Public license question
ma...@voltaire.com
Assuming I wish to sell a special-purpose Linux-based box (e.g. a Linux-based
machine running webserver software I wrote) :
Do I have to release my source code, which for argument's sake includes
user-mode code + kernel drivers?
Thanks,
-Mark
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
brian moore
ma...@voltaire.com <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
> A question on the GPL:
>
> Assuming I wish to sell a special-purpose Linux-based box (e.g. a Linux-based
> machine running webserver software I wrote) :
> Do I have to release my source code, which for argument's sake includes
> user-mode code + kernel drivers?
If you change a GPL'd program, you need to provide source.
A program you write from scratch you can do what you want with.
(Witness Oracle, WordPerfect and a slew of other commercial packages
that don't provide source.)
If you -change- the kernel, you need to provide source to your changes.
If you have a loadable kernel module (say, for the
"ExtraFastFileSystem"), you don't need to provide the source to the
module. (Of course, if it's derived from existing GPL'd code, you
would: so hacking the e2fs code would still need to be GPL'd.)
For ease of support, it would be best if you released source even to
kernel modules: you can deprive the user of being able to change to
newer kernels without your help if you don't provide source.
Figure out exactly what it is you're selling: are you selling the box
itself (like the Cobalt Qubes or the Corel Netwinders) -- for them, the
value is the hardware, and both companies provide source. Or you could
be selling the combination of the software, your preconfiguration and
support, and distribution (like Redhat, which also supplies the source).
Giving out the source doesn't mean you make no money.
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
Gergo Barany
>
> Assuming I wish to sell a special-purpose Linux-based box (e.g. a Linux-based
> machine running webserver software I wrote) :
> Do I have to release my source code, which for argument's sake includes
> user-mode code + kernel drivers?
Yes, ANY work derived from a GPL'd program must also be released under
the GPL, which states that it has to be accompanied by the source or
an offer to give out the source. See section 3 of the license.
Gergo
--
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!],
`Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the
right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage
GU d- s:+ a--- C++>$ UL+++ P>++ L+++ E>++ W+ N++ o? K- w--- !O !M !V
PS+ PE+
Y+ PGP+ t* 5+ X- R>+ tv++ b+>+++ DI+ D+ G>++ e* h! !r !y+
John Hasler
> A question on the GPL:
>
> Assuming I wish to sell a special-purpose Linux-based box (e.g. a Linux-based
> machine running webserver software I wrote) :
> Do I have to release my source code, which for argument's sake includes
> user-mode code + kernel drivers?
You do not need to release the source code for your user-mode code as long
as you write it all yourself.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jo...@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
ma...@voltaire.com
> If you change a GPL'd program, you need to provide source.
>
> A program you write from scratch you can do what you want with.
> (Witness Oracle, WordPerfect and a slew of other commercial packages
> that don't provide source.)
> If you -change- the kernel, you need to provide source to your changes.
> If you have a loadable kernel module (say, for the
> "ExtraFastFileSystem"), you don't need to provide the source to the
> module. (Of course, if it's derived from existing GPL'd code, you
> would: so hacking the e2fs code would still need to be GPL'd.)
One may argue that kernel modules, whether loadable or not, are always based
on GPL'ed code, since they specifically #include<> it.... How is this
handled?
brian moore
ma...@voltaire.com <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
>
> One may argue that kernel modules, whether loadable or not, are always based
> on GPL'ed code, since they specifically #include<> it.... How is this
> handled?
Mortal userland programs have #include's, too, without that problem.
The kernel API is not GPL'd.
Todd Knarr
> One may argue that kernel modules, whether loadable or not, are always based
> on GPL'ed code, since they specifically #include<> it.... How is this
> handled?
My understanding: the stuff in the .h files defines the interface. Mere
use of the interface is not considered enough to qualify as "derived from
the code that implements the interface". This lets you make a module that
is not GPL'd, as long as you don't modify any of the rest of the kernel.
If you do need to modify the GPL'd code, those modifications must also
be GPL'd ( but _not_ the entire module, just the modifications to GPL'd
code ).
--
All I want out of the Universe is 10 minutes with the source code and
a quick recompile.
-- unknown
Mark Mokryn
Todd Knarr <tkn...@xmission.com> wrote:
> My understanding: the stuff in the .h files defines the interface. Mere
> use of the interface is not considered enough to qualify as "derived from
> the code that implements the interface". This lets you make a module that
> is not GPL'd, as long as you don't modify any of the rest of the kernel.
> If you do need to modify the GPL'd code, those modifications must also
> be GPL'd ( but _not_ the entire module, just the modifications to GPL'd
> code ).
True, header files are mostly interface definitions, but not entirely. Take
macro's for example. Thus, my point is: can I be entirely certain that
proprietary work can be performed on the Linux platform? i.e., if I change
the platform, I know that I need to open up my changes, but what if I just
use the existing platform to form a possibly proprietary, new platform? By
"use" I mean that my new platform will contain: Unmodified Linux kernel (or
if modified, I will make public the modified source files), new files written
entirely by me, which of course will #include standard kernel header files.
This GPL stuff is very confusing... For example, can I call Transarc and
demand the source code of their distributed file system for Linux? I'm sure
they at the very least use macro's someone in the Linux community wrote... If
I can, then it seems to me that the GPL is actually screwing Linux. I love
the idea of an open OS, and am willing to support it. I believe that the OS
is a base platform which we should all be able to use, but the openness
should not hinder us. If we cannot make a living off of it, well, then I will
just have to use another platform.
Does anyone know of any legal precedents regarding the GPL? Perhaps what would
help is if the GPL were clarified, and specific guidelines may be established.
Keeping it ambiguous hurts us all.
Help!
John Hasler
> Does anyone know of any legal precedents regarding the GPL? Perhaps what
> would help is if the GPL were clarified, and specific guidelines may be
> established. Keeping it ambiguous hurts us all.
A long list of companies including Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and Corel have
released proprietary software for Linux. Don't you think they that at
least some of them had their lawyers investigate the legal implications of
the kernel license?
Rick Onanian
>
> Mark writes:
> > Does anyone know of any legal precedents regarding the GPL? Perhaps what
> > would help is if the GPL were clarified, and specific guidelines may be
> > established. Keeping it ambiguous hurts us all.
>
> A long list of companies including Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and Corel have
> released proprietary software for Linux. Don't you think they that at
> least some of them had their lawyers investigate the legal implications of
> the kernel license?
As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
care..
I'm afraid that, if they wanted to, MS could just take Debian,
remove any references to GPL and remove all source code, write
Microsoft all over it, sell it, and there is no specific legal
ramification. Although, the linux community would backlash and
it would flop... There's no law involved in any of this, AFAIK.
So, basically, to answer the original question posted... It
shouldn't be any problem to write a program as you wish, and
to do what you wish. All you have to do is make sure your
intent is not to damage the FSF's cause, and instead is to help
contribute to the community.
> --
> John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
> jo...@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
> Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
> Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
--
rick - a guy in search of raw (ISO) cd images of SuSE and Slackware
---------------
My opinions don't exist, and as such, are not anyone elses. I do not
represent anyone, not even myself, and especially not my employer.
---
Looking for a 1968 Camaro SS convertible, black interior,
beat-up rustbucket that is in need lots of restoration and TLC.
---
Reply to me at either thc <at sign here> psynet <dot> net or
rick <at sign> mail <dot> artmold <dot> com
brian moore
Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
>
> As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
> anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
> anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
> maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
> than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
> make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
> care..
Then you don't understand it.
Hint: do you think NeXT released their modifications to gcc for
'objective C' because of warm fuzzy feelings?
The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
license violations on code they control.
That said, they don't control the Linux kernel.
> I'm afraid that, if they wanted to, MS could just take Debian,
> remove any references to GPL and remove all source code, write
> Microsoft all over it, sell it, and there is no specific legal
> ramification. Although, the linux community would backlash and
> it would flop... There's no law involved in any of this, AFAIK.
Copyright law isn't law?
That would be precisely as legal as duping Windows CD's: not.
Please stop practicing law without training.
Rick Onanian
>
> On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:43:15 -0500,
> Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
> > anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
> > anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
> > maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
> > than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
> > make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
> > care..
>
> Then you don't understand it.
Agreed. Noone else seemed to be helping any more than me, tho, so I
figured I could at least spark some discussion.
> Hint: do you think NeXT released their modifications to gcc for
> 'objective C' because of warm fuzzy feelings?
These ideas, in part, come from previous posts involving WordPerfect,
StarOffice, and other non GPL'd programs available for Linux.
> The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
> license violations on code they control.
I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
didn't.
> That said, they don't control the Linux kernel.
Or much of the other GPL'd software.
> > I'm afraid that, if they wanted to, MS could just take Debian,
> > remove any references to GPL and remove all source code, write
> > Microsoft all over it, sell it, and there is no specific legal
> > ramification. Although, the linux community would backlash and
> > it would flop... There's no law involved in any of this, AFAIK.
>
> Copyright law isn't law?
Please read more carefully. "I'm afraid that" means that I fear what
they could do.
> That would be precisely as legal as duping Windows CD's: not.
>
> Please stop practicing law without training.
Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
some government?
I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
a court of law.
That being said, how many parts of any given distribution of Linux
have real copyrights? I would venture to guess that much of GPL'd
software out there is not really copyrighted.
I do not claim to know law, or programming, for that matter. I do
not practice law; rather, I offer my opinions from a point of view
that I believe to be [very] slightly more informed than those who
ask.
> --
> Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
> Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
> Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
> Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
--
Gergo Barany
> something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
> some government?
Nope. You register trademarks, but not copyrights. But if you really
have to go to court, it's good to have a datestamp on it (by printing
the source and mailing it to yourself).
> I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
> copyright all over it,
Yes, that's what a copyright is.
Gergo
--
I have discovered the art of deceiving diplomats. I tell them the
truth
and they never believe me.
-- Camillo Di Cavour
Josef Drexler
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
> something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably, some
> government?
No. You don't even have to put the copyright notice anywhere. As long as it
is original work, it is automatically copyrighted. The copyright notice is
just a help for people, to find out _whose_ copyright it actually is.
You don't have to register anything with anybody.
> I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
> copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in a
> court of law.
It would, if you care to defend it. Copyright law is, as far as I know, a
civil law in most parts of the world. This means that the copyright holder
has to sue the violator. But I'm not entirely sure in this, and this is also
a matter of local legislation.
> That being said, how many parts of any given distribution of Linux have
> real copyrights? I would venture to guess that much of GPL'd software
> out there is not really copyrighted.
You have to understand the difference between copyright and licence. The
copyright basically denies everybody to copy it but the author. It is only
through the licence that he allows copying. So, most of the GPL'd software
has the copyright of their author(s) (just look at the source), and they in
turn allow the world to copy and use their software if they agree to the
terms in the licence.
Copyright and licence are linked, but they aren't the same. Nor are they
mutually exclusive. In fact, without a copyright, you wouldn't be able to
impose a licence on the user.
Without the copyright (that is, if you explicitly state that it is _not_
copyrighted), you have public domain software. There cannot be a licence
limiting what you do with it, because nobody holds any rights on it.
Sometimes the authors do, but that will not hold in court.
I hope this clarified the issue a bit. Note that I'm neither lawyer nor did
I study law, but I'm rather a software author who was genuinely interested
in this matter and did some research on his own. And the GPL actually has
the distinction between copyright and licence in the text.
--
Josef Drexler
----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Conscience is what hurts when | In order to email me, please replace
everything else feels so good. | .canada with .ca - Death to Spammers!
Matthias Warkus
..and Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
> something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
> some government?
>
> copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
> a court of law.
You are completely wrong.
Everything you create is your intellectual property, and it remains so
for at least 70 years (that is IIRC, and in Germany). You don't need
to say it's Copyright (c) xxxx by me. You don't need to register it.
It's yours. Full stop.
mawa
--
You probably didn't notice, but during the past year, the moon slipped
about one and a half inches farther from the earth
-- Joel Bloch, "Stardate", NPR
Michael Powe
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Rick" == Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> writes:
>> > I'm afraid that, if they wanted to, MS could just take
>> Debian, > remove any references to GPL and remove all source
>> code, write > Microsoft all over it, sell it, and there is no
>> specific legal > ramification. Although, the linux community
>> would backlash and > it would flop... There's no law involved
>> in any of this, AFAIK.
>> Copyright law isn't law?
Rick> Please read more carefully. "I'm afraid that" means that I
Rick> fear what they could do.
>> That would be precisely as legal as duping Windows CD's: not.
>>
>> Please stop practicing law without training.
Rick> Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright
Rick> on something, you have to register it with some authority?
Rick> Probably, some government?
Copyright is automatic. It's not a trademark or a patent, you don't
have to "register" it.
Rick> I have been told that you can copyright something simply by
Rick> saying copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that
Rick> would hold in a court of law.
It would. It does. It's the law. Copyright is implicit, you don't
even have to say "I copyright this."
Rick> That being said, how many parts of any given distribution of
Rick> Linux have real copyrights? I would venture to guess that
Rick> much of GPL'd software out there is not really copyrighted.
The GPL is a license. The copyright belongs to the author unless he
specifically assigns it to someone else.
mp
- --
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
mic...@trollope.org http://www.trollope.org
"Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write."
-- Anthony Trollope
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE23Gc5755rgEMD+T8RAopfAKCQLTF+2zeECUjbW+xQWj1+v01BDgCcCrAp
UoqdNYy64Mf/hl2JkKXCPLE=
=9CFw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
brian moore
> brian moore wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:43:15 -0500,
> > Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
> > > anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
> > > anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
> > > maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
> > > than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
> > > make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
> > > care..
> >
> > 'objective C' because of warm fuzzy feelings?
>
> These ideas, in part, come from previous posts involving WordPerfect,
> StarOffice, and other non GPL'd programs available for Linux.
They're wrong: Corel and others can release software for Linux and
retain all the source they want. Completely legal and no one would be
able (or care to) threaten them with that.
But there is a difference between being "legal" and being "ethical":
Corel is going much farther than many companies and is aiding the WINE
project and porting the kernel to the StrongARM platform and sharing the
code for those projects. This shows they are members of the community.
> > The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
> > license violations on code they control.
>
> I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
> didn't.
No one needs to pay for lawyers.
> > That said, they don't control the Linux kernel.
>
> Or much of the other GPL'd software.
Of course not.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
> something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
> some government?
Nope: you -can- register if you want, but it's not required. The Berne
convention holds that anything that is copyrightable is copyrighted
unless specifically renounced. This post, for example, is copyrighted.
> I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
> copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
> a court of law.
You don't even need to label it. If it is copyrightable, it is
copyrighted.
> That being said, how many parts of any given distribution of Linux
> have real copyrights? I would venture to guess that much of GPL'd
> software out there is not really copyrighted.
You'd be wrong. Please read the Copyright FAQ.
> I do not claim to know law, or programming, for that matter. I do
> not practice law; rather, I offer my opinions from a point of view
> that I believe to be [very] slightly more informed than those who
> ask.
You believe wrong.
Matthias Warkus
..and Gergo Barany <gergo....@usa.net> wrote:
> > I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
> > copyright all over it,
>
You don't even need that anymore. International treaties have made the
U.S. switch to `standard' copyright law, too; up to ~1970, you needed
to have a "Copyright"/"Printed in" notice in your book to have it
copyrighted, but these times are over.
mawaa
--
The day-to-day travails of the Windows programmer are so amusing to
most of us who are fortunate enough never to have been one -- like
watching Charlie Chaplin trying to cook a shoe.
DaZZa
> Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
> something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
> some government?
You're wrong. :-)
> I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
> copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
> a court of law.
This is correct - a work is copyrite is there is a statement at the end
{or anywhere in it} which reads something like
This work copyrite {date} {author}. Distribution
{modification/editing/reproduction/anything else} without permission of
the author is prohibited.
And it'll stand up in court. There've been court cases where this has been
proven, for sure.
DaZZa
Christopher Browne
<ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
>brian moore wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:43:15 -0500,
>> Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
>> > anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
>> > anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
>> > maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
>> > than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
>> > make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
>> > care..
>>
>
>Agreed. Noone else seemed to be helping any more than me, tho, so I
>figured I could at least spark some discussion.
>
>> 'objective C' because of warm fuzzy feelings?
>
>These ideas, in part, come from previous posts involving WordPerfect,
>StarOffice, and other non GPL'd programs available for Linux.
The Objective C situation is *far* more descriptive of the validity of
the GPL as an enforceable license. The presence of non-GPLed programs
proves nothing about the enforceability of the GPL.
>> The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
>> license violations on code they control.
>
>I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
>didn't.
The FSF doesn't have *too* big a pile of money, which you might
determine by requesting a copy of their financial statements.
They have, however, been able to receive legal counsel "pro bono" from
lawyers that are either interested parties or otherwise well disposed to
contribute something to the community.
>> That said, they don't control the Linux kernel.
>
>Or much of the other GPL'd software.
True.
>> > I'm afraid that, if they wanted to, MS could just take Debian,
>> > remove any references to GPL and remove all source code, write
>> > Microsoft all over it, sell it, and there is no specific legal
>> > ramification. Although, the linux community would backlash and
>> > it would flop... There's no law involved in any of this, AFAIK.
>>
>> Copyright law isn't law?
>
>Please read more carefully. "I'm afraid that" means that I fear what
>they could do.
Unfortunately for them, doing this would provide a hotshot young lawyer
the potential of making a name by doing battle. Microsoft doesn't have
as deep pockets as IBM has had for this, and is definitely under fire
from other perspectives.
The bad publicity surrounding a case where it could be claimed that MSFT
took (say) Debian and sold it would be quite dramatic.
>> That would be precisely as legal as duping Windows CD's: not.
>>
>> Please stop practicing law without training.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
>something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
>some government?
You are incorrect. Trademarks need to be registered, but not copyright.
>I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
>copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
>a court of law.
It seems to hold quite well.
>That being said, how many parts of any given distribution of Linux
>have real copyrights? I would venture to guess that much of GPL'd
>software out there is not really copyrighted.
The GPLed software is "copylefted," which represents a use of copyright
in conjunction with a somewhat peculiar license. They are most
definitely copyrighted.
>I do not claim to know law, or programming, for that matter. I do
>not practice law; rather, I offer my opinions from a point of view
>that I believe to be [very] slightly more informed than those who
>ask.
It's a good thing that you don't claim to know law, because it's pretty
clear that you don't know copyright law very well.
--
Actually, typing random strings in the Finder does the equivalent of
filename completion. (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the
intuitiveness of commands: file completion vs. the Mac Finder.)
cbbr...@hex.net- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Christopher Browne
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 14:36:48 -0500,
> Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
>> brian moore wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:43:15 -0500,
>> > Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
>> > > anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
>> > > anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
>> > > maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
>> > > than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
>> > > make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
>> > > care..
>> >
>> > 'objective C' because of warm fuzzy feelings?
>>
>> These ideas, in part, come from previous posts involving WordPerfect,
>> StarOffice, and other non GPL'd programs available for Linux.
>
>retain all the source they want. Completely legal and no one would be
>able (or care to) threaten them with that.
>
>But there is a difference between being "legal" and being "ethical":
>Corel is going much farther than many companies and is aiding the WINE
>project and porting the kernel to the StrongARM platform and sharing the
>code for those projects. This shows they are members of the community.
The aid to the WINE project involves "ethical" action that is doubtless
in Corel's interests; it is in their interests to benefit from future
efforts by WINE developers as well as from past efforts, which is enough
reason to contribute code back.
In the case of the StrongARM port, it is not an "ethical" action to
share the code; it is *mandatory* for them to do so since they're using
a GPLed code base.
(Note that I'm not arguing that Corel is acting in *unethical* manner; I
just don't think it is appropriate to *assume* good ethics when the
evidence reveals legal and utilitarian causes.)
>> > The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
>> > license violations on code they control.
>>
>> I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
>> didn't.
>
>No one needs to pay for lawyers.
Some people do; in the case of the FSF, they happen to be getting
pro-bono efforts not unlike what was offered in the Linux community when
an individual from the Boston area tried to claim "Linux" as his
trademark.
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
>> something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
>> some government?
>
>Nope: you -can- register if you want, but it's not required. The Berne
>convention holds that anything that is copyrightable is copyrighted
>unless specifically renounced. This post, for example, is copyrighted.
Of course, once you place that news post on a server where it is going
to get automagically replicated, you may be relinquishing some of the
potential rights associated with copyright based on the policies of your
ISP and upstream news distributors.
(Some people used to have .signatures indicating that they would only
permit their articles to be propagated by MSFT servers on the condition
of MSFT paying them $1000 per news post. Without some sort of policies
out there to deny this sort of thing, the propagation of Usenet news
could get tied down by an immense legal burden...)
--
Microsoft Corp., concerned by the growing popularity of the free 32-bit
operating system for Intel systems, Linux, has employed a number of top
programmers from the underground world of virus development. Bill Gates
stated yesterday: "World domination, fast -- it's either us or Linus".
Mr. Torvalds was unavailable for comment ... (r...@swift.eng.ox.ac.uk
(Robert Manners), in comp.os.linux.setup)
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Nico Kadel-Garcia
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>Copyright is automatic. It's not a trademark or a patent, you don't
>have to "register" it.
The length of intellectual property ownership and the regulations
surrounding it change constantly. This is basically so that the people
paying for extension by funding legal battles or candidates supporting
laws can retain critical properties (such as the Mickey Mouse
copyrights and trademarks), while others want those materials
released (such as Star Trek "slash" writers).
Or, in code terms, people who have used the XOR trick for decades want
to be able to continue using common tricks without worrying about the
wienie who tried to patent it recently.
--
Mark Mokryn
cbbr...@hex.net wrote:
> It's a good thing that you don't claim to know law, because it's pretty
> clear that you don't know copyright law very well.
Okay, guys... as the originator of this thread, I must protest - this
discussion is not what I intended. I assume that at least the vast majority
of us, if not all of us, are engineers, and not (thank god) lawyers. So let's
cut the legalese bullshit, since that's exactly what it is. Please, let's
talk in more concrete terms we can all understand.
My original question pertained to the intent of the GPL. Can one indeed make
money on a project based on the Linux platform? And I do not mean to make
money the Red Hat way, i.e. open up the source code and sell support. For
argument's sake, let's say I intend to build a proprietary box (e.g.
super-duper new video server) running on some OS, possibly Linux. Of course,
an open-source OS can really help, and I can promise to release any
modifications to the existing OS platform. I would most certainly not want to
release the codebase to my project, however. I understand some of you may
say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I would
contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a serious project
on Linux, and putting people's good work to use. Think of me as the good
little guy, who does not want Micros**t, for example, to come around
demanding my source code, so they can learn from it, and build a similar
project on NT, thus driving me out of business. The prospect of this may
cause one to seek another platform (even Windows!), which would not require
everything to be released.
Worrisome to me is the following, clipped from Section 2 of the GPL: ...yada
yada yada... These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can
be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. BUT WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THE SAME SECTIONS
AS PART OF A WHOLE WHICH IS A WORK BASED ON THE PROGRAM, THE DISTRIBUTION OF
THE WHOLE MUST BE ON THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, WHOSE PERMISSIONS FOR OTHER
LICENSEES EXTEND TO THE ENTIRE WHOLE, AND THUS TO EACH AND EVERY PART
REGARDLESS OF WHO WROTE IT. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to
claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather,
the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative
or collective works based on the Program. ...
In other words, if I sell my super-duper video server box, I may be forced to
release the code to the modules I wrote entirely by myself? Is this the
intent of the GPL, to force the little guy to seek another platform? Look at
it this way: I don't have the resources to chase after Oracle in the courts
to get their Oracle for Linux code. But of course they can easily do this to
me... The problem with the GPL is: how the hell do you define "work based on
the Program"? If I use the "Program's" macros, etc., is this a work based on
the program? Why doesn't the FSF provide simple, CLEAR, for god's sake,
guidelines, so I may know what I am getting into? The ambiguity hurts us, and
not the big guys.
Christopher B. Browne
>In article <4x2D2.3640$YV6....@news2.giganews.com>,
> cbbr...@hex.net wrote:
>
>> It's a good thing that you don't claim to know law, because it's pretty
>> clear that you don't know copyright law very well.
>Okay, guys... as the originator of this thread, I must protest - this
>discussion is not what I intended. I assume that at least the vast
>majority of us, if not all of us, are engineers, and not (thank god)
>lawyers. So let's cut the legalese bullshit, since that's exactly what
>it is. Please, let's talk in more concrete terms we can all
>understand.
The problem is that you can't separate the issues.
When you start talking about licensing, you *are* talking about a
matter that is quite firmly in the legal arena, and is not "simply" a
matter of engineering.
>My original question pertained to the intent of the GPL. Can one indeed make
>money on a project based on the Linux platform? And I do not mean to make
>money the Red Hat way, i.e. open up the source code and sell support. For
>argument's sake, let's say I intend to build a proprietary box (e.g.
>super-duper new video server) running on some OS, possibly Linux. Of course,
>an open-source OS can really help, and I can promise to release any
>modifications to the existing OS platform. I would most certainly not want to
>release the codebase to my project, however. I understand some of you may
>say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I would
>contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a serious project
>on Linux, and putting people's good work to use. Think of me as the good
>little guy, who does not want Micros**t, for example, to come around
>demanding my source code, so they can learn from it, and build a similar
>project on NT, thus driving me out of business. The prospect of this may
>cause one to seek another platform (even Windows!), which would not require
>everything to be released.
The critical question is whether or not the work that this project
produces is either:
a) An independent work that happens to run layered atop other code
that may be licensed under the GPL, or
b) A work *derived* from code licensed under the GPL.
Note that again, this is not an engineering issue, nor is it
forcibly an ethical issue (although there are ethical questions
that can usefully be asked), but is again quite firmly in the legal
arena.
The crucial question is of whether, from a legal/licensing
perspective, the work is derived from GPLed code. If so, then the GPL
must be extended to cover the project's code (or at least the portions
of the project's code that are thus derived). If not, then not.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
David Kastrup
> say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I
> would contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a
> serious project on Linux, and putting people's good work to
> use. Think of me as the good little guy, who does not want
> Micros**t, for example, to come around demanding my source code, so
> they can learn from it, and build a similar project on NT, thus
> driving me out of business.
I fail to see any way in which the above scenario would justify you
calling yourself helping a community, calling yourself a good little
guy and whatever.
You want to be in some business, you do not want to give your trade
secrets to anybody else, you want to keep closed source, you don't
want anybody else to be able to port your software to other platforms
you find strategically uncomfortable. In short, you want to do just
as Microsoft does. Which may be fine, but why do you call yourself a
community helper and good guy for it?
You want to base your business on Linux, fine. But for the sort of
business you want to do, you need not feel like God's gift to
programmers. You certainly can feel free to behave the Microsoft way,
but I find it silly for you to demand that we would feel proud of you
for it.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
William C. Cheng
Mark Mokryn <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
>For argument's sake, let's say I intend to build a proprietary box (e.g.
>super-duper new video server) running on some OS, possibly Linux. Of course,
>an open-source OS can really help, and I can promise to release any
>modifications to the existing OS platform. I would most certainly not want to
>release the codebase to my project, however. I understand some of you may
>contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a serious project
>on Linux, and putting people's good work to use. Think of me as the good
>little guy, who does not want Micros**t, for example, to come around
>demanding my source code, so they can learn from it, and build a similar
>cause one to seek another platform (even Windows!), which would not require
>everything to be released.
Unless you are required by law to put your code under GPL, you don't
have to put your code under GPL in order to sell a Linux version of it.
I don't think the people who wrote StarOffice care much if people call
them evil dudes just because StartOffice is not GPL'ed.
If you are required by law to do so (as in the case if you derive from
GPL'ed code), then you have no choice but to comply with GPL (unless
you want to take the chance of a law suit).
>...
>In other words, if I sell my super-duper video server box, I may be forced to
>release the code to the modules I wrote entirely by myself? Is this the
>intent of the GPL, to force the little guy to seek another platform?
If you wrote it entirely by yourself, you don't need to put your code
under GPL (in order to run it under GPL). But if you cut and paste GPL'ed
code into your software, link to a GPL'ed (but not LGPL'ed) library, etc.,
then you can't choose not to put your code under GPL.
If you have to derive from other's work in order to save time and not want
to use GPL, GPL asks you to look elsewhere. That's why the authors of
these GPL'ed code put their code under GPL -- they don't want you to use
their code in this way.
>Look at
>it this way: I don't have the resources to chase after Oracle in the courts
>to get their Oracle for Linux code. But of course they can easily do this to
>me...
If this happens, hopefully, there would be enough little guys like you that
some lawyer will bring a class action suit against, as in your example,
Oracle.
>The problem with the GPL is: how the hell do you define "work based on
>the Program"? If I use the "Program's" macros, etc., is this a work based on
>the program?
If there are legal definitions for these terms, you should look them up
(or have your lawyer look them up) if you want to use GPL. If there are
no legal definitions for them, you probably know what it means to derive
from other's work. If you write some code and someone cut a little piece
of code from your program and changed the variable names, you probably
would say, "hey, this guy copied my code!" Since GPL applies to every
line of the GPL'ed source, cut and paste a program's macro is certainly
``work based on the program''.
If it's macros you want, I'm sure you can find similar code under another
license.
>Why doesn't the FSF provide simple, CLEAR, for god's sake,
>guidelines, so I may know what I am getting into? The ambiguity hurts us, and
>not the big guys.
The NPL/MPL have annotated versions of the licenses. Those do help.
It would be nice if FSF can provide an annotated version of the GPL
written by one of their lawyers because it's hard to get the whole
picture by just reading the GPL a few times.
--
Bill Cheng // bill....@acm.org <URL:http://bourbon.cs.umd.edu:8001/william/>
Mark Mokryn
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> You want to be in some business, you do not want to give your trade
> secrets to anybody else, you want to keep closed source, you don't
> want anybody else to be able to port your software to other platforms
> you find strategically uncomfortable. In short, you want to do just
> as Microsoft does. Which may be fine, but why do you call yourself a
> community helper and good guy for it?
Yes, I would consider myself a Linux advocate by doing exactly the above type
of stuff. I would be helping Linux the same way a Windows programmer (not MS
employee) helps Microsoft - i.e. making the platform more popular, thus
showing its business viability, and thus encouraging more people to use it.
If someone advertises Linux for free, are they helping the Linux community?
Definitely. You would be correct in saying that a Windows programmer also
helps MS by buying the Windows license, something one does not need to do
with Linux. And this brings us to the main point: What does the Linux
community require from its users/programmers? I know what MS requires -
money. Does the Linux community require me to open up my stuff, even if it
contained ZERO GPL'ed code, but just #included it, linked with it, possibly
modified it and published the changes, etc? If so, then I would say that
Linux is an even more expensive platform than Microsoft. If a programmer
getting paid $60,000/year spent a year coding for Linux, this is the minimal
cost of his source code at the end of the year. I have yet to pay that amount
in MS licenses... But I don't know what the Linux community expects, because
the GPL is so !@^%$* vague. Intuitively, I would tell you that cutting and
pasting code and making the result proprietary is wrong. I would never
consider doing that with Linux, and of course it is impossible with
closed-source OS's. If it were up to me, and it of course ain't, this is the
only thing I would restrict outright. It is not clear to me what besides the
above is restricted by the GPL. I don't think Linux has anything to gain by
putting a gun to people's heads regarding their source code. Maintaining the
code as donated, rather than "give it to me or else", would help Linux far
more. People would feel much more comfortable about developing applications
for Linux. For example, check out this Gartner article for a specific warning
against developing business products based on Linux:
http://advisor.gartner.com/n_inbox/hotcontent/hc_2121999_3.html
> You want to base your business on Linux, fine. But for the sort of
> business you want to do, you need not feel like God's gift to
> programmers. You certainly can feel free to behave the Microsoft way,
> but I find it silly for you to demand that we would feel proud of you
> for it.
I am not god's gift, and I wish this discussion does not heat up to personal
attacks. As far as behaving like MS, it takes a lot more than creating
proprietary software. There are zillions of companies who do this, and make
an honest living. Proprietary software does not make one a monopoly, and a
monopoly is not created simply because your software is good. It is mostly
created by over-zealous marketing and stupid consumer (i.e. herd) mentality,
and this is not the subject of this discussion. In any case, I would gladly
contribute code to the Linux community, as long as it doesn't compromise a
strategic advantage I may have over companies like MS. BTW, in case you
care, this is a theoretical discussion - I have not yet developed anything
proprietary for Linux, and don't know if I ever will. But the recent buzz has
got me thinking about the implications of this so-called free OS.
Mark Mokryn
wil...@cs.umd.edu (William C. Cheng) wrote:
> If you wrote it entirely by yourself, you don't need to put your code
> under GPL (in order to run it under GPL). But if you cut and paste GPL'ed
> code into your software, link to a GPL'ed (but not LGPL'ed) library, etc.,
> then you can't choose not to put your code under GPL.
Since I'm sure Oracle links to *something* GPL'ed, some standard library,
perhaps #included some GPL'ed header file and use its macros, etc., then I
would expect anyday now to download Oracle source code... Certainly Microsoft
would *love* this...
Alan McLean
> In article <7bjh79$f...@bourbon.cs.umd.edu>,
> wil...@cs.umd.edu (William C. Cheng) wrote:
>
> > If you wrote it entirely by yourself, you don't need to put your code
> > under GPL (in order to run it under GPL). But if you cut and paste GPL'ed
> > code into your software, link to a GPL'ed (but not LGPL'ed) library, etc.,
> > then you can't choose not to put your code under GPL.
>
> Since I'm sure Oracle links to *something* GPL'ed, some standard library,
> perhaps #included some GPL'ed header file and use its macros, etc., then I
> would expect anyday now to download Oracle source code... Certainly Microsoft
> would *love* this...
Well, the GNU C library (with associated header files and macros) is
covered by the LGPL, so this is not an issue. I believe there
is a statement in the glibc distribution that clarifies this, but
its been a while since I've looked at it.
I'm not aware of many GPL'd libs, libgdbm perhaps libg++.
libg++ has been largely replaced with libstc++ which is not
GPL'd, and most people use the Berkeley DB library instead
of libgdbm.
What GPL'd library do you know for sure that they are linking to?
-amcl
Rick Onanian
>
> It was the Tue, 02 Mar 1999 14:36:48 -0500...
> ..and Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
> > copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
> > a court of law.
>
> Everything you create is your intellectual property, and it remains so
> for at least 70 years (that is IIRC, and in Germany). You don't need
> to say it's Copyright (c) xxxx by me. You don't need to register it.
> It's yours. Full stop.
I'm glad that I'm wrong. It's a good thing that copyrights are that
way... Authors should be protected.
However...If I write something, and someone else writes the same thing,
and I take them to court, neither of us having mentioned any copyright,
how do we prove who did it first? Carbon dating on the paper? :)
> mawa
> --
> You probably didn't notice, but during the past year, the moon slipped
> about one and a half inches farther from the earth
> -- Joel Bloch, "Stardate", NPR
--
Rick Onanian
>
> > > The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
> > > license violations on code they control.
> >
> > I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
> > didn't.
>
> No one needs to pay for lawyers.
Really? Wow! Cool! Next time I go to traffic court with 4 tickets in
the past year, I'll bring a free lawyer to help me keep my license...
> > I do not claim to know law, or programming, for that matter. I do
> > not practice law; rather, I offer my opinions from a point of view
> > that I believe to be [very] slightly more informed than those who
> > ask.
>
> You believe wrong.
Well, if I was not slightly more informed than the person who asked,
than it would not have been possible for me to answer. Misinformation
is still information, even if it's wrong. I stand corrected. I will no
longer question what has been answered for me - and thankfully, the guy
with the original question is finally getting some answers.
Ever notice how, if someone posts a real difficult question, they get
no answers..then, if someone posts that same question, but says that
they're tired of trying to get linux to work and that they'll go back
to windows..They get an answer. A lot of answers. Sometimes..you gotta
say the bad thing.
> --
> Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
> Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
> Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
> Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
--
Rick Onanian
>
> If you wrote it entirely by yourself, you don't need to put your code
> under GPL (in order to run it under GPL). But if you cut and paste GPL'ed
> code into your software, link to a GPL'ed (but not LGPL'ed) library, etc.,
> then you can't choose not to put your code under GPL.
I believe that this may answer part of the original question. He was
asking if he could link to GPL'ed libraries, at some point.
It may be worth noting that the BSD license (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD)
claims to be less restrictive, and such a hypothetical project could
possibly benefit from using one of those OSes instead of Linux.
Philip Armstrong
Mark Mokryn <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
>
>Since I'm sure Oracle links to *something* GPL'ed, some standard library,
>perhaps #included some GPL'ed header file and use its macros, etc., then I
>would expect anyday now to download Oracle source code... Certainly Microsoft
>would *love* this...
>
furrfu. Do you have *any* evidence for this, or are you just trolling?
what incentive could a company like Oracle have for surrepticiously using
GPL'd code? Their perceived downside would be enormous.
Phil
--
nosig
David Kastrup
> In article <7bjoj9$a42$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Mark Mokryn <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
> >
> >Since I'm sure Oracle links to *something* GPL'ed, some standard library,
> >perhaps #included some GPL'ed header file and use its macros, etc., then I
> >would expect anyday now to download Oracle source code... Certainly Microsoft
> >would *love* this...
> >
>
> furrfu. Do you have *any* evidence for this, or are you just trolling?
The latter. The standard libraries are not GPLed, but LGPLed. Apart
from which I doubt that he has more of a clue than the Oracle
developers and lawyers.
David Kastrup
> In article <m27lsyu...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
> David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
> > You want to be in some business, you do not want to give your
> > trade secrets to anybody else, you want to keep closed source, you
> > don't want anybody else to be able to port your software to other
> > platforms you find strategically uncomfortable. In short, you
> > want to do just as Microsoft does. Which may be fine, but why do
> > you call yourself a community helper and good guy for it?
>
> Yes, I would consider myself a Linux advocate by doing exactly the
> above type of stuff.
You are confusing a few things here. You are advocating *using* Linux
and setting an example for *not* contributing. This is probably going
to further the acceptance of *using* Linux, but not that of
contributing. You are not doing any Free Software developer any
special favour except perhaps paying a compliment to their skills.
Which is not enough to apply for sainthood, I am afraid.
If you find Linux a sound platform, feel free to use it, for free.
But do not expect that we kiss your feet for this gesture of
magnanimity of yours.
> If someone advertises Linux for free, are they helping the Linux
> community? Definitely.
Linux has come about because of a free community effort. It differs
from proprietary software in that respect. Everything substantial
that makes the difference is the open and free aspect of it.
Proprietary offerings may give some lustre to Linux, but they add
nothing at all to the substance that distinguishes it from other
systems. A proprietary offering is not something you can rely on to
stay. What you can rely on is for Linux to stay available,
indefinitely, unconditionally, free to modify and adapt to growing
needs. Proprietary application vendors plan to profit from this
absolute certainty without giving something of the same qualities
back. They are out to make a bargain by using the work of others.
that is ok, the others permitted it, but being strictly selfish is no
reason to be asking for praise.
Everybody out there proprietary switching to Linux does it for the
money and certainty he smells in Linux. This is ok, it has been
sanctified on purpose, but it will not do for a halo.
> You would be correct in saying that a Windows programmer also helps
> MS by buying the Windows license, something one does not need to do
> with Linux. And this brings us to the main point: What does the
> Linux community require from its users/programmers?
Obey the licenses. That is the requirement. Contribute to free
software. That is the plea that makes for the growth of Linux if it
is adhered to.
> Does the Linux community require me to open up my stuff, even if it
> contained ZERO GPL'ed code, but just #included it, linked with it,
> possibly modified it and published the changes, etc?
Read the licenses. If you #include GPL code, the resulting binary is
a derived work and must only be distributed under the GPL. If you
link with GPLed code, the resulting binary is a derived work and must
only be distributed under the GPL.
However, most of the libraries under Linux are distributed under the
LGPL (read the licenses). If you #include headers from there and link
to the library *as* *a* *library*, the LGPL does not extend to the
parts of the software you have written, even if you link into one
binary.
> If so, then I would say that Linux is an even more expensive
> platform than Microsoft. If a programmer getting paid $60,000/year
> spent a year coding for Linux, this is the minimal cost of his
> source code at the end of the year.
You are confusing here things terribly. You are assuming that you can
get fixed wages paid per year if you write for Windows, and get no
wages at all if you write for Linux. Usually, if you are paid money
for writing code, you are paid because the paying party needs that
software written. If the party can save money by building on GPLed
software, it will often choose to do so, even if it might turn out
that others may use the software as well as a consequence. Not
everybody paying for software is planning on recompensation by trying
to market the stuff off to all the world.
> I have yet to pay that amount in MS licenses...
If you take some Internet Explorer code ripped from the binary and
imbed that into an application of yours you sell off to the world, you
will easily get fined more than measly $60000.
> But I don't know what the Linux community expects, because the GPL
> is so !@^%$* vague.
Read it. It is very explicit. If you have a trouble understanding
it, ask.
> I don't think Linux has anything to gain by putting a gun to
> people's heads regarding their source code. Maintaining the code as
> donated, rather than "give it to me or else", would help Linux far
> more.
It seems some people will not donate without some nudging. You
certainly seem to fall in that category. Besides, Linux does not put
a gun to people's head regarding *their* source code. It does so
regarding its *own* source code. That code may not be ripped off for
certain purposes. As Microsoft does not give you any source code
regardless of what purpose, this is certainly not worse than
Microsoft.
> > You want to base your business on Linux, fine. But for the sort of
> > business you want to do, you need not feel like God's gift to
> > programmers. You certainly can feel free to behave the Microsoft way,
> > but I find it silly for you to demand that we would feel proud of you
> > for it.
>
> BTW, in case you care, this is a theoretical discussion - I have not
> yet developed anything proprietary for Linux, and don't know if I
> ever will.
Well, you easily enough could, as has been pointed out about a million
times before. But apply for sainthood elsewhere.
> But the recent buzz has got me thinking about the implications of
> this so-called free OS.
It is free, not public domain. It comes with guarantees about its
freedom, too. Nobody can abuse it in order to make you pay through
the nose for access to source code or the right to derive further free
works from it. Those guarantees are what make it available to you by
cost-effective distribution channels. Those guarantees are enforced
by the law.
The licensing of Linux allows developing commercial and proprietary
applications well enough, it does *not* allow for proprietarization of
Linux itself or much of the application code base under it.
If that does not fit your purpose, go elsewhere. Stop whining.
Nobody forces you to use Linux. We certainly won't go down on our
knees and thank you under tears for trying to make a buck selling
proprietary stuff for Linux. If you want to try it, fine. But it
does not make you a hero. You are just a mercenary. Behave like
one. If you smell money in Linux, do something about it. If you
don't smell money, either do work under the GPL (where you would not
expect large wads of money), or take your business elsewhere.
Matthias Warkus
..and Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
> I'm glad that I'm wrong. It's a good thing that copyrights are that
> way... Authors should be protected.
>
> However...If I write something, and someone else writes the same thing,
> and I take them to court, neither of us having mentioned any copyright,
> how do we prove who did it first? Carbon dating on the paper? :)
See, this is why it's good to have a Copyright notice even though you
don't really need one. Anyway, these are things you can do:
- mail a copy of your manuscript to yourself in a sealed envelope, keep it
(sealed)
- have a solicitor/lawyer (what's ein Notar / un huissier in English?)
keep a sealed copy, let him sign a paper about the exact date you
gave him the copy
- let a bank lock a copy up in their vault, keep the receipt
- etc. etc.
All these are ways to time-stamp your manuscript to prove you were
first.
mawa
--
The power of an organization may be measured by the anger of its
enemies.
-- Emile Guillermo, introducing a piece on the ACLU on National Public
Radio's All things Considered.
brian moore
Rick Onanian <ri...@mail.artmold.com> wrote:
> brian moore wrote:
> >
> > > > The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
> > > > license violations on code they control.
> > >
> > > I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
> > > didn't.
> >
> > No one needs to pay for lawyers.
>
> Really? Wow! Cool! Next time I go to traffic court with 4 tickets in
> the past year, I'll bring a free lawyer to help me keep my license...
Okay, do that; though if I had as crappy a driving record as you, I'd
save the time and hassle and just take the bus.
It's quite trivial to find good lawyers for free if you have a cause
that interests them. (And that can be for purely legal interest, or
financial.)
> Well, if I was not slightly more informed than the person who asked,
> than it would not have been possible for me to answer. Misinformation
> is still information, even if it's wrong. I stand corrected. I will no
> longer question what has been answered for me - and thankfully, the guy
> with the original question is finally getting some answers.
It's always possible to answer. It's even possible to answer
incorrectly. Doing so doesn't mean that you know more than the person
who asked the question: just that you think you do.
> Ever notice how, if someone posts a real difficult question, they get
> no answers..then, if someone posts that same question, but says that
> they're tired of trying to get linux to work and that they'll go back
> to windows..They get an answer. A lot of answers. Sometimes..you gotta
> say the bad thing.
If you define "difficult questions are those that don't get answers"
then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are many difficult questions that do receive answers.
brian moore
Mark Mokryn <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
>
> My original question pertained to the intent of the GPL. Can one indeed make
> money on a project based on the Linux platform? And I do not mean to make
> argument's sake, let's say I intend to build a proprietary box (e.g.
> super-duper new video server) running on some OS, possibly Linux. Of course,
> an open-source OS can really help, and I can promise to release any
> modifications to the existing OS platform. I would most certainly not want to
> release the codebase to my project, however. I understand some of you may
> say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I would
> contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a serious project
> on Linux, and putting people's good work to use. Think of me as the good
> little guy, who does not want Micros**t, for example, to come around
> demanding my source code, so they can learn from it, and build a similar
> project on NT, thus driving me out of business. The prospect of this may
> cause one to seek another platform (even Windows!), which would not require
> everything to be released.
If you make changes to the kernel or other GPL'd works, you must
releases your changes to them.
If you add a 'Widget2000 SuperDuper Video Library Controller' program
and you don't use GPL'd source to write it, you don't have to give out
the source to that application.
> In other words, if I sell my super-duper video server box, I may be forced to
> release the code to the modules I wrote entirely by myself? Is this the
> intent of the GPL, to force the little guy to seek another platform? Look at
> it this way: I don't have the resources to chase after Oracle in the courts
> to get their Oracle for Linux code. But of course they can easily do this to
> me... The problem with the GPL is: how the hell do you define "work based on
> the Program"? If I use the "Program's" macros, etc., is this a work based on
> the program? Why doesn't the FSF provide simple, CLEAR, for god's sake,
> guidelines, so I may know what I am getting into? The ambiguity hurts us, and
> not the big guys.
The only ambiguity is what you're contriving.
Hint: Linux is just a kernel. Are you changing the kernel? Are you
writing just another userland program?
If the first, you must release your changes.
If the second, you only need to release your code if it is based on
GPL code.
This is no different from, say WP8 or Oracle or anything else: Corel
didn't have to change the kernel to run WP8, nor did Oracle have to
introduce secret syscalls for their server to run. They both wrote
their own code, thus they can do as they please with their products.
Oracle has no right to demand your source code unless they have a reason
to believe you stole theirs. That's precisely the same rights they have
on any other platform.
Please learn some copyright law.
Christopher Browne
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>
>> > copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
>> > a court of law.
>>
>> You are completely wrong.
>> Everything you create is your intellectual property, and it remains so
>> for at least 70 years (that is IIRC, and in Germany). You don't need
>> to say it's Copyright (c) xxxx by me. You don't need to register it.
>> It's yours. Full stop.
>
>way... Authors should be protected.
Interestingly, those that release software under BSD licenses (dig,
dig!) prefer not to have this protection.
>However...If I write something, and someone else writes the same thing,
>and I take them to court, neither of us having mentioned any copyright,
>how do we prove who did it first? Carbon dating on the paper? :)
I'm not sure that carbon dating is sufficiently accurate for that
purpose...
At any rate, this is exactly why IBM often releases documentation of
things that may be novel that they don't intend to patent in the IBM
Systems Journal; if you release something into the public purview (which
is almost, but not exactly, the same as "public domain" :-)), then the
fact of having third-party sources that can vouch for the date of
release is Remarkably Useful if you ever need to verify dates in court.
Far nicer to be able to say:
"And I'd like to call to the stand the chief librarian from the Ozark
State University library...
Q: When did you receive a copy of Mr. Crud's manuscript?
A: Contributions to the library are, as per policy, stamped with the
date on which they are accepted. The card catalogue indicates that the
manuscript was accepted for inclusion in our collection on July 15,
1987. The stamp on the manuscript indicates that it was received on
July 2 of that year. The index entry was added by Ms Cheryl Brungard,
who was working under my direction..."
All this would probably prove rather useful for proving that "Author A"
produced the work if "Author B" instead claimed to have produced it, but
with the earliest evidence of "association" being dated in 1988...
This is one reason why things like theses and other documents of some
significance are contributed to archive collections.
If someone were to "steal" my master's thesis and claim it as their own,
I could go to either University of Ottawa or the National Archives of
Canada, and call upon their copies (and potentially staff) to provide
evidence of my authorship.
(Not that this result would be terribly likely... I've only had a
couple of requests for copies of "Using Interior Point Methods to Solve
the Multicommodity Network Flow Problem" over the years... It doesn't
seem to be a budding "best-seller...")
--
"When people understand what Microsoft is up to, they're outraged."
-- TIM O'REILLY, President, O'Reilly & Associates
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Bill Kent
> - have a solicitor/lawyer (what's ein Notar / un huissier in English?)
> keep a sealed copy, let him sign a paper about the exact date you
> gave him the copy
Notary Public???
Abigail
in <URL:news:7bk5q0$2v0$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>:
++ In article <7bjoj9$a42$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
++ Mark Mokryn <ma...@voltaire.com> wrote:
++ >
++ >Since I'm sure Oracle links to *something* GPL'ed, some standard library,
++ >perhaps #included some GPL'ed header file and use its macros, etc., then I
++ >would expect anyday now to download Oracle source code... Certainly Microsoft
++ >would *love* this...
++ >
++
++ furrfu. Do you have *any* evidence for this, or are you just trolling?
++
++ what incentive could a company like Oracle have for surrepticiously using
++ GPL'd code? Their perceived downside would be enormous.
$ more ~sybase/license/gnu_src.txt
In compliance with the GNU Library General Public License, Sybase will
provide a complete, machine-readable copy of the libg++ source code,
for a charge of no more than the cost of performing the source
distribution. This source will be made available for a period of no
more than three years after the distribution date of this product.
Sybase will also provide object code and associated makefiles for
the corresponding component purchased (Monitor Client or Monitor
Client Library), for the sole purpose of allowing you to relink
the product with a modified form of the libg++ library. This object code
and associated makefiles will be made available for a period of no
more than three years after the distribution date of this product.
$
Abigail
Christopher Seawood
: Mark Mokryn <ma...@voltaire.com> writes:
: > But I don't know what the Linux community expects, because the GPL
: > is so !@^%$* vague.
:
: Read it. It is very explicit. If you have a trouble understanding
: it, ask.
Maybe I'm misinterpretting the situation but it seems as though Mark has
been asking all along only to be replied to with sarcasm and contempt for
his efforts. I've read the GPL many times and I do not find it to be
"very explicit" to the point where I have no questions about whether a
certain course of action is prohibited. And before you go off on your
tirade against proprietary software developers, the ambiguity in the
GPL affects other "free" licenses as well.
I have a few questions about the GPL and certain scenarios that I
was going to direct to RMS (and probably still should) but since you've
opened the floor to questions... ;P
1) Per Section 3, what constitutes "normally distributed with major
components of the operating system"? Motif distributed with Solaris seems
to fall under this distinction but Qt distributed with Linux-Mandrake does
not. What's the difference? This clause may have been straight-forward
in the days when you could only get an OS from a single vendor but at
least where the "free" OSes are concerned, this clause is very ambigious.
2) I briefly looked for the definition of "derivative work"
under the context of copyright and this is what I came
across: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting
of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
Does linking your code with another piece of code make it "based upon"
the second piece of code or are they mutually "based upon" each other?
Are dynamically loaded modules considered to be "based upon" the program
they can be loaded by (assuming dynamically loaded modules are considered
to be "annotations" or "elaborations")? What if the modules can be
loaded by several programs?
3) What is the boundary of a derivative work wrt software? Process space?
Source files? Sockets? There has to be some limit otherwise we'd all be
in violation of the GPL due to the use of non-GPL'd code for webservers,
daemons, dynamic loaders, etc.
4) If a dynamically loaded module under the GPL is considered to be a
derivative work of a proprietary product, is there a violation of the GPL?
If so, who is performing the violation?
5) If a program calls functions of a library, is the program considered
to be a derivative work of that library? If so, from the definition of
"derivative work", which type of change is occurring to the library?
(This example assumes some sort of linking was involved).
6) If a program calls the functions of a library but is not linked to the
library (doesn't share process space nor is part of a single executable),
is the program considered to be a derivative of the library?
7) How are the scenarios in questions 4, 5 & 6 different than a program
calling syscalls into the kernel? The linux kernel comes with a notice
(quoted below) at the top of the GPL distributed with it. Is this notice
adding an exception to the GPL or merely clarifying a point? (I'm not
sure what copyright law says about "normal use").
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
: If that does not fit your purpose, go elsewhere. Stop whining.
Lesse, if you ask a question, you're considered to be whining. If you
don't bother to ask and accidentally (thru misinterpretation) violate
the GPL, you're at fault because you didn't bother to learn about the
GPL by asking about it. "Dude, this is f*cked up right here!"
- cls
Barry Margolin
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>Does linking your code with another piece of code make it "based upon"
>the second piece of code or are they mutually "based upon" each other?
The executable is a derived work that's based upon all the object modules
that were linked together, which themselves are derived works based on
their source modules.
>Are dynamically loaded modules considered to be "based upon" the program
>they can be loaded by (assuming dynamically loaded modules are considered
>to be "annotations" or "elaborations")? What if the modules can be
>loaded by several programs?
IANAL, and neither is RMS, but I believe he has claimed that he believes
that dynamic and static linking do not make a difference, since the end
result is the same as far as the user is concerned. This is based on the
same logic he used when claiming it's a violation of the GPL if you
distribute your object modules unlinked and have the recipient perform the
linking.
>3) What is the boundary of a derivative work wrt software? Process space?
>Source files? Sockets? There has to be some limit otherwise we'd all be
>in violation of the GPL due to the use of non-GPL'd code for webservers,
>daemons, dynamic loaders, etc.
You seem to be forgetting the GPL's explicit exception for the operating
system and libraries that are included with it.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Peter Seebach
Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>You seem to be forgetting the GPL's explicit exception for the operating
>system and libraries that are included with it.
Hmm. This sounds like it'll turn into the IE debate all over again.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
John Hasler
> Per Section 3, what constitutes "normally distributed with major
> components of the operating system"?
Libc, Motif.
> Motif distributed with Solaris seems to fall under this distinction but
> Qt distributed with Linux-Mandrake does not. What's the difference?
Is Linux-Mandrake an operating system, or is it only a minor variation on
an operating system that does not normally include Qt?
> This clause may have been straight-forward in the days when you could
> only get an OS from a single vendor but at least where the "free" OSes
> are concerned, this clause is very ambigious.
Exactly. When the GPL was written it was easy to tell where one OS left
off and another began. With Linux the boundaries are fuzzy. RMS has made
the (reasonable, IMHO) interpretation that Linux distributions are
variations on a single OS.
> 3) What is the boundary of a derivative work wrt software? Process
> space? Source files? Sockets? There has to be some limit otherwise
> we'd all be in violation of the GPL due to the use of non-GPL'd code for
> webservers, daemons, dynamic loaders, etc.
Copyright law does not concern itself about processes, source files,
sockets, linkage, etc. Copyright is about making copies. If your work as
didtributed contains a copy of part or all of another work it is a
derivative of that work. If not, it isn't.
> 4) If a dynamically loaded module under the GPL is considered to be a
> derivative work of a proprietary product, is there a violation of the
> GPL?
RMS says yes. I say no, as long as your work as distributed does not
contain any portion of the GPL work (this may not be practical).
> If so, who is performing the violation?
Reread the GPL. It can't be the end user because the GPL does not limit
what you do in the privacy of your own computer. You could cut and paste
together a monstrosity that combines all the features of Microsoft Word and
emacs without infringing the emacs copyright, as long as you don't give
anyone a copy.
> If a program calls functions of a library, is the program considered to
> be a derivative work of that library?
Only if the program as distributed contains some portion of the library.
Copyright law knows nothing of function calls.
> If so, from the definition of "derivative work", which type of change is
> occurring to the library?
None, but that is not the question. The question is, are you distributing
a work which contains a portion of someone else's work?
> This example assumes some sort of linking was involved
Copyright law neither knows nor cares about linking.
> If a program calls the functions of a library but is not linked to the
> library (doesn't share process space nor is part of a single executable),
> is the program considered to be a derivative of the library?
Does the program as distributed contain any portion of the library?
> How are the scenarios in questions 4, 5 & 6 different than a program
> calling syscalls into the kernel?
They aren't. Copyright knows nothing of syscalls and kernels. It just
deals with copying.
> The linux kernel comes with a notice (quoted below) at the top of the GPL
> distributed with it. Is this notice adding an exception to the GPL or
> merely clarifying a point?
I'd call it an exception, but there is really no difference.
> Lesse, if you ask a question, you're considered to be whining.
No. You should understand, however, that "questions" about the GPL often
turn into "What do you mean, putting 10 lines from emacs in my 10,000 line
program will require that I GPL it! That's not fair!" This has happened
so often that people sometimes respond reflexively.
> If you don't bother to ask and accidentally (thru misinterpretation)
> violate the GPL, you're at fault because you didn't bother to learn about
> the GPL by asking about it.
You also have to read it, read some copyright law, go to dejanews and read
the extensive discussions on the subject that have taken place on these
newsgroups in the past, and, if necessary, ask your lawyer.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jo...@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Rick Onanian
>
> The only ambiguity is what you're contriving.
>
> Hint: Linux is just a kernel. Are you changing the kernel? Are you
> writing just another userland program?
>
> If the first, you must release your changes.
>
> If the second, you only need to release your code if it is based on
> GPL code.
I believe his major worry was not involving copying lines of code from
GPL'd source, but rather, referring to it with include statements and
calls to libraries and what not. It seems that the point is actually
moot, as a result of the fact that such libraries are mostly LGPL'd,
which seems to be for just this reason.
> Please learn some copyright law.
Isn't that what this thread is about? The question WAS very closely
related to copyright law, and assumed nothing.
People, the guy asked. Don't chop off his head for it, he doesn't
sound at all malicious, even if he isn't planning to make any major
contribution to Linux.
Just my four cents worth (That's $.02 inflation adjusted)
> --
> Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
> Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
> Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
> Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
--
rick - a guy in search of raw (ISO) cd images of SuSE and Slackware
---------------
My opinions don't exist, and as such, are not anyone elses. I do not
represent anyone, not even myself, and especially not my employer.
---
Looking for a 1968 Camaro SS convertible, black interior,
beat-up rustbucket that is in need lots of restoration and TLC.
---
To email me, take out the papers and the trash
ri...@mail.the-papers_and_the-trash.artmold.com
Christopher Seawood
: In article <YBtD2.69653$641.2...@news.san.rr.com>,
: Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
: >Are dynamically loaded modules considered to be "based upon" the program
: >they can be loaded by (assuming dynamically loaded modules are considered
: >to be "annotations" or "elaborations")? What if the modules can be
: >loaded by several programs?
:
: IANAL, and neither is RMS, but I believe he has claimed that he believes
: that dynamic and static linking do not make a difference, since the end
: result is the same as far as the user is concerned. This is based on the
: same logic he used when claiming it's a violation of the GPL if you
: distribute your object modules unlinked and have the recipient perform the
: linking.
At this point, I guess I'm going to have to find someone who *is* a
lawyer because RMS' claim does not make sense. The end user's point
of view should be irrevelant to definition of a derived work. I guess
the deciding factor at this point would be whether or not occupying
the same process space is legally considered to be a "derivative work".
If there's copying involved, I guess it is but do all dynamic loaders
copy portions of the shared lib to process space of the executable that
uses the shared lib?
(I recently discovered that shared libs under linux didn't work in the way
I thought they did. I was under the assumption that there was one copy
of the library that was loaded by the system and used by all processes
that depend upon it. Apparently, according to a guy from Cygnus, the
portions of the library that are used by the application are copied
into the executable's process space. Does anyone know if this is true
of all dynamic loaders?)
- cls
Barry Margolin
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>Barry Margolin (bar...@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
>: In article <YBtD2.69653$641.2...@news.san.rr.com>,
>: Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>: >Are dynamically loaded modules considered to be "based upon" the program
>: >they can be loaded by (assuming dynamically loaded modules are considered
>: >to be "annotations" or "elaborations")? What if the modules can be
>: >loaded by several programs?
>:
>: IANAL, and neither is RMS, but I believe he has claimed that he believes
>: that dynamic and static linking do not make a difference, since the end
>: result is the same as far as the user is concerned. This is based on the
>: same logic he used when claiming it's a violation of the GPL if you
>: distribute your object modules unlinked and have the recipient perform the
>: linking.
>
>At this point, I guess I'm going to have to find someone who *is* a
>lawyer because RMS' claim does not make sense. The end user's point
>of view should be irrevelant to definition of a derived work. I guess
His belief is that while it's not technically a copy, it's "as if" you had
made a copy. The spirit of copyright law should not distinguish the case
where someone takes a work A, makes a derivative A+B, and distributes that,
versus separately distributing A and B with the instructions for how to
combine them into A+B. That's what was going on when people were
distributing non-free programs that needed to be linked with the GNU mp
library, and it's similar to what goes on with dynamic linking (in the
latter case, the A+B step is performed automatically by the OS).
>the deciding factor at this point would be whether or not occupying
>the same process space is legally considered to be a "derivative work".
>If there's copying involved, I guess it is but do all dynamic loaders
>copy portions of the shared lib to process space of the executable that
>uses the shared lib?
Yes, although I think this would not be an issue. I believe copyright law
was amended a few years ago to specify that copying into memory for the
purpose of running a program is never a copyright violation.
>(I recently discovered that shared libs under linux didn't work in the way
>I thought they did. I was under the assumption that there was one copy
>of the library that was loaded by the system and used by all processes
>that depend upon it. Apparently, according to a guy from Cygnus, the
>portions of the library that are used by the application are copied
>into the executable's process space. Does anyone know if this is true
>of all dynamic loaders?)
Unless Linux is very different from most modern Unix systems, it's not
"copied" into process memory, it's *mapped* into process memory. Each
process that uses a shared library or executable program maps a part of
their virtual address space to the text segment of the library or program.
Philip Armstrong
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>(I recently discovered that shared libs under linux didn't work in the way
>I thought they did. I was under the assumption that there was one copy
>of the library that was loaded by the system and used by all processes
>that depend upon it. Apparently, according to a guy from Cygnus, the
>portions of the library that are used by the application are copied
>into the executable's process space. Does anyone know if this is true
>of all dynamic loaders?)
>
multiple processes address spaces at once -- in different places
in each process probably. But only one copy is in 'real' memory.
Read up on vm...
cheers,
Phil
--
nosig
Christopher Seawood
Lines: 103
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 BETA-950824-color PL0]
John Hasler (jo...@dhh.gt.org) wrote:
: Christopher Seawood writes:
: > Per Section 3, what constitutes "normally distributed with major
: > components of the operating system"?
I asked the wrong question. That should've been "who decides what's
normally distributed with the major components of a free operating
system?"
: Exactly. When the GPL was written it was easy to tell where one OS left
: off and another began. With Linux the boundaries are fuzzy. RMS has made
: the (reasonable, IMHO) interpretation that Linux distributions are
: variations on a single OS.
So who decides what the major components of that single OS are?
The copyright holders of the individual pieces? The distributors?
Or do we go the route of the least common denominator of packages amongst
distributions?
: Copyright law does not concern itself about processes, source files,
: sockets, linkage, etc. Copyright is about making copies. If your work as
: didtributed contains a copy of part or all of another work it is a
: derivative of that work. If not, it isn't.
:
: > 4) If a dynamically loaded module under the GPL is considered to be a
: > derivative work of a proprietary product, is there a violation of the
: > GPL?
:
: RMS says yes. I say no, as long as your work as distributed does not
: contain any portion of the GPL work (this may not be practical).
Is there any practical way to refute what RMS says? As writer of the
license, he obviously has insight to what the license should mean but
what if his interpreation of a scenario is based upon what he wants the
license to say rather than what it actually does say? I'd hate to think
that going to court would be the only way to resolve these differences.
Since copyright law only concerns itself with copying, why would
dynamically loaded modules be considered derived works if there is no
copying involved? From what I've read, they shouldn't be.
And since the GPL has no conditions about the *use* of a the product
(only copying, modification and distribution), how is dynamically loading
a GPL'd shared library or module by a non-GPL'd program a violation
of the GPL? The executable of the program has no GPL'd code in it.
Now when the executable is run, the executable may share process space
with the GPL'd code but that's a runtime (*use*) issue and should be
out of the scope of the GPL. This is also assuming that the program
and the GPL'd module/lib are distributed separately.
: > If so, who is performing the violation?
:
: Reread the GPL. It can't be the end user because the GPL does not limit
I never said the end user was performing the violation. If there is a
violation, then who is doing it? Could it be that there is no actual
violation but only the potential for one? The GPL doesn't say anything
about use so the combination of the proprietary product and the GPL'd
module is only a violation if the combination is distributed as a *single
product* if I'm reading the GPL correctly. Existing on the same media
isn't enough to declare it a violation since the GPL explicitly states
"mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume
of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work
under the scope of this License."
: > The linux kernel comes with a notice (quoted below) at the top of the GPL
: > distributed with it. Is this notice adding an exception to the GPL or
: > merely clarifying a point?
:
: I'd call it an exception, but there is really no difference.
Well, the difference is whether the kernel is under pure GPL or GPL
with an exception which is very similar to the KDE situation. If it's
clarifying a point, then it doesn't change the meaning of the license.
:
: > Lesse, if you ask a question, you're considered to be whining.
:
: No. You should understand, however, that "questions" about the GPL often
: turn into "What do you mean, putting 10 lines from emacs in my 10,000 line
: program will require that I GPL it! That's not fair!" This has happened
: so often that people sometimes respond reflexively.
Yes, I understand it but I don't necessarily like it. Preemptive strikes
against the proven "bad guy" is one thing but against someone asking an
honest question is quite another.
: You also have to read it, read some copyright law, go to dejanews and read
: the extensive discussions on the subject that have taken place on these
: newsgroups in the past, and, if necessary, ask your lawyer.
I see the same arguments being brought up over and over again in the
newsgroups without any clear resolution. From my limited readings of it,
copyright law hasn't quite adapted to software yet so can't be relied
upon in all cases. With leaves us with going straight to the lawyers
who, in most cases, know nothing about how software works but would be
willing to take the case to court for a judge to decide (who may also
know nothing about how software works).
- cls
Barry Margolin
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>So who decides what the major components of that single OS are?
>The copyright holders of the individual pieces? The distributors?
>Or do we go the route of the least common denominator of packages amongst
>distributions?
The judge or jury in the trial when someone sues over copyright
infringement.
>: > 4) If a dynamically loaded module under the GPL is considered to be a
>: > derivative work of a proprietary product, is there a violation of the
>: > GPL?
>:
>: RMS says yes. I say no, as long as your work as distributed does not
>: contain any portion of the GPL work (this may not be practical).
>
>Is there any practical way to refute what RMS says? As writer of the
>license, he obviously has insight to what the license should mean but
>what if his interpreation of a scenario is based upon what he wants the
>license to say rather than what it actually does say? I'd hate to think
>that going to court would be the only way to resolve these differences.
RMS knows what he intends, but he's also making judgement calls about what
copyright law truly allows him to enforce.
>Since copyright law only concerns itself with copying, why would
>dynamically loaded modules be considered derived works if there is no
>copying involved? From what I've read, they shouldn't be.
RMS's theory is that copyright law hasn't quite caught up to the state of
the art. Dynamic linking is effectively equivalent to static linking, and
it makes no sense to him that the law was intended to allow one when the
other is prohibited.
>: Reread the GPL. It can't be the end user because the GPL does not limit
>
>I never said the end user was performing the violation. If there is a
>violation, then who is doing it? Could it be that there is no actual
>violation but only the potential for one? The GPL doesn't say anything
>about use so the combination of the proprietary product and the GPL'd
>module is only a violation if the combination is distributed as a *single
>product* if I'm reading the GPL correctly. Existing on the same media
>isn't enough to declare it a violation since the GPL explicitly states
RMS's theory is that distributing the GPLed work and the non-GPLed work
along with the instructions for how to link them is functionally equivalent
to distributing a pre-linked binary (which would be a derivative work).
Although this is technically "mere aggregation", it's clear that the intent
is to achieve the result that the GPL is meant to prohibit.
Christopher Seawood
:
: His belief is that while it's not technically a copy, it's "as if" you had
: made a copy. The spirit of copyright law should not distinguish the case
: where someone takes a work A, makes a derivative A+B, and distributes that,
: combine them into A+B.
:
: >the deciding factor at this point would be whether or not occupying
: >the same process space is legally considered to be a "derivative work".
: >If there's copying involved, I guess it is but do all dynamic loaders
: >copy portions of the shared lib to process space of the executable that
: >uses the shared lib?
:
: Yes, although I think this would not be an issue. I believe copyright law
: was amended a few years ago to specify that copying into memory for the
: purpose of running a program is never a copyright violation.
So if copyright was amended in the way you state, then dynamically
loaded modules cannot legally be considered a derivative work of the
program that uses them and vice-versa unless code was actually copied.
If that is true, then aren't RMS' beliefs and theories about the spirit
of copyright law irrelevant? So unless he specifically adds a section
to the GPL forbidding the separate distribution and later assembly of
incompatible components A & B, programs can be dynamically linked against
GPL'd code w/o fear of tainting. Am I still missing something?
- cls
Charles Sullivan
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote in message ...
>On 02 Mar 1999 14:34:05 -0800, Michael Powe <michae...@trollope.org>
wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>
>>Copyright is automatic. It's not a trademark or a patent, you don't
>>have to "register" it.
>
>The length of intellectual property ownership and the regulations
>surrounding it change constantly. This is basically so that the people
>paying for extension by funding legal battles or candidates supporting
>laws can retain critical properties (such as the Mickey Mouse
>copyrights and trademarks), while others want those materials
>released (such as Star Trek "slash" writers).
>
>Or, in code terms, people who have used the XOR trick for decades want
>to be able to continue using common tricks without worrying about the
>wienie who tried to patent it recently.
If you want to legally protect your copyright to the extent you can sue
infringers for damages, it behooves you to register your work with
the US Copyright Office, which involves paying a fee (around $20 as
I recall) and depositing a copy of your work with them. For software
the copy doesn't have to be complete, just a certain number of pages.
As far as a weenie trying to patent "the XOR trick" (for a cursor I assume),
any "recent" attempt would fail because it's already been patented, around
15 years ago as I remember.
jik-
> library (doesn't share process space nor is part of a single executable),
I would bet that the use of a library constitutes fair use. So, the
only thing that would apply is distribution of the library, not its
use. Otherwise anyone linking to the system libraries on win95 without
purchasing the right is in violation...I belive that there are case
examples about why this type of thing is not true.
>
> 7) How are the scenarios in questions 4, 5 & 6 different than a program
> calling syscalls into the kernel? The linux kernel comes with a notice
> (quoted below) at the top of the GPL distributed with it. Is this notice
> adding an exception to the GPL or merely clarifying a point? (I'm not
> sure what copyright law says about "normal use").
The use of system calls would not be covered by the IP laws at all...you
cannot restric someone from writing software which makes use of your
system...
Course I am not a lawyer(tm), I just read Title 17 about a 1/2 dozen
times along with a few q&a's at the same gopher I found title 17.
Barry Margolin
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>So if copyright was amended in the way you state, then dynamically
>loaded modules cannot legally be considered a derivative work of the
>program that uses them and vice-versa unless code was actually copied.
>If that is true, then aren't RMS' beliefs and theories about the spirit
>of copyright law irrelevant? So unless he specifically adds a section
>to the GPL forbidding the separate distribution and later assembly of
>incompatible components A & B, programs can be dynamically linked against
>GPL'd code w/o fear of tainting. Am I still missing something?
It's not the loading into memory that's a violation, it's the distribution
of A and B, with the intent to have the customer link them together (either
statically or dynamically).
Whether RMS really has a legal leg to stand on, I can't say. The theory is
that the spirit of the GPL and copyright laws should not distinguish these
various ways of getting from X (vendor writes a proprietary program A that
needs to be linked with a GPLed module B) to Y (customer runs A+B, which is
a derivative work of B).
Note that this only applies when the only useful module B is GPLed. If
there's an alternate module B', which can be linked in place of B to
produce equivalent effect, there's no violation. The distribution of A is
not implicitly pulling B with it -- it's the customer's choice whether to
get B or B'. And the GPL doesn't restrict the customer's ability to link B
by themselves. It's only when the customer has no choice but to link in B
that the distribution of A is considered equivalent to distributing A+B.
Bill Unruh
>RMS's theory is that copyright law hasn't quite caught up to the state of
>the art. Dynamic linking is effectively equivalent to static linking, and
>it makes no sense to him that the law was intended to allow one when the
>other is prohibited.
But it is vastly different. In the one case the distrubutor copies the
work and distributes the copy and in teh other the distributor does not.
Copyright law covers copying. It does not cover using, it does not cover
ownership, it covers copying. No copying no copyright issues. If the
user has a copy of the something which he has legitimately, then he can
use it as he pleases.
RMS position is identical to that of people like Microsoft, all of whom
would love to control not the copying but the use of their products.
Weird position for him to place himself in.
Stephan Schulz
Bill Unruh <un...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>In <LuED2.169$Ey6.9013@burlma1-snr2> Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
>>RMS's theory is that copyright law hasn't quite caught up to the state of
>>the art. Dynamic linking is effectively equivalent to static linking, and
>>it makes no sense to him that the law was intended to allow one when the
>>other is prohibited.
>
>But it is vastly different. In the one case the distrubutor copies the
>work and distributes the copy and in teh other the distributor does not.
>
>Copyright law covers copying. It does not cover using, it does not cover
>ownership, it covers copying. No copying no copyright issues. If the
>user has a copy of the something which he has legitimately, then he can
>use it as he pleases.
Well, technically yes. However, people in the legal business are of a
completly different type of anal-retentiveness than most computer
people. Both are used to adhere to pretty arbitray rules, but for
different reasons. If the end result of a sequence of actions is
obviously and by intend the same as the end result of another sequence
of actions, both are likely to be treated similar in law.
Or, to be obvious, if I take the novel "Snow Crash" and distribute it
as a list of individual words in alphabetic order (non-copyrightable)
and offer a web-page which gives me a list of numbers that say which
word goes were, I _am_ violating copyright, even though the user is
the one that puts the novel together again.
Stephan
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Margolin
Bill Unruh <un...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>In <LuED2.169$Ey6.9013@burlma1-snr2> Barry Margolin
><bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
>>RMS's theory is that copyright law hasn't quite caught up to the state of
>>the art. Dynamic linking is effectively equivalent to static linking, and
>>it makes no sense to him that the law was intended to allow one when the
>>other is prohibited.
>
>But it is vastly different. In the one case the distrubutor copies the
>work and distributes the copy and in teh other the distributor does not.
Somehow the dynamic library got onto that machine, so it must have been
copied as well. If the end user copied it in order to link it with the
proprietary program, then perhaps the distributor of the program could be
considered liable for contributory infringement.
NF Stevens
[snip]
>RMS's theory is that copyright law hasn't quite caught up to the state of
>the art. Dynamic linking is effectively equivalent to static linking, and
>it makes no sense to him that the law was intended to allow one when the
>other is prohibited.
No. Dynamic and static linking are very different. With dynamic linking
it is possible to link against a different library. Such a library may not
exist yet, but it would always be possible to write one. With static
linking you do not have that option.
[snip]
>RMS's theory is that distributing the GPLed work and the non-GPLed work
>along with the instructions for how to link them is functionally equivalent
>to distributing a pre-linked binary (which would be a derivative work).
>Although this is technically "mere aggregation", it's clear that the intent
>is to achieve the result that the GPL is meant to prohibit.
The fact that a proprietory work needs a library with the functionality
of a particular GPL'd library in order to work properly does not make
it a derived work of that library.
Norman
NF Stevens
>In article <7bnegc$ioh$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>,
>Bill Unruh <un...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>In <LuED2.169$Ey6.9013@burlma1-snr2> Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>>
>>>RMS's theory is that copyright law hasn't quite caught up to the state of
>>>the art. Dynamic linking is effectively equivalent to static linking, and
>>>it makes no sense to him that the law was intended to allow one when the
>>>other is prohibited.
>>
>>But it is vastly different. In the one case the distrubutor copies the
>>work and distributes the copy and in teh other the distributor does not.
>>
>>Copyright law covers copying. It does not cover using, it does not cover
>>ownership, it covers copying. No copying no copyright issues. If the
>>user has a copy of the something which he has legitimately, then he can
>>use it as he pleases.
>
>Well, technically yes. However, people in the legal business are of a
>completly different type of anal-retentiveness than most computer
>people. Both are used to adhere to pretty arbitray rules, but for
>different reasons. If the end result of a sequence of actions is
>obviously and by intend the same as the end result of another sequence
>of actions, both are likely to be treated similar in law.
>
>Or, to be obvious, if I take the novel "Snow Crash" and distribute it
>as a list of individual words in alphabetic order (non-copyrightable)
>and offer a web-page which gives me a list of numbers that say which
>word goes were, I _am_ violating copyright, even though the user is
>the one that puts the novel together again.
This differs from the dynamic vs static linking distinction because the
list of word numbers has no other use apart from recreating the
copyrighted novel. With dynamic linking one possible result is the
same as static linking (i.e. a memory image composed of the
amalgamation of the two works); however it is also possible to
link the work against a different (non GPL) library which provides
the same functionality. The users may decide not to write their own
version of the library, but they always have that choice. I do not
see how a work which can be run independently of the GPL work
can be considered to be a derived work of that GPL work.
Norman
Barry Margolin
NF Stevens <nor...@arcady.u-net.com> wrote:
>No. Dynamic and static linking are very different. With dynamic linking
>it is possible to link against a different library. Such a library may not
>exist yet, but it would always be possible to write one. With static
>linking you do not have that option.
I responded to this in another branch of the thread, so I'm not going to
bother responding again. Let's agree not to post redundant messages, OK?
Barry Margolin
NF Stevens <nor...@arcady.u-net.com> wrote:
>This differs from the dynamic vs static linking distinction because the
>list of word numbers has no other use apart from recreating the
>copyrighted novel. With dynamic linking one possible result is the
>same as static linking (i.e. a memory image composed of the
>amalgamation of the two works); however it is also possible to
>link the work against a different (non GPL) library which provides
>the same functionality. The users may decide not to write their own
>version of the library, but they always have that choice. I do not
>see how a work which can be run independently of the GPL work
>can be considered to be a derived work of that GPL work.
RMS recognizes this, but only when the potential non-GPL library actually
exists. Why should the copyright holder lose control just because of the
*potential* of an alternative library? If this potential library doesn't
exist, and the author of the dependent module knows it, he knows that he's
creating something functionally equivalent to a work statically linked with
the library.
Peter Seebach
Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>RMS recognizes this, but only when the potential non-GPL library actually
>exists. Why should the copyright holder lose control just because of the
>*potential* of an alternative library? If this potential library doesn't
>exist, and the author of the dependent module knows it, he knows that he's
>creating something functionally equivalent to a work statically linked with
>the library.
Okay, so what if the person writing the dependant module has been *TOLD*
that there is a non-GPL library?
It doesn't make sense for his control of his work to depend on this either.
Barry Margolin
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>Okay, so what if the person writing the dependant module has been *TOLD*
>that there is a non-GPL library?
If he's under the impression that there are multiple libraries that can be
linked with his module, then he and his program should be off the hook. I
would expect the instructions that come with his program to mention the
various alternative libraries that the end user may link in.
>It doesn't make sense for his control of his work to depend on this either.
He's the one who was purported to be writing a program that's dependent on
a GPLed library, and was trying to use dynamic linking as a loophole around
it. The whole reason for using the GPL, rather than the LGPL, for a
library is so that it can be used as an enticement for other people to
distribute their work freely (you can link with it if you agree to free
your code); the purpose is defeated if someone can simply use dynamic
linking as a workaround.
Christopher Seawood
: Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
: >It doesn't make sense for his control of his work to depend on this either.
:
: He's the one who was purported to be writing a program that's dependent on
: a GPLed library, and was trying to use dynamic linking as a loophole around
If another non-GPL'd library could potentially be used instead of the
GPL'd one, then his work isn't dependent upon it. But what you're saying
is that the mere potential isn't enough. So what if someone provided a
dummy libreadline that contains all of the hooks and public API needed
to use the program w/o using libreadline? The mere existance of this
dreadline should not determine whether or not the program in question
is dependent upon readline.
From the previous discussions on this thread, it doesn't seem as though
copyright law (as currently written) would consider the program to be a
derivative work of readline if they were dynamically linked (regardless
of the existance of a clone lib). Now, if RMS and others think this
is not in the "spirit of copyright law", then they should lobby to get
copyright law changed. But until that time, this loophole seems to be
perfectly legal.
: it. The whole reason for using the GPL, rather than the LGPL, for a
: library is so that it can be used as an enticement for other people to
: distribute their work freely (you can link with it if you agree to free
: your code); the purpose is defeated if someone can simply use dynamic
: linking as a workaround.
I think this is a case where the ambiguity of copyright law wrt software
works against the goals of RMS. Rather than ignore the ambiguity or
say that a certain action is against the "spirit of copyright law",
perhaps the GPL should explicitly close that loophole. Otherwise, what
you have is RMS saying that's it is illegal to *use* a GPL'd library
under certain conditions even though he has no legal backing to do so.
And we'll continue to have discussions like this...especially now with
more people using things like CORBA.
- cls
jik-
> copyright law (as currently written) would consider the program to be a
> derivative work of readline if they were dynamically linked (regardless
> of the existance of a clone lib). Now, if RMS and others think this
> is not in the "spirit of copyright law", then they should lobby to get
> copyright law changed. But until that time, this loophole seems to be
> perfectly legal.
RMS is wrong about the 'spirit' of the copyright. Copyright was created
for the pourpose of inovation...and here is were it really goes away
from his ideas...
The thought was, that people would be more inclined to come up with new
ideas if they held certain ownerships of them. If they cold hold onto
these ideas as being thier own and noone elses for a term, they could
make money off of thier idea and so they would me more inclined to want
to. If you thought you could make a few bucks off of something you
thought up in your head, you might want to go through the pain in the
ass of actually publishing (or whatever) your new idea....much less so
if you knew someone would just come along with more resources and take
it away.
Then more people would see your idea and get new ideas of thier
own,...they in turn would publish thier new idea etc..etc...until you
get here, were we are today. Just because these new ideas were based on
your own, does not mean you now have ownership over everything someone
throught up based on your idea!!! NO....that is not, nor has it ever
been in the 'spirit' of IP. They can even site your work in thier own
to prove thier own ideas and were they came from.
That is the true nature of a copyright...progress through the free trade
of ideas. That means making money off of them too....
BUT, they did not want to go as far as to stifle progress....which is
why you have all these terms like 'fair use', and why copyright expires
after a time. Even patents run out.
The distribution of the library is a given,...IP laws apply. But wether
or not you can distribute code which happens to link dynamicly (not even
sharing code) would not in my mind constitute a derivative work,..only
fair use...which is ok.
I will have to find that gopher site again and read the parts on
software to be sure.
jik-
>
> In article <36E067DD...@sprintmail.com>,
> jik- <fr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >RMS is wrong about the 'spirit' of the copyright. Copyright was created
> >for the pourpose of inovation...and here is were it really goes away
> >from his ideas...
> >
> >The thought was, that people would be more inclined to come up with new
> >ideas if they held certain ownerships of them. If they cold hold onto
> >these ideas as being thier own and noone elses for a term, they could
> >make money off of thier idea and so they would me more inclined to want
> >to. If you thought you could make a few bucks off of something you
> >thought up in your head, you might want to go through the pain in the
> >ass of actually publishing (or whatever) your new idea....much less so
> >if you knew someone would just come along with more resources and take
> >it away.
>
> expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. If I write a book
> about wavelets, I don't own the ideas about wavelets that are contained
> in the book, I own the presentation of those ideas. Someone else can
> present them in their own way.
You right, thats what I was meaning,...I was tired.
Barry Margolin
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>Barry Margolin (bar...@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
>: Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>: >It doesn't make sense for his control of his work to depend on this either.
>:
>: He's the one who was purported to be writing a program that's dependent on
>: a GPLed library, and was trying to use dynamic linking as a loophole around
>
>If another non-GPL'd library could potentially be used instead of the
>GPL'd one, then his work isn't dependent upon it. But what you're saying
>is that the mere potential isn't enough. So what if someone provided a
>dummy libreadline that contains all of the hooks and public API needed
>to use the program w/o using libreadline? The mere existance of this
>dreadline should not determine whether or not the program in question
>is dependent upon readline.
If this "dummy libreadline" doesn't actually do anything, then no one would
actually consider linking against it to make the program do what it's
supposed to do, so it's irrelevant. We're talking about a situation where
someone distributes a program that has to be linked with a GPLed library in
order to function properly. If the program were linked with dreadline it
wouldn't do so, and the documentation would presumably not mention this as
part of its installation instructions. Someone would have to create a
functional replacement for libreadline, and then the program would no
longer be effectively derived from libreadline.
>I think this is a case where the ambiguity of copyright law wrt software
>works against the goals of RMS. Rather than ignore the ambiguity or
>say that a certain action is against the "spirit of copyright law",
>perhaps the GPL should explicitly close that loophole.
Using what mechanism? The GPL is only enforceable by virtue of copyright
law. Although it refers to itself as a license, I suspect that it would
be considered as unenforceable as a shrinkwrap license. But copyright law
provides the basis for setting restrictions on copying.
All that RMS is doing is claiming that two activities should be considered
legally equivalent if they're functionally equivalent. Dynamic and static
linking are functionally equivalent if there's no alternative library,
hence the resulting program should be considered a derivative of the
library in both cases.
Barry Margolin
jik- <fr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>RMS is wrong about the 'spirit' of the copyright. Copyright was created
>for the pourpose of inovation...and here is were it really goes away
>from his ideas...
I think it actually plays right into his ideas. If RMS couldn't use
copyright to spread his notion of software freedom, he wouldn't have
innovated as much software, and others wouldn't have built from it.
If dynamic linking means that RMS has less say over how his libraries are
to be used, I suspect he'll stop producing libraries.
NF Stevens
>In article <36e02a40...@news.u-net.com>,
>NF Stevens <nor...@arcady.u-net.com> wrote:
>>This differs from the dynamic vs static linking distinction because the
>>list of word numbers has no other use apart from recreating the
>>copyrighted novel. With dynamic linking one possible result is the
>>same as static linking (i.e. a memory image composed of the
>>amalgamation of the two works); however it is also possible to
>>link the work against a different (non GPL) library which provides
>>the same functionality. The users may decide not to write their own
>>version of the library, but they always have that choice. I do not
>>see how a work which can be run independently of the GPL work
>>can be considered to be a derived work of that GPL work.
>
>RMS recognizes this, but only when the potential non-GPL library actually
>exists. Why should the copyright holder lose control just because of the
>*potential* of an alternative library? If this potential library doesn't
>exist, and the author of the dependent module knows it, he knows that he's
>creating something functionally equivalent to a work statically linked with
>the library.
The copyright owner is not losing any control. They never had the power
to control how their work is _used_, only how and when and by whom it
is copied.
Let's take a slightly more tenuous link between the GPL work and another
program. What if I wrote a proprietory program which acts as a wrapper
to gcc, allowing you to specify source files and compilation options
using a gui. My program uses the options supplied and then exec's gcc.
To me this seems little different from the dynamic linking case. It
further fulfils the condition that my program would be useless without
gcc; yet I very much doubt anyone could claim that it was a "derived
work" of gcc.
Norman
Barry Margolin
Based on what RMS has said about plug-ins, I think he *would*.
Christopher Seawood
: In article <8%YD2.70611$641.2...@news.san.rr.com>,
: Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
: >
: >If another non-GPL'd library could potentially be used instead of the
: >GPL'd one, then his work isn't dependent upon it. But what you're saying
: >is that the mere potential isn't enough. So what if someone provided a
: >dummy libreadline that contains all of the hooks and public API needed
: >to use the program w/o using libreadline? The mere existance of this
: >dreadline should not determine whether or not the program in question
: >is dependent upon readline.
:
: If this "dummy libreadline" doesn't actually do anything, then no one would
: actually consider linking against it to make the program do what it's
: supposed to do, so it's irrelevant.
You just changed your viewpoint from there must be an API compatible
alternative library to there must be an API compatible alternative library
that implements all of the features of the original. You're also assuming
that the library is an essential piece of the program. I specifically
picked readline because it's not essential to the working of any program
I've seen it linked against. Even in the case where the library *is*
essential to the program, the clone library isn't required to implement
every single function of the original library. For the longest time,
lesstif was not as complete as motif but yet people were claiming that
motif-linked GPL apps were legal because you could drop lesstif in as
a replacement. The case of using an incomplete dreadline library is
not any different.
: We're talking about a situation where
: someone distributes a program that has to be linked with a GPLed library in
: order to function properly. If the program were linked with dreadline it
: wouldn't do so, and the documentation would presumably not mention this as
: part of its installation instructions. Someone would have to create a
: functional replacement for libreadline, and then the program would no
: longer be effectively derived from libreadline.
The incompleteness of the alternative library shouldn't affect the
question of where the program was derived. Would the author of the
program be at fault if the user runs the program against readline 1.0
which presumably is missing features and has bugs? No, they wouldn't.
Similiarly, if the user runs the program against dreadline which contains
void functions or minimal functionality, the author should not be fault.
Those situations are usage issues not copying issues and therefore are
not covered by copyright law.
: >I think this is a case where the ambiguity of copyright law wrt software
: >works against the goals of RMS. Rather than ignore the ambiguity or
: >say that a certain action is against the "spirit of copyright law",
: >perhaps the GPL should explicitly close that loophole.
:
: Using what mechanism? The GPL is only enforceable by virtue of copyright
: law. Although it refers to itself as a license, I suspect that it would
: be considered as unenforceable as a shrinkwrap license. But copyright law
: provides the basis for setting restrictions on copying.
True but no one said you had to rely solely upon copyright law for the
terms of your license. For instance, the newly released QPL specifically
mentions linking and therefore removes the cloud of confusion that we
are currently experiencing. Granted, in the future, the term "linking"
could become outdated due to some new advance in software development
but it closes up the loophole today and is definitely more up to date
than copyright law's interpretation of the situation.
The alternative is to accept that dynamic linking of GPL'd A and non-GPL'd
B is not prohibited by neither copyright law nor the license (since the
license relies upon copyright law).
: All that RMS is doing is claiming that two activities should be considered
: legally equivalent if they're functionally equivalent. Dynamic and static
: linking are functionally equivalent if there's no alternative library,
: hence the resulting program should be considered a derivative of the
: library in both cases.
Ok, he thinks they should be but as it stands, they aren't so distributing
a program dynamically linked against readline should be perfectly legal
(if not acceptible) regardless of the existance of an alternative library.
- cls
Lynn Winebarger
jik- <fr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>RMS is wrong about the 'spirit' of the copyright. Copyright was created
>for the pourpose of inovation...and here is were it really goes away
>from his ideas...
>
>ideas if they held certain ownerships of them. If they cold hold onto
>these ideas as being thier own and noone elses for a term, they could
>make money off of thier idea and so they would me more inclined to want
>to. If you thought you could make a few bucks off of something you
>thought up in your head, you might want to go through the pain in the
>ass of actually publishing (or whatever) your new idea....much less so
>if you knew someone would just come along with more resources and take
>it away.
Actually this is incorrect. Copyright covers the particular
expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. If I write a book
about wavelets, I don't own the ideas about wavelets that are contained
in the book, I own the presentation of those ideas. Someone else can
present them in their own way.
Patents are more along the lines of what you're thinking about. But
even patents don't restrict the expression of the ideas, merely the
physical implementation of those ideas. Which I think has interesting
implications for software, where the expression of the idea is directly
related to its implementation.
At least as far as I have gathered, since I am not a lawyer.
Lynn
David Kastrup
> I think this is a case where the ambiguity of copyright law wrt
> software works against the goals of RMS. Rather than ignore the
> ambiguity or say that a certain action is against the "spirit of
> copyright law", perhaps the GPL should explicitly close that
> loophole. Otherwise, what you have is RMS saying that's it is
> illegal to *use* a GPL'd library under certain conditions even
> though he has no legal backing to do so. And we'll continue to have
> discussions like this...especially now with more people using things
> like CORBA.
You have to understand that RMS is entirely against copyright
protection of software. The legal interpretation of copyright and
derived works is dictated by the courts. The purpose of the GPL is to
create a software pool where copyright is essentially abolished.
If the *law* will choose to say that a derived work is not one that
depends on the existence of another work without which it cannot be
used and with regard to which it was designed, then that will be fine
with RMS. If the law decides not, he does not see the point in not
using this protection granted to software hoarders for his means of
discouraging software hoarding.
The ideal world for RMS will be one where none of the clauses of the
GPL is enforceable, because then *all* software will be as he wishes
it to be -- free. As that is not the case, he uses the legal
machinations in order to protect the free software pool he is involved
with from unilateral exploitation without contribution.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
David Kastrup
> In article <36E067DD...@sprintmail.com>,
> jik- <fr...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >RMS is wrong about the 'spirit' of the copyright. Copyright was created
> >for the pourpose of inovation...and here is were it really goes away
> >from his ideas...
>
> I think it actually plays right into his ideas. If RMS couldn't use
> copyright to spread his notion of software freedom, he wouldn't have
> innovated as much software, and others wouldn't have built from it.
And nobody else could use copyright to restrict access to his code, so
he would not have needed to invent the GPL. And software would be
free, anyhow.
RMS uses the weapons he finds distasteful for protecting a free
software pool. I don't think he would mind at all if the protection
of copyright was mostly abolished, even though this would make
*source* hiding a much more important game than it is now.
Hiding engineering tends to reduce the usefulness of software, too,
and so the GPL does achieve something beyond just free copying. But I
guess the "helping you neighbour" objectino would then more or less
cease.
John Hasler
> However, if you write a document called "Analysis of the use of the word
> "snow" in the novel _Snow Crash_", which refers to each page on which the
> word is used, you can distribute it without violating copyright---not
> just because it's probably fair use, but because it doesn't actually
> contain a significant part of the novel.
Excellent example. The analysis could avoid including any portion of
_Snow Crash_ by using page and line number references, and could explicitly
say "In order to use this book you must have a copy of _Snow Crash_" and
still not infringe the copyright. The fact that the analysis can only be
used with _Snow Crash_ is irrelelvant.
You could even publish a set of marginal notes with instructions to paste
them into a copy of _Snow Crash_. The result of the pasting would be a
derivative of both _Snow Crash_ and your notes, but the notes as
distributed would not be a derivative of _Snow Crash_.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Isaac
>In article <36e06bee...@news.u-net.com>,
>NF Stevens <nor...@arcady.u-net.com> wrote:
>>Let's take a slightly more tenuous link between the GPL work and another
>>program. What if I wrote a proprietory program which acts as a wrapper
>>to gcc, allowing you to specify source files and compilation options
>>using a gui. My program uses the options supplied and then exec's gcc.
>>To me this seems little different from the dynamic linking case. It
>>further fulfils the condition that my program would be useless without
>>gcc; yet I very much doubt anyone could claim that it was a "derived
>>work" of gcc.
>
>Based on what RMS has said about plug-ins, I think he *would*.
>
Isn't this pretty much a description of how the RCS gui that someone
distributes commerically works. I'm pretty sure the company distributing
that got RMS's blessing.
Isaac
Bernd Gehrmann
> Christopher Seawood writes:
> > Per Section 3, what constitutes "normally distributed with major
> > components of the operating system"?
>
> Libc, Motif.
>
> > Motif distributed with Solaris seems to fall under this distinction but
> > Qt distributed with Linux-Mandrake does not. What's the difference?
>
> Is Linux-Mandrake an operating system, or is it only a minor variation on
> an operating system that does not normally include Qt?
It's a variation of an operating system that does normally include
Qt, but not Motif. But for the given question (section 3 of the GPL)
this is irrelevant. This section requires that for components of the
operating system which accompany a GPL'd program, the source must
be provided. Qt always comes with source code, so this is not an
issue. For Motif, it _is_ an issue. GPL'd programs statically linked
with Motif are always in violation with the GPL. Moreover, with the
unusual definition given in the GPL (compilers are part the OS), one
cannot ship a compiler bundled with e. g. Emacs without providing
source for the compiler. AFAIR Sun did exactly this.
> Copyright law does not concern itself about processes, source files,
> sockets, linkage, etc. Copyright is about making copies. If your work as
> didtributed contains a copy of part or all of another work it is a
> derivative of that work. If not, it isn't.
This doesn't answer the question, because the GPL does not apply for
mere aggregation of works.
Bernd.
Isaac
>
>Somehow the dynamic library got onto that machine, so it must have been
>copied as well. If the end user copied it in order to link it with the
>proprietary program, then perhaps the distributor of the program could be
>considered liable for contributory infringement.
>
But since the end user doesn't violate the GPL when he does this,
there wouldn't seem to be any direct infringement, and thus no infraction
to contribute to. So perhaps the distributor of the program would not
be liable.
Isaac
Michael Powe
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
Barry> In article <36e06bee...@news.u-net.com>, NF Stevens
Barry> <nor...@arcady.u-net.com> wrote:
>> Let's take a slightly more tenuous link between the GPL work
>> and another program. What if I wrote a proprietory program
>> which acts as a wrapper to gcc, allowing you to specify source
>> files and compilation options using a gui. My program uses the
>> options supplied and then exec's gcc. To me this seems little
>> different from the dynamic linking case. It further fulfils the
>> condition that my program would be useless without gcc; yet I
>> very much doubt anyone could claim that it was a "derived work"
>> of gcc.
Barry> Based on what RMS has said about plug-ins, I think he
Barry> *would*.
The above seems to be a pretty good description of Cygnus' GNUPro
Toolkit. Is it GPL'ed?
mp
- --
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
mic...@trollope.org http://www.trollope.org
"Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write."
-- Anthony Trollope
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE24436755rgEMD+T8RAne6AKCsP6Zz+c4JDADnxxjG0YNCfO3mkQCgvo7q
BjHVzozJDx5pWrp+06dRe5U=
=892J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Barry Margolin
Bernd Gehrmann <geh...@ifh.de> wrote:
>It's a variation of an operating system that does normally include
>Qt, but not Motif. But for the given question (section 3 of the GPL)
>this is irrelevant. This section requires that for components of the
>operating system which accompany a GPL'd program, the source must
>be provided. Qt always comes with source code, so this is not an
>issue. For Motif, it _is_ an issue. GPL'd programs statically linked
>with Motif are always in violation with the GPL. Moreover, with the
>unusual definition given in the GPL (compilers are part the OS), one
>cannot ship a compiler bundled with e. g. Emacs without providing
>source for the compiler. AFAIR Sun did exactly this.
Am I misunderstanding you, or do you have it backward? The GPL says that
you do *not* have to provide source code for the parts that are normally
supplied with the OS.
BTW, it seems to me that the GPL should have made an exception to this
exception. The owner of the OS probably should *not* be allowed to
distribute the GPLed code without releasing their libraries. The purpose
of the exception was to allow people who don't have any way of providing
the OS source code to distribute applications that are linked with the OS's
libraries. But the OS vendor doesn't have this limitation, except insofar
as they place it on themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to take
advantage of GPLed software without "joining".
Barry Margolin
Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
>Barry Margolin (bar...@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
>You just changed your viewpoint from there must be an API compatible
>alternative library to there must be an API compatible alternative library
>that implements all of the features of the original.
When did I say "all of the features"? I said it couldn't be a stub that
doesn't do anything but respond to the API, it must be functional.
Bernd Gehrmann
> Am I misunderstanding you, or do you have it backward? The GPL says that
> you do *not* have to provide source code for the parts that are normally
> supplied with the OS.
No. It says that you don't have to provide source code "unless that
component itself accompanies the executable". This is an exception
from the exception. Formulated positively, it means "You must provide
source for all components of the OS that accompany the executable".
Bernd.
Christopher Seawood
: In article <0a%D2.70699$641.2...@news.san.rr.com>,
: Christopher Seawood <c...@seawood.org> wrote:
: >Barry Margolin (bar...@bbnplanet.com) wrote:
: >You just changed your viewpoint from there must be an API compatible
: >alternative library to there must be an API compatible alternative library
: >that implements all of the features of the original.
:
: When did I say "all of the features"? I said it couldn't be a stub that
: doesn't do anything but respond to the API, it must be functional.
For what definition of functional? For the moment, I'll assume
functional means that it doesn't prevent the program from running in a
normal manner. IMO, from the legal viewpoint, the clone library should
not need to implement all (or any) of the features of the GPL'd original.
It just needs to implement the API in such a way that the program
remains functional.
BTW, who (or what) decided that the library must be "functional" in
order for it to count as an alternative to the GPL'd library? I see
no mention of this in neither the GPL nor copyright law's definition of
"derivative work".
I still fail to see how the existence or non-existence of a third
party's library C determines whether or not product A is a derived work
of product B if A & B are linked dynamically (where lib B and lib C share
a common API).
- cls
James Youngman
> At this point, I guess I'm going to have to find someone who *is* a
> lawyer because RMS' claim does not make sense. The end user's point
> of view should be irrevelant to definition of a derived work. I guess
> the deciding factor at this point would be whether or not occupying
> the same process space is legally considered to be a "derivative
> work".
IANAL either but if that were held to be true, all DOS programs would
be derived works of MS-DOS. There are plenty of other operating
systems that don't provide separate address spaces for user programs.
> (I recently discovered that shared libs under linux didn't work in the way
> I thought they did. I was under the assumption that there was one copy
> of the library that was loaded by the system and used by all processes
> that depend upon it. Apparently, according to a guy from Cygnus, the
> portions of the library that are used by the application are copied
> into the executable's process space. Does anyone know if this is true
> of all dynamic loaders?)
It wasn't true for (IIRC) for Linux a.out shared libraries, which used
fixed load addresses.
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
James Youngman
> RMS recognizes this, but only when the potential non-GPL library actually
> exists. Why should the copyright holder lose control just because of the
> *potential* of an alternative library? If this potential library doesn't
> exist, and the author of the dependent module knows it, he knows that he's
> creating something functionally equivalent to a work statically linked with
> the library.
I would be surprised if the legal status of work A with respect to
work B is dependent on the existence or nonexistence of work C, if
work C has no derivation relationship with either A or B.
Stephan Schulz
Geoffrey KEATING <geo...@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>sch...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Schulz) writes:
>
>...
>> Or, to be obvious, if I take the novel "Snow Crash" and distribute it
>> as a list of individual words in alphabetic order (non-copyrightable)
>> and offer a web-page which gives me a list of numbers that say which
>> word goes were, I _am_ violating copyright, even though the user is
>> the one that puts the novel together again.
>
>Because your list of numbers is a translation of the original novel.
I cannot say I did not see this argument coming. And you are right to
a certain degree. However, it is not quite as simple as that. Let's
assumue I use simple XOR encryption, and apply a perfect white noise
key to the novel. Both the key and the encrypted novel are now white
noise - I cannot get the novel or any non-random piece of it from
either the key or the encrypted novel. Moreover, I can use both to
encrypt other data which I am legaly allowed to distribute, thus both
of these bit strings have independed uses. Nevertheless, if I
distribute both, I am in effect distributing "Snow Crash", and am thus
in violation of copyright, even though it is perfectly legal to
distibute each individual component, and even though the user has to
perform a non-trivial operation ("linking") of the two parts to
actually get the novel.
>However, if you write a document called "Analysis of the use of the
>word "snow" in the novel _Snow Crash_", which refers to each page on
>which the word is used, you can distribute it without violating
>copyright---not just because it's probably fair use, but because it
>doesn't actually contain a significant part of the novel.
I am not certain about that - in fact, as far as I know this paste-on
piece would very likely be considered a derived work, even though you
wrote every word yourself. This is similar to writing a sequel to a
successful novel - as far as I know, you are violating the authors
copyright, even though you are not copying his words.
Stephan
-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Holden
>In article <t8g17j1...@discus.anu.edu.au>,
>Geoffrey KEATING <geo...@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>However, if you write a document called "Analysis of the use of the
>>word "snow" in the novel _Snow Crash_", which refers to each page on
>>which the word is used, you can distribute it without violating
>>copyright---not just because it's probably fair use, but because it
>>doesn't actually contain a significant part of the novel.
>
>I am not certain about that - in fact, as far as I know this paste-on
>piece would very likely be considered a derived work, even though you
>wrote every word yourself. This is similar to writing a sequel to a
>successful novel - as far as I know, you are violating the authors
>copyright, even though you are not copying his words.
Are you arguing that all those 'guide to' books on English novels people
study in school are violating copyright? Are you saying that the vast
majority of book reviews are violating copyright.
Copyright allows me to refer to a copyrighted work. Otherwise it would be
reasonably difficult to write those essays...
--
Sam
Even if you aren't in doubt, consider the mental welfare of the person
who has to maintain the code after you, and who will probably put parens
in the wrong place. --Larry Wall
Stephan Schulz
Sam Holden <sho...@cs.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Stephan Schulz <sch...@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> wrote:
>>In article <t8g17j1...@discus.anu.edu.au>,
>>Geoffrey KEATING <geo...@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>However, if you write a document called "Analysis of the use of the
>>>word "snow" in the novel _Snow Crash_", which refers to each page on
>>>which the word is used, you can distribute it without violating
>>>copyright---not just because it's probably fair use, but because it
>>>doesn't actually contain a significant part of the novel.
>>
>>I am not certain about that - in fact, as far as I know this paste-on
>>piece would very likely be considered a derived work, even though you
>>wrote every word yourself. This is similar to writing a sequel to a
>>successful novel - as far as I know, you are violating the authors
>>copyright, even though you are not copying his words.
>
>Are you arguing that all those 'guide to' books on English novels people
>study in school are violating copyright? Are you saying that the vast
>majority of book reviews are violating copyright.
No, all of those are legal under "fair use" provisions.
>Copyright allows me to refer to a copyrighted work. Otherwise it would be
>reasonably difficult to write those essays...
Yes, you can refer to a copyrighted work. However, one of the criteria
of "fair use" is that the parts quoted are fairly small. This is the
same problem we discussed with the word list/number list discussion.
You can write "on page 5, 3 3, the author wrote 'Hi there'".
You cannot write "On page 1, line 1, the author wrote...., on page 1,
line 2 the author wrote..." and so on, until you covered all of the
novel.
In the paste-on example, the end result is a book in which large parts
(in fact, all) of the original are contained. Therefore, distributing
this work is illegal, and, as far as I know, distributing the "kit" to
make this work might be illegal as well.
John Hasler
> I am in effect distributing "Snow Crash", and am thus in violation of
> copyright, even though it is perfectly legal to distibute each individual
> component, and even though the user has to perform a non-trivial
> operation ("linking") of the two parts to actually get the novel.
I think that a court would say the encrypted novel contains the novel and
is therefor a derivative. One of the arguments that the plaintiff would
make is that someone might invent a way to crack the encryption. Another
is that as long as a method of decryption exists distributing the encrypted
novel is distributing the novel, even though the recipients can't read it
without your help. What if you distributed copies of the novel printed
with a disappearing ink which only you knew how to make visible? The court
would consider that and your encryption scheme equivalent.
> I am not certain about that - in fact, as far as I know this paste-on
> piece would very likely be considered a derived work, even though you
> wrote every word yourself.
Works similar to that described by Geoffrey exist. They called literary
criticism. Many authors would suppress them if they could.
> This is similar to writing a sequel to a successful novel - as far as I
> know, you are violating the authors copyright, even though you are not
> copying his words.
This is because such sequels usually use the original authors characters
and are therefor considered to include part of his work. Parodies, for
example, are legal.
Stephan Schulz
>Stephan writes:
>> I am in effect distributing "Snow Crash", and am thus in violation of
>> copyright, even though it is perfectly legal to distibute each individual
>> component, and even though the user has to perform a non-trivial
>> operation ("linking") of the two parts to actually get the novel.
>
>I think that a court would say the encrypted novel contains the novel and
>is therefor a derivative. One of the arguments that the plaintiff would
>make is that someone might invent a way to crack the encryption. Another
>is that as long as a method of decryption exists distributing the encrypted
>novel is distributing the novel, even though the recipients can't read it
>without your help. What if you distributed copies of the novel printed
>with a disappearing ink which only you knew how to make visible? The court
>would consider that and your encryption scheme equivalent.
Sorry, perhaps I should have been technically more specific.
If you have a perfect source of white noise (say a decaying
radioactive element and a Geiger counter), you can use this to create
a perfectly random binary string (a "key"). If you biwise XOR this
string to any other piece of data (of the same lenght, the "original
message"), you get a third bitstring (the "encrypted message") that is
just as random as your original key. Thus you now have two bit
strings that are, by themselves, pure white noise. You cannot get the
original from either of the two bit strings. This is the principle of
one-time-pad encryption. It is not breakable, because, from an
information theoretical point of view, neither of the two strings
contains any information about the original (short of the lenght, but
then you can always pad the original with 0 bits). If this sounds
unconvincing to you, either think about it for a while or read up on
it on any modern book on cryptography.
However, both bit strings can be combined to yield the original work.
Thus, the information is hidden neither in the key nor in the
encrypted message, but in the relationship between the two (and the
encryption is actually symmetric, i.e. there is no conceptual
difference between key and encrypted message).
Now tell me why I am not allowed to distribute a totally random string
of bits just because someone has another string of bits that will
transform my string into a copyrighted work? Also keep in mind that
for either of the two bit strings I can produce third bit string that
combines with wither of the two original ones to give me a copy of the
American declaration of indepencence (to name a public domain
document).
[Other valid arguments/examples deleted - I do not exactly know where
fair use ends for literary texts - there seems to be a pretty large
grey zone]
Simon Hill
>
> Using what mechanism? The GPL is only enforceable by virtue of copyright
> law. Although it refers to itself as a license, I suspect that it would
> be considered as unenforceable as a shrinkwrap license. But copyright law
> provides the basis for setting restrictions on copying.
>
Actually, shrinkwrap licenses have been held enforceable, subject to
three conditions.
See http://www.urich.edu/jolt/v3i1/hawkins.html
--
Simon Hill (sdh...@mail.utexas.edu)
Operating Systems Specialist
Department of Utilities
University of Texas
John Hasler
> read up on it on any modern book on cryptography.
It is perfectly convincing to me, as I am well aware of the principles
involved. Try to explain them to a court.
> Now tell me why I am not allowed to distribute a totally random string of
> bits just because someone has another string of bits that will transform
> my string into a copyrighted work?
For the only reason that really matters: a court would probably say so, in
the unlikely event that such a case ever came to trial. Judges tend to
believe in "common sense", and common sense says that if you can get the
copyrighted work out of the string it must be in there.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jo...@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
John Hasler
> Therefore, distributing this work is illegal, and, as far as I know,
> distributing the "kit" to make this work might be illegal as well.
It is certainly legal for the owner of a book to write in the margins. It
is certainly legal for her to cut pieces out of one book and paste them
into another. I find it hard to believe that this suddenly becomes illegal
just because one of the books suggests doing this.
Making copies of the paste-up would obviously infringe the copyrights on
both works, but making the paste-up does not involve copying at all.
Stephan Schulz
>> If this sounds unconvincing to you, either think about it for a while or
>> read up on it on any modern book on cryptography.
>
>It is perfectly convincing to me, as I am well aware of the principles
>involved. Try to explain them to a court.
I'd rather not, except as an expert witness with a fat honorary.
>> Now tell me why I am not allowed to distribute a totally random string of
>> bits just because someone has another string of bits that will transform
>> my string into a copyrighted work?
>
>For the only reason that really matters: a court would probably say so, in
>the unlikely event that such a case ever came to trial. Judges tend to
>believe in "common sense", and common sense says that if you can get the
>copyrighted work out of the string it must be in there.
Yes, you are very probably right. Now lets turn back to the orignal
question...
I argue that it makes sense (Note: I do not argue legal reality here -
as far as I know there are no precedence cases yet) that if the only
purpose of A is to be combined with B into a running program, then it
does not matter if the user or the programmer combines A and B -
distributing A+B is covered by copyright, and since B (the key or
library) is already out there, distributing A alone is equivalent to
distributing A+B.
Bill Unruh
>I argue that it makes sense (Note: I do not argue legal reality here -
>as far as I know there are no precedence cases yet) that if the only
>purpose of A is to be combined with B into a running program, then it
>does not matter if the user or the programmer combines A and B -
>distributing A+B is covered by copyright, and since B (the key or
>library) is already out there, distributing A alone is equivalent to
>distributing A+B.
Again NO. Copyright covers ONLY the copying of works. It does not cover
the use of the work. Thus is the programmer does not copy A he cannot
violate copyright on A. If the user copies A withing the terms of the
license he has to copying A, then the user can copy A. Wheteher he then
combines it with B is a use issue, not a copyright issue. Use is not
covered under copyright, just copying.
John Hasler
> I argue that it makes sense (Note: I do not argue legal reality here - as
> far as I know there are no precedence cases yet) that if the only purpose
There is nothing in copyright that would give the author of B the power to
restrict your right to distribute your A just because the purpose of A is
to be combined with B. You are not a party to the license agreement
between the user and the author of B, so its terms and conditions do not
apply to you.
> ...then it does not matter if the user or the programmer combines A and B
> - distributing A+B is covered by copyright,...
Of course it matters. If you not distributing A+B then you are not
distributing B and therefor not infringing its copyright. If the user came
into possession of A and B legitimately he is free to combine them unless
he has entered into a contract not to do so (in the case of the GPL he has
not).
> ...and since B (the key or library) is already out there, distributing A
> alone is equivalent to distributing A+B.
No it isn't. The user must obtain B himself, by whatever means B's author
chooses to permit. B's copyright is not touched and so its author has no
grounds under copyright law to sue you. If B's author wants to prevent B
from being combined with A he must get all users of B to enter into an
agreement not to do so.
Isaac
>
>I argue that it makes sense (Note: I do not argue legal reality here -
>as far as I know there are no precedence cases yet) that if the only
>does not matter if the user or the programmer combines A and B -
>library) is already out there, distributing A alone is equivalent to
>distributing A+B.
>
Despite it's popularity every time this A+B point is discussed,
this equivalency argument is simply not valid. There are any number
of situations where a legitimate final result can be acheived by
either legal or illegal means. For that reason, it is not correct
to argue that because the final state of one process is the
same as that for a set of steps known to be illegal, that the
first process must also be illegal.
Example:
It's legal for me to sell you a widget overpriced by $100, but
it's not legal for me to sell you the widget at a fair price and then
steal $100 of your money later even though the final result is the
same as for the legitimate process. In the first case, once you
find out about the overpricing, you'll probably even feel like I
stole your money, but you'll have no recourse for recouping anything.
The process does matter!!
Isaac
Tim Smith
>Okay, guys... as the originator of this thread, I must protest - this
>discussion is not what I intended. I assume that at least the vast majority
>of us, if not all of us, are engineers, and not (thank god) lawyers. So let's
>cut the legalese bullshit, since that's exactly what it is. Please, let's
>talk in more concrete terms we can all understand.
Part of being a competent software engineer is having a good understanding
of copyright law. A software engineer who does not understand the legal
environment under which his/her software exists should be no more acceptable
than, say, an architect who doesn't bother to know the building codes where
a building he/she designs is to be built.
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>If he's under the impression that there are multiple libraries that can be
>linked with his module, then he and his program should be off the hook. I
>would expect the instructions that come with his program to mention the
>various alternative libraries that the end user may link in.
OK...let's think about this. What you are suggesting would lead to the
rather odd result that whether or not I copied your program when I wrote
mine would depend on my state of mind, rather than whether or not there
are copies of code from your program in mine.
>>It doesn't make sense for his control of his work to depend on this either.
>
>He's the one who was purported to be writing a program that's dependent on
>a GPLed library, and was trying to use dynamic linking as a loophole around
>it. The whole reason for using the GPL, rather than the LGPL, for a
>library is so that it can be used as an enticement for other people to
>distribute their work freely (you can link with it if you agree to free
>your code); the purpose is defeated if someone can simply use dynamic
>linking as a workaround.
But there is no law that says my program can't be dependent on yours.
I can't *copy* yours, but I can be completely dependent on it, whether
you like it or not. Do you really think I should have to have Microsoft's
permission to write Windows applications? Apple's permission to write
Mac applications? Sony's permission to write Playstation games? Under
your argument, any application that is not 100% system independent is
a derivative work of the OS on which it runs.
--Tim Smith