll pay the
> price.
In questioning the analogy, I wasn't even thinking about the cost of
reproduction. I was thinking more along these lines:
In the case of the stolen watch, it's clear and obvious that harm has been
done. It would take quite a convoluted argument to show that we don't all
have an interest in the government enforcing laws designed to prevent people
from stealing watches. All I'm really saying (and this is clearly nothing
new) is that the same cannot be said for intellectual property. It's not on
the face of it obvious that any significant, lasting, relevant harm is done
in violating the wishes of the creator regarding how the work is to be used.
Of course, then the next question is, "What is their motivation to release
their work?"
Yadda, yadda...
Cheers,
// mark
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|> Moreover, I do know that "IP" is different than physical object in
|> respect to cost of reproduction. And that actual difference ought to be
|> recognized and embraced in law rather than having the distinction denied
|> and obfuscated in ideology and law.
"Mark McEahern" <mark...@mceahern.com> wrote:
|...I wasn't even thinking about the cost of reproduction...In the case
|of the stolen watch, it's clear and obvious that harm has been done.
|...All I'm really saying is that the same cannot be said for
|intellectual property. It's not on the face of it obvious that any
|significant, lasting, relevant harm is done in violating the wishes of
|the creator regarding how the work is to be used.
Yeah, but what you're really talking about is cost of reproduction, even
if you don't realize it immediately. It's always *things* that we are
interested in utilizing for various purposes--even if those things have
the fairly ethereal form of charges on a platter.
Some things are almost identical in the labor requirement for initial
production and subsequent reproduction. Other things require far more
labor to create initially than they do to copy subsequently. For
example, here are a few in order:
- Growing one bushel of corn versus a later one
- Building one watch versus a "knockoff" on the same design
- Writing a book versus copying it with pen-and-paper
- Writing a book versus copying it with a photocopier
- Writing a floppy worth of source code versus disk copy
Classical economists of the Smith and Ricardo stripe (and Locke too,
especially) have had a way of thinking that demanded an underlying
uniformity that wasn't present in the things themselves. So the concept
of "intellectual property" was invented to "fill the gap" between
production and reproduction costs. Of course, even there, it's dopey...
using a tool also improves my ability to produce things; but I don't pay
a royalty to my hammer manufacturer each time I drive a nail.
The reason that the source code writer is not harmed by my "taking" his
code is that I don't really take it, normally. If copying a floppy (or
an internet file) was more like hand copying a book, I might be more
inclined to steal her physical floppy disk. But since disk copy is so
cheap, I don't bother. Likewise, if building a new watch using an
existing one as template was not still so difficult, I would be little
inclined to steal the one in the jewelers window (well, I'm still not so
inclined personally... but in the hypothetical).
David Mertz, Ph.D.
> The GPL exerts Copyleft by modifying rights granted to authors
> by legislated Copyright. As pointed out by someone else,
> Copyright extends only to implementations, not to algorithms.
> Thus, merely studying GPLed code does not 'taint' your mind with
> the GPL, no more so than reading Marx makes you a communist.
"Steve Holden" <sho...@holdenweb.com> wrote previously:
|Indeed, having read some of Marx's work, I am surprised that such
|turgid prose could have apparently set parts of the world on fire the
|way it did.
Funny thing, this is my area. Slavoj Zizek makes an observation about
this. Actually it starts with Pascal's Wager[*]. Zizek points out that
one does not become a Xtian because the Wager in convincing; instead,
the Wager makes sense BECAUSE one is an Xtian.
It works the same way with the Old Man. You don't become a Marixst
because you've read Marx; you read Marx because you are a Marxist!
Circling back to the slightest element of relevance, I think the same
thing works with the GPL. You don't release Free Software because you
are bound by the terms of the GPL; rather you bind yourself to the terms
of the GPL because you want to release Free Software.
Actually, you can plug in almost anything here :-).
Yours, The Filose Philosopher...
[*] The idea here is that Pascal asks to consider belief in the Xtian
schtick as if one were a gambler. If you decide to believe, and
you're right, you get eternal salvation and all that. I you decide
not to believe, and your wrong, it's hellfire and eternity (bummer).
So *IF* the God stuff is right, the choice matters a lot. Now on
the other hand, maybe the world is really mechanistic and we're just
a bundle of cells. In this case, if you decide to believe, maybe
you look a little foolish for 70 years, then its over. If you
decide not to believe in Xtianity, you are a bit more correct for 70
years, then nothing. So the odds chart looks like:
Reality -> Xtian Atheist
----------+-------+-------+
Belief | +inf | -X |
----------+-------+-------+
Disbelief | -inf | +Y |
----------+-------+-------+
Erik Max Francis
> Lsystem.py says Lindenmeyer instead of Lindenmayer.
Yes, the latter spelling is correct. For some reason I had thought that
it was spelled with an _E_, but then realized it wasn't and corrected
the documentation; evidently I missed one in the code itself.
> I also found the
> following link about Lindenmayer system simulators:
>
> http://www.csu.edu.au/complex_systems/tutorial2.html
I have some more links on my homepage:
http://www.alcyone.com/max/links/alife.html#Lindenmayer_systems_Lsystems
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ In principle I am against principles.
\__/ Tristan Tzara
Lsystem / http://www.alcyone.com/pyos/lsystem/
A Lindenmayer systems explorer in Python.
Mark McEahern
> [*] The idea here is that Pascal asks to consider belief in the Xtian
> schtick as if one were a gambler.
[snip excellent summary of Pascal's Wager]
Yes, but what Pascal's Wager clearly elides is the possibility that God is a
PotatoHead and he yearns for us to believe accordingly. The sham
convenience of Pascal's Wager is thereby revealed...
Reality -> Xtian Atheist PotatoHead etc...
-----------+-------+-------+-----------+
Xtian | +inf | -X | -inf |
-----------+-------+-------+------------
Atheist | -inf | +Y | -inf |
-----------+-------+-------+------------
PotatoHead | -inf | -Z | +inf |
-----------+-------+-------+------------
etc
.
.
.
<wink>
// m
-
Alex Martelli
...
> if you don't realize it immediately. It's always *things* that we are
> interested in utilizing for various purposes--even if those things have
> the fairly ethereal form of charges on a platter.
Nope, it's always _services_ -- even if those services are cheapest or
most practical to purchase as embodied in 'things'. You can't really
frame, in terms of "it's always *things*", such "utilizing" as enjoying
a theatrical performance, a haircut, etc; the alternative framing of
"it's always _services_" has its sticky spots (when "things" are
_consumed_ in the process of "utilizing" -- bottle of wine being the
classic example) but requires a tad less mirror-climbing than
"it's always *things*" if you're keen for a GUT one way or another.
The key difference is in how you frame gray areas: the services-frame
helps you view "I purchase a car" as "I purchase a bundle of services
(embodied, for cheapness/practicality, in a thing)" and analyze the
bundle -- e.g. focusing just on transportation services, "convenient
transportation of self, others and goods from point A to point B at
any time without needing pre-arrangements in each case" might then
be further analyzed in terms of possible unbundling (would abundant
taxis available at any time supply a superior service, by avoiding
the chore of driving, or an inferior one, by removing the joy of
driving? -- etc).
While framing every purchase (&c) as one of services is clearly
an oversimplification, albeit somewhat of a lesser one wrt that of
framing every purchase (&c) as one of things, I think it's far more
fruitful for most purposes -- particularly when you're trying to
design and put together novel bundles and/or market then, but not
only then...
_My_ criticism of A. Smith is that he could not conceive of
services in such a generalized way -- as the core of all
economic activity, the true Wealth of Nations. But considering
how many, 230 years later, STILL have problems with the notion,
it has to be a very muted and respectful criticism:-).
Alex
Alex Martelli
...
> Or, more concisely: "All your stuff belong to us"? :-)
I think it's spelled "are belong to us" (I've seen "are belongs" too,
but I believe that's wrong grammar...).
Alex
Jacob Hallen
Anton Vredegoor <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:03:44 -0400, "Steve Holden"
><sho...@holdenweb.com> wrote:
>
>>"Anton Vredegoor" <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
>>news:anujeq$qdk$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
>>
>>> I guess I could e-mail the author for permission but if I would have
>>> to wait for them to answer, it would slow my coding process down to a
>>> snail's pace, and there's always the possibility of the author being
>>> unwilling.
>>>
>>rather than some other license. That way there's no problem incorporating
>>GPL'd code.
>
>That would solve the problem at the cost of passing on the problem to
>the next coder. It's this kind of "chain letter like" property that I
>want to adress.
It is quite legal to copy small amounts of copyrighted material, with or
without attribution. For music, the legal amount is in most jurisdictions
considered to be 8 measures. In works of literature it is about a paragraph.
My guess is that with code it would be something like 10 lines.
Jacob Hallén
--
Courageous
>Since the BSD technology was published, any patents issued to Microsoft
>which use the same technology are invalidated by the existence of "prior
>art".
Prior art has no legal power. It takes a case, and probably a good $10 million
in legal fees, to get the legal power you're thinking of. Patents are real
humdingers, even when prior art _ought_ to invalidate them.
C//
Courageous
>"GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our
>stuff, please keep it our stuff."
That's the LGPL. The GPL goes like this:
"What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, or even
link with our stuff, make sure the whole shebang is our stuff."
C//
Paul Hughett
: The GPL (like all copyrights) cover an implementation. It does not cover
: an idea (that is what patents are for)
: To un-GPL something re-do the implementation such that a court would
: not see it as a derivative work.
: One way obvious way to do this is to convert the algorithm into an
: English specification, then to hand that specification off to someone else
: (who has not seen the GPL code) for implementation.
You can also do it the same way the FSF did to avoid possible
copyright suits over reimplementing the basic Unix utilities. Rewrite
the algorithm from scratch, making some substantial and non-trivial
improvement. If I remember correctly, the FSF rewrote the utilities
to remove all arbitrary memory limitations; that is, the improved
utilities will malloc as much memory as they need rather than relying
on fixed buffer sizes.
Paul Hughett
Andres Rosado
>To destroy IP, kill capitalism, and put programmers out or work isn't
>quite what id call fair.
>Write GPL app
>???
>PROFIT!!!
>Realize no one is buying what you are giving out for free.
>File chapter 11.
This is debatable. MySQL is a profitable company and it released its
product under a GPL licence. Red Hat and Mandrake are other examples. More
companies could benefit from using a GPL-type of licence.
-----------------------------------
Andres Rosado
Email: and...@despammed.com
ICQ: 66750646
Homepage: http://andres980.tripod.com/
Sooner or later you must pay for your sins.
(Those who have already paid may disregard this fortune).
Chris Gonnerman
From: "Andres Rosado" <aro...@softhome.net>
> At 01:59 PM 10/8/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >To destroy IP, kill capitalism, and put programmers out or
> >work isn't quite what id call fair.
> >Write GPL app
> >???
> >PROFIT!!!
> >Realize no one is buying what you are giving out for free.
> >File chapter 11.
>
> This is debatable. MySQL is a profitable company and it
> released its product under a GPL licence. Red Hat and
> Mandrake are other examples. More companies could benefit
> from using a GPL-type of licence.
A lot of programmers, addicted to the (imaginary) easy money
of a successful shrinkwrapped program, think that "profit"
isn't good enough. They want (expect) PROFIT, the kind that
makes you Bill Gates or Paul Allen. Wake up, already. We
can't all make that kind of money, and further, realize that
"Billion Dollar" Bill didn't WRITE the programs that made him
rich. The programmers who did, if they were lucky, came out
with "profit" rather than "PROFIT," and some were not so lucky.
That kind of greed is... unseemly. Pretty common, though.
The OP above, whose name seems to be missing, thinks that the
GPL puts programmers out of work. He or she needs to realize
that the vast majority of us don't write shrinkwrap software.
We build in-house, custom systems, which will always be needed.
GPL code is not so onerous if you don't ever plan to distribute
it (read the GPL... you are basically completely unaffected
by the license if you never distribute your changes outside
your organization). Or worse, we maintain systems built by
others...
Chris Gonnerman -- chris.g...@newcenturycomputers.net
http://newcenturycomputers.net
Magnus Lie Hetland
>"Anton Vredegoor" <an...@vredegoor.doge.nl> wrote in message
>news:anujeq$qdk$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
>>
>> how can I use a class or a function from a GLP'd module (cut-and-paste
>> style) in a module with BSD or public domain style release?
>>
>whole point of copyleft.
But, clearly, this is a matter of how much code is copied, no? I mean,
it's easy to make the case for minimal amounts (such as a single
character, a language keyword, etc.) Where is the line drawn? I guess
a "substantial amount" would have to be copied for it to be covered by
the license, but since IANAL, I don't know how much that is. Depends
on the functionality, I'd assume.
--
Magnus Lie Hetland Practical Python The Anygui Project
http://hetland.org http://ppython.com http://anygui.org
Courageous
>character, a language keyword, etc.) Where is the line drawn? I guess
>a "substantial amount" would have to be copied for it to be covered by
You're busted the moment the amount becomes recognizable in and
of its own right as part of the original work. Avoid the temptation
to cut and paste code from copyrighted works. This is a fine way
to land yourself into trouble, should you be discovered (which is
unlikely, but that's a different discussion).
C//
Andres Rosado
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 05:41 AM 10/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> Or, more concisely: "All your stuff belong to us"? :-)
I think it's spelled "are belong to us" (I've seen "are belongs" too,
but I believe that's wrong grammar...).
A very famous grammar error...
- -----------------------------------
Andres Rosado
Email: and...@despammed.com
ICQ: 66750646
Homepage: http://andres980.tripod.com/
It is not true that life is one damn thing after
another -- it's one damn thing over and over.
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPauCn0I053wKx7aXEQIdgwCfWJzpZz0ulZXbTvv2ytORqIdr0CUAoMPA
zrtp7fGWSrZs9My4rKzisljU
=s3Qp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Christopher Browne
> At 05:41 AM 10/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > Or, more concisely: "All your stuff belong to us"? :-)
>
> I think it's spelled "are belong to us" (I've seen "are belongs" too,
> but I believe that's wrong grammar...).
>
> A very famous grammar error...
Actually, the "correct" phrasing is:
"All your base are belong to us!"
http://www.allyourbase.net
http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/index.shtml
http://www.classicgameroom.com/allyourbase/
The truly best parody of it is the Sesame Street one:
http://www.thegamegroove.com/images/sesamebase.jpg
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@acm.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/languages.html
"... and the REALLY GOOD THING, is that after you have gone to the
trouble of compiling that once, you can run it MANY MANY times!!!"
-- Arthur Norman
Mark McEahern
>
> "All your base are belong to us!"
It's kind of funny to see people tripping over themselves to "correct" the
grammar for something which became famous for the way it mangled grammar.
Of course, I'm tripping over myself to point that out, so what does that
say?
<wink>
Cheers,
// m
-
Christopher Browne
If I wanted to get picky, I'd say something about "proper quoting" and
"literary correctness."
But it was really just a flimsy excuse to present a quite evil picture
of the Sesame Street gang :-).
<http://www.thegamegroove.com/images/sesamebase.jpg>
Of course, it's slightly less evil than the "Gay Ernie and Bert"
theory... http://www.snopes2.com/radiotv/tv/gaymupp.htm>
But the bizarrest one of all was when reality imitated fiction.
<http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/bert.htm>
Someone in Bangladesh was making a "Osama bin Laden" collage poster
(apparently this has been a common business there?), and printed a
couple thousand posters that included a picture of Bert. That was far
and away the funniest thing I saw in all of 2001...
--
(concatenate 'string "chris" "@cbbrowne.com")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/python.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #20. "Despite its proven stress-relieving
effect, I will not indulge in maniacal laughter. When so occupied,
it's too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more attentive
individual could adjust to accordingly."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Magnus Lie Hetland
>
>>character, a language keyword, etc.) Where is the line drawn? I guess
>>a "substantial amount" would have to be copied for it to be covered by
>>the license, but...
>
>You're busted the moment the amount becomes recognizable in and
>of its own right as part of the original work.
Weeeell... What if I used the variable name "fnooooooooble" in my
code, slapped a GPL on it, and someone else later copied the variable
name? It would be recognisable, but hardly covered by the license...
> Avoid the temptation
>to cut and paste code from copyrighted works. This is a fine way
>to land yourself into trouble, should you be discovered (which is
>unlikely, but that's a different discussion).
I'm not really talking about what you can "get away with", but what is
actually legal. If a GPL'ed program has a nice implementation of
QuickSort, and I snip it -- is it covered by the license? I'd say it's
doubtful, but it seems that it's not obvious where the lines are
drawn. (And, of course, copyrighting a piece of code is not the same
as patenting an algorithm; and for something to be copyrightable it
must meet several criteria, I believe -- i.e. be a "substantial work"
of some kind. Snippets of the code will probably have to meet the same
criteria.)
>C//