SCO laying an ambush for the GPL?
Nick Kew
The issue now seems to be "IBM has improperly contributed its own code to
Linux in violation of a contract". Since it is not in dispute that IBM has
contributed code to Linux, that would seem to boil down to an argument over
whether SCO has rights over any or all of that code on the grounds of being
a derivative work.
Now if I find my GPL code distributed with the copyright removed,
I know there's a violation. And that applies also to derivative works
under the GPL. So if I *suspect* violation I may need discovery to
determine whether it is a derivative work under the GPL.
The direction this is going seems likely to set a precedent that will be
cited in any major GPL trial under US law. So if SCO isn't granted all
the discovery it's asked for, that'll be a useful precedent for, say,
M$ to deny discovery when someone accuses them of GPL violation.
--
Nick Kew
Paul F. Johnson
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:22:04 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> The issue now seems to be "IBM has improperly contributed its own code to
> Linux in violation of a contract". Since it is not in dispute that IBM has
> contributed code to Linux, that would seem to boil down to an argument over
> whether SCO has rights over any or all of that code on the grounds of being
> a derivative work.
SCO are knackered. We know it, IBM know it, everyone (except for the
pixies and goblins who sit on the Darl's shoulders) knows it. They're
trying everyway they can to make some money through the courts as they
have a 0 to 0.000000000001% chance of getting it though proper means.
If they're going the derivative part, then just about everyone will have a
claim against everyone (even IBM against SCO!) and it will be just silly.
The sooner Judge Kimball throws SCO out for wasting the courts time with
this trumped up case which seems to be mostly hot air on the part of SCO,
the better.
TTFN
Paul
Chris Croughton
> Ref: SCO Reply Memorandum Re Discovery - published at Groklaw
>
> The issue now seems to be "IBM has improperly contributed its own code to
> Linux in violation of a contract". Since it is not in dispute that IBM has
> contributed code to Linux, that would seem to boil down to an argument over
> whether SCO has rights over any or all of that code on the grounds of being
> a derivative work.
This isn't news, that's what it has been for some time.
> Now if I find my GPL code distributed with the copyright removed,
> I know there's a violation. And that applies also to derivative works
> under the GPL. So if I *suspect* violation I may need discovery to
> determine whether it is a derivative work under the GPL.
Would that give you a right to go poking around on the suspect's
machines? I could say that I suspect you of using my code without
attribution (it's BSD-type licence, but that still requires that you
credit my code), but that shouldn't give me any right to go poking
through your code just "on suspicion". It seems to me that 'discovery'
in this sense is another word for 'fishing' (as in "I don't know whether
the suspect has illegal drugs, but I want a warrant to go and search for
them just in case").
> The direction this is going seems likely to set a precedent that will be
> cited in any major GPL trial under US law. So if SCO isn't granted all
> the discovery it's asked for, that'll be a useful precedent for, say,
> M$ to deny discovery when someone accuses them of GPL violation.
In the SCO case, they are claiming that their code is in an open-source
product. They don't need to 'discover' anything, they can use grep on
the source code of Linux and determine for themselves where their code
is used. If it isn't published, whether IBM 'donated' it is irrelevant
because it wasn't used (and they won't be able to 'discover' such a
donation anyway). Their attempt at 'discovery' it just a ploy to draw
the case out longer, they have already been required to say exactly what
they claim has been "improperly contributed" and have failed to do so.
If anything has been "improperly contributed", they should be able to
point to it in the published source code of Linux (back versions are
available from way before they claim the code was "contributed").
There's also the point that it's very hard to prove that a piece of code
has been copied, in most cases (some is of course so specialised that it
is unlikely to have been independently concieved, and some companies
don't even bother to file off the serial numbers). Take the original,
remove all comments, rename all identifiers (to your own coding
standards, for instance), reformat the code, reverse some conditions,
move cases in switch statements around, and it will be difficult to
convince anyone that it's the same. Of course, unless the code is
really specialised that may well be more work than writing it from
scratch...
(note followup)
Chris C
John Winters
Nick Kew <ni...@hugin.webthing.com> wrote:
>Ref: SCO Reply Memorandum Re Discovery - published at Groklaw
>
>The issue now seems to be "IBM has improperly contributed its own code to
>Linux in violation of a contract". Since it is not in dispute that IBM has
>contributed code to Linux, that would seem to boil down to an argument over
>whether SCO has rights over any or all of that code on the grounds of being
>a derivative work.
I would read this as saying that it boils down to the exact opposite.
It's perfectly feasible for two parties to enter into a contract where
one undertakes not to do something. It's possible (albeit very unlikely)
that a contract exists between IBM and SCO whereby IBM has undertaken not
to release its own code under the GPL. If such were the case then IBM
could be in breach of contract.
IBM releasing code over which SCO has rights would be a breach of
copyright, not a breach of contract (although it might be a breach
of contract as well). However the clause now says "contributed its own
code in violation of a contract" so it appears that SCO are now claiming
just the case I describe in my previous paragraph - not that they have
any rights over the code, nor that it is a derivative work, just that
IBM are in breach of a contract. All they need to do to prove their case
is to produce the contract and point at the clause. If they can't then
they lose.
John
--
Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England
i = (free(NULL), i++);
Nick Kew
Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.net> writes:
> in this sense is another word for 'fishing' (as in "I don't know whether
> the suspect has illegal drugs, but I want a warrant to go and search for
> them just in case").
That sums it up, doesn't it? If the police can present a strong enough
case to the relevant officialdom, they'll get a warrant.
> In the SCO case, they are claiming that their code is in an open-source
> product.
Only in public - not in the IBM court case. The difference there is that
they're now emphasising a Derived Work line on why IBM weren't allowed to
contribute their own code that had previously been in AIX or Dynix.
Because the GPL concerns derived works, this could set a precedent for
cases about software alleged to be a derived work of something-GPL.
--
Nick Kew
Robert Newson
...
> Because the GPL concerns derived works, this could set a precedent for
> cases about software alleged to be a derived work of something-GPL.
I don't remember the GPL saying that you can't take the code you added to
the GPL program (which if you distribute that resulting derivative work must
be under GPL), and then use it in any way you feel, even putting it in a
totally different, non-GPL, program.
Or to put it another way, suppose SYSV was GPL'd. Then if IBM added JFS to
that, it'd have to release the SYSV+JFS as GPL. SCO's interpretation of GPL
would be that IBM would be required to GPL *ALL* software to which it also
added JFS, eg if IBM gave/sold JFS to Microsoft, then WINDOWS+JFS would also
have to be GPL'd.
(If GPL'd SYSV+JFS was taken by Microsoft and used as the basis for a new
version of Windows (eg Mac OS X is BSD based?), then that WOULD have to be
GPLd - how it would be if Microsoft took the GPL'd JFS and added that to
Windows is a different matter: that would be a breach of GPL licence terms
and so copyright infringement?)
Alexander Terekhov
Robert Newson wrote:
[...]
> Or to put it another way, suppose SYSV was GPL'd. Then if IBM added JFS to
> that, it'd have to release the SYSV+JFS as GPL. SCO's interpretation of GPL
http://tinyurl.com/xjw8
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7463
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Steve Firth wrote:
[...]
> challenge to GPL. Several of them beleived that it would eb perfectly
> possible to use GPL'd code and to stick two fingers up at the code
> creator.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Lawyers.
IANALB and I also believe in this theory. FSF's expansive claims
are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine
of first sale.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
(...)
I was wondering when you'd shoot a series of self-references, trying to
prove a point.
You sent 4, wow. 4x0 = 0
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Your "maxi-me" (edition 2004) doesn't like PDFs as well. See
<http://www.spinics.net/lists/xf/msg02327.html>.
<quote source=http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
If you send me the plain text, HTML, or PDF, then I could read it.
</quote>
Liar.
regards,
alexander.
Tim Smith
> The direction this is going seems likely to set a precedent that will be
> cited in any major GPL trial under US law. So if SCO isn't granted all
> the discovery it's asked for, that'll be a useful precedent for, say,
> M$ to deny discovery when someone accuses them of GPL violation.
Actions of a district court don't set precedent.
--
--Tim Smith
Rui Miguel Seabra
I'm a serious believer you have a problem with english.
He said his <<method of accessing the web through email and wget does
not work for binary files>>. It might have been true, and there's no
reason for you to call him a liar based on that.
If the pdf was sent as an attachment, maybe he could save it and see it.
I think I shall quote that Stallman post you linked as it clearly
defines what you just wrote:
<<I suspect that if one were to study all the statements carefully we
would find that you're trying to put something valid in a bad light.>>
This fits you as such a glove, Alexander...
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> not work for binary files>>.
Liar.
regards,
alexander.
John Winters
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>
>Steve Firth wrote:
>[...]
>> challenge to GPL. Several of them beleived that it would eb perfectly
>> possible to use GPL'd code and to stick two fingers up at the code
>> creator.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Lawyers.
>
>IANALB and I also believe in this theory.
I Am Not A Lawyer B......?
>FSF's expansive claims
>are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine
>of first sale.
Can you expand on this please?
Cheers,
David Kastrup
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > He said his <<method of accessing the web through email and wget does
> > not work for binary files>>.
>
> Liar.
Isn't your usual invective when shown wrong and running out of
arguments "Idiot" or are you just going for variety?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Greg Hennessy
Winters) wrote:
>>
>>IANALB and I also believe in this theory.
>
>I Am Not A Lawyer B......?
>
But ?
greg
--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht
Rui Miguel Seabra
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > He said his <<method of accessing the web through email and wget does
> > not work for binary files>>.
>
> Liar.
AH, name calling. We won then.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:41:43 +0100 (BST), new...@sinodun.org.uk (John
> Winters) wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>IANALB and I also believe in this theory.
> >
> >I Am Not A Lawyer B......?
> >
>
> But ?
But does fit, if you think that many things Alexander says only make
sense if you have problems understanding english.
Jason Clifford
> OTOH my legal chum thinks that a correctly constructed license will
> stand up in court. The problem is that anyone wishing to challenge GPL
> or GPL-like licensing will be able to throw more money at it than the
> copyright owner will.
All of these suggestions re invalidating the GPL miss out of a fundemental
fact that is central to the issue:
If the GPL is declared unlawful or unenforcable the only person(s) having
any right to the software is the author(s) and anyone who chooses to
accept the terms as a contract.
Without the consent of the author in such a case anyone who seeks to
distribute (and possibly even use if you believe some commercial abusers
of copyright) the GPL'd product in the course of business is commiting a
criminal offence.
Not too many orgnisations are going to be stupid enough to persue that
course.
Jason Clifford
--
UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net
http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband from just £22.50 / month
John Phillips
>
> IANALB and I also believe in this theory. FSF's expansive claims
> are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine
> of first sale.
AIUI, the application of the doctrine of copyright misuse is rare and
has the effect of preventing the copyright owner from asserting his
rights if he has previously misused them.
- It does not seem to allow anyone else (e.g. SCO) to take away and claim
a valid copyright, even if the GPL is found to be a misuse. (The rare
cases seem to arise from anti-trust / competition law copyright misuse
which seems not to be the case with GPL as I read it).
- In the case of code whose copyright is not owned by the FSF (the
Linux kernel for example) the "FSF's expansive claims" are not
apparently a relevant misuse - even if a misuse at all. It's all in
the GPL as written and its use by the copyright owner(s).
As for the doctrine of first sale, AIUI this recognizes the separation of
(i) the ownership of the medium and the rights that grants a purchaser
over the medium; from (ii) the ownership of the copyright in the contents
and the different rights granted to a licensee. Since the GPL applies
to the "program or other work which contains a notice placed by the
copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this
General Public License" and not to the medium I am not sure how this is
relevant, even in combination with the doctrine of copyright misuse.
IANAL and if I misunderstand I would appreciate enlightement.
--
John Phillips
John Phillips
Jason Clifford wrote:
> If the GPL is declared unlawful or unenforcable the only person(s) having
> any right to the software is the author(s) and anyone who chooses to
> accept the terms as a contract.
Let me quibble. If the doctrine of copyright misuse is the reason the
GPL is declared unenforceable [1] then AIUI the copyright owners lose
their ability to enforce their rights (never mind the financial problems
of doing so anyway). In effect this grants rights to others.
However I believe it remains true that no-one else can claim those
copyrights and enforce them over the copyright owners or others.
[1] I still think this is not likely.
--
John Phillips
John Winters
Greg Hennessy <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:41:43 +0100 (BST), new...@sinodun.org.uk (John
>Winters) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>IANALB and I also believe in this theory.
>>
>>I Am Not A Lawyer B......?
>>
>
>But ?
But And?
Linønut
> Because the GPL concerns derived works, this could set a precedent for
> cases about software alleged to be a derived work of something-GPL.
The GPL defines "derived" strictly:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based
on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of
it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.
By this definition, the code that IBM contributed is (I suspect) not "derived"
from AIX.
--
Free as in freedom
Power as in empowerment
Linønut
> <quote source=http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>
> If you send me the plain text, HTML, or PDF, then I could read it.
> </quote>
"I am puzzled. Why did you choose to send me 876,377 bytes in your recent
message when the content is only 27,133 bytes?
"You sent me five files in the non-standard, bloated .doc format that is
Microsoft's secret, rather than in the international, public, and more
efficient format of plain text."
Linønut
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> challenge to GPL. Several of them beleived that it would eb perfectly
>> possible to use GPL'd code and to stick two fingers up at the code
>> creator.
>
> IANALB and I also believe in this theory. FSF's expansive claims
> are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine
> of first sale.
Apparently many of the parties the FSF have contacted about improper use of
GPL'ed code did not have the same blasé attitude as yourself.
Stefaan A Eeckels
John Phillips <news...@DontUseThis.mainly.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <40FBF111...@web.de>, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > IANALB and I also believe in this theory. FSF's expansive claims
> > are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine
> > of first sale.
>
> AIUI, the application of the doctrine of copyright misuse is rare and
> has the effect of preventing the copyright owner from asserting his
> rights if he has previously misused them.
>
> - It does not seem to allow anyone else (e.g. SCO) to take away and
> claim a valid copyright, even if the GPL is found to be a misuse.
> (The rare cases seem to arise from anti-trust / competition law
> copyright misuse which seems not to be the case with GPL as I read it).
Obviously not. The fact that someone tries to claim more
rights than granted by the copyright statutes does not
imply that they lose their copyright, but quite simply that
the courts will not follow their interpretation.
> - In the case of code whose copyright is not owned by the FSF (the
> Linux kernel for example) the "FSF's expansive claims" are not
> apparently a relevant misuse - even if a misuse at all. It's all in
> the GPL as written and its use by the copyright owner(s).
Unless the "expansive claims" are part of the license, courts
will disregard such material unless it is the foundation of
the case, or presented by the plaintiff as an element of the case.
Otherwise, it is irrelevant.
Hence, even if the copyright is owned by the FSF, they can make
whatever claims they want, as long as they don't sue based on
one of the more expansive claims. In a world were everyone is
trying to get maximum protection out of a law that uses terms
ill-adapted to the technical aspects of computer software, it's
the way to go, unfortunately.
> As for the doctrine of first sale, AIUI this recognizes the separation
> of(i) the ownership of the medium and the rights that grants a purchaser
> over the medium; from (ii) the ownership of the copyright in the
> contents and the different rights granted to a licensee. Since the GPL
> applies to the "program or other work which contains a notice placed by
> the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of
> this General Public License" and not to the medium I am not sure how
> this is relevant, even in combination with the doctrine of copyright
> misuse.
It's a clever (ab)use of the fact that GPLed software is usually
freely downloadable. If one downloads a copy of a GPLed work,
first sale ought to apply to that copy. Thus, if one downloads
it a million times, one has a million first sale copies one can
use in the same sense as a book, for example making a million
collages with pages ripped from each copy. Or, in programming
terms, use files or functions from the GPLed work in one's own
programs without honouring the license. This also requires that
combining source files into a working program is interpreted as
"making a compilation" instead of "preparing a derivative work
of the various source files", and that an executable is equally
considered to be a compilation or aggregation instead of a either
a derivative work or plain (mechanically transformed) copy of
the source code.
IMHO, it badly reeks of legal chicanery. I do understand that
the OP has problems with some of the FSF's more outlandish claims
WRT derivative works, but I sure have major problems with his
idea that making source code freely available essentially means
losing any form of copyright protection.
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
Alexander Terekhov
John Phillips wrote:
[...]
> - It does not seem to allow anyone else (e.g. SCO) to take away and claim
> a valid copyright, even if the GPL is found to be a misuse. (The rare
> cases seem to arise from anti-trust / competition law copyright misuse
> which seems not to be the case with GPL as I read it).
SCO claims are also barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. Tenth
IBM's defense, IIRC. Attempting to extract rights to unrelated/
nonderivative (in the copyright sense, not metaphysical) constitutes
misuse of copyright.
>
> - In the case of code whose copyright is not owned by the FSF (the
> Linux kernel for example) the "FSF's expansive claims" are not
> apparently a relevant misuse - even if a misuse at all. It's all in
> the GPL as written and its use by the copyright owner(s).
"gpl.txt" has some references to LGPL. LGPL does try to impose
totally idiotic "definition" of derivative work which clearly
constitutes misuse. I'd expect that court would look at both.
>
> As for the doctrine of first sale, [... medium ...]
Yeah. That's what Time Warner, Inc. says. Libraries Associations
and others (including me) disagree.
>
> IANAL and if I misunderstand I would appreciate enlightement.
Try google. It's all in gnu.misc.discuss 2004 archive.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> IMHO, it badly reeks of legal chicanery. I do understand that
> the OP has problems with some of the FSF's more outlandish claims
> WRT derivative works, but I sure have major problems with his
> idea that making source code freely available essentially means
> losing any form of copyright protection.
Not any. You still have exclusive right to prepare derivative works
(derivative *literary* works modulo the AFC test) and impose
reciprocate terms on your licenses for derivative works. Read the
CPL... notwithstanding that it is unabashedly a contract, not a bare
copyright license.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> John Phillips wrote:
> [...]
> > - It does not seem to allow anyone else (e.g. SCO) to take away and claim
> > a valid copyright, even if the GPL is found to be a misuse. (The rare
> > cases seem to arise from anti-trust / competition law copyright misuse
> > which seems not to be the case with GPL as I read it).
>
> SCO claims are also barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. Tenth
> IBM's defense, IIRC. Attempting to extract rights to unrelated/
> nonderivative (in the copyright sense, not metaphysical) constitutes
> misuse of copyright.
Probably our use of words here differs. I'd consider it "misuse" if I
thwarted some law into an application that was nominally covered by
it, but against the spirit of the law. Now since the GPL does not at
all impact the normal intended permissions of copyright, but merely
adds unrelated rights, I don't quite see the "misuse".
Ok, let us construe something what I'd consider labelled "misuse": you
put some obscure clauses into a contract or licence, leading the
customer to wrongly believe into being granted some rights, perhaps
together with some non-written misleading assurances. After he has
invested consideral work into software, you then claim that he must
either licence all of it under the GPL or cease business or
something. Now that might just qualify as misuse. However, it would
insinuate that the conditions of the GPL were not understood because
of maliciously obtuse wording, or that some communication was made
that suggested otherwise.
However, your problem is not that RMS tries to hide and downplay
consequences of the GPL, but that he purportedly overinterprets
copyright laws. That is not "copyright misuse", but at best an
invalid assumption. He does not hide his intent in any manner in
advance. If he is mistaken in his legal opinions, this does not mean
that he _misused_ copyright, but that he misunderstood or
overestimated it.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> invalid assumption. He does not hide his intent in any manner in
> advance. If he is mistaken in his legal opinions, this does not mean
> that he _misused_ copyright, but that he misunderstood or
> overestimated it.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00316.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html
regards,
alexander.
Jason Clifford
> > If the GPL is declared unlawful or unenforcable the only person(s) having
> > any right to the software is the author(s) and anyone who chooses to
> > accept the terms as a contract.
>
> Let me quibble. If the doctrine of copyright misuse is the reason the
> GPL is declared unenforceable [1] then AIUI the copyright owners lose
> their ability to enforce their rights (never mind the financial problems
> of doing so anyway). In effect this grants rights to others.
That could only be the case where the license seeks to place restrictions.
The GPL is not a standard copyright license in this respect - it's effect
is to enhance the freedoms a person enjoys over a protected work.
> However I believe it remains true that no-one else can claim those
> copyrights and enforce them over the copyright owners or others.
Indeed which is where SCO's problem lies.
Jason
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00316.html
From
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html
>
quoting RMS
http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html
"My method of accessing the web through email and wget does not work
for binary files, so I don't know what is in that file."
Childish evasive BS
~ # curl -I http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:51:58 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix)
Last-Modified: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:48:45 GMT
ETag: "81d4-8e673-3d98806d"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 583283
Content-Type: application/pdf
~ # wget http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf
--13:47:56-- http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/asay-paper.pdf
=> `asay-paper.pdf'
Resolving www.linuxdevices.com... done.
Connecting to www.linuxdevices.com[216.218.185.154]:80... connected
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 583,283 [application/pdf]
100%[==============================================================
13:47:59 (175.91 KB/s) - `asay-paper.pdf' saved [583283/583283]
" I suspect that if one were to study all the statements carefully we would
find that you're trying to put something valid in a bad light."
Keep up the good work Alexander, that's a very interesting thread quoted.
Is Stallman *really* trying to assert that calling code using Ndiswrapper
makes *windows* drivers derivative works & therefore GPL'd ?!?
Alexander Terekhov
Greg Hennessy wrote:
[...]
> Is Stallman *really* trying to assert that calling code using Ndiswrapper
> makes *windows* drivers derivative works & therefore GPL'd ?!?
He's claiming that it's a "violation" of the GPL. Things like "It
can also be a violation of the GNU GPL to link the drivers into a
proprietary kernel. To increase the temptation to do so is asking
for trouble." See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40320716.E5FF569C%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=403344E5.E7872D34%40web.de
regards,
alexander.
Chris Croughton
<d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> However, your problem is not that RMS tries to hide and downplay
> consequences of the GPL, but that he purportedly overinterprets
> copyright laws. That is not "copyright misuse", but at best an
> invalid assumption. He does not hide his intent in any manner in
> advance. If he is mistaken in his legal opinions, this does not mean
> that he _misused_ copyright, but that he misunderstood or
> overestimated it.
In other words, he makes it sound as though it's more limited than it is
in law? That could well be true, the impression I've had from RMS's
writings (and other FSF people) is that they would like to convince
people that using anything GPL will mean that you have to release
everything you have under the GPL, whereas cooler heads say it's not
that drastic. But if you actually have more rights than you were led to
believe, that's not misuse (unless the owner tries to prosecute you for
them), as you said misuse comes when you are led to believe that you
have rights which are then found to be not there.
The latter is of course also the big problem with software patents, the
programmer can go ahead creating something and then find some years
later that a patent has now been granted covering that code.
Chris C
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
>He's claiming that it's a "violation" of the GPL. Things like "It
>can also be a violation of the GNU GPL to link the drivers into a
>proprietary kernel. To increase the temptation to do so is asking
>for trouble." See
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40320716.E5FF569C%40web.de
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=403344E5.E7872D34%40web.de
>
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html
Jesus H Christ.Hasnt anyone told Moglen that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 ?
Alexander Terekhov
Greg Hennessy wrote:
[...]
> Jesus H Christ.Hasnt anyone told Moglen that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 ?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40E709D3.D55FBAEE%40web.de
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
> [...]
> > Jesus H Christ.Hasnt anyone told Moglen that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 ?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40E709D3.D55FBAEE%40web.de
http://www.kimsoft.com/dprk.htm
("Communism Is Not Dead")
;-)
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html
>
> Jesus H Christ.Hasnt anyone told Moglen that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 ?
Did you bother to read until the end? By your choice of words you seem a
little tainted by religious fanaticism agains the unbelievers of communism,
not even bothering to make an intelligent effort of reading and understanding
what is being written.
After that, you try to glue Dr. Eben Moglen to dicatorial regimes, when
he's trying to help us get free of more than one.
The declaration ends with what the dotCommunist wants:
We, the creators of the free information society, mean to wrest from the
bourgeoisie, by degrees, the shared patrimony of humankind. We intend
the resumption of the cultural inheritance stolen from us under the
guise of ``intellectual property,'' as well as the medium of
electromagnetic transportation. We are committed to the struggle for
free speech, free knowledge, and free technology. The measures by which
we advance that struggle will of course be different in different
countries, but the following will be pretty generally applicable:
1. Abolition of all forms of private property in ideas.
2. Withdrawal of all exclusive licenses, privileges and rights to
use of electromagnetic spectrum. Nullification of all
conveyances of permanent title to electromagnetic frequencies.
3. Development of electromagnetic spectrum infrastructure that
implements every person's equal right to communicate.
4. Common social development of computer programs and all other
forms of software, including genetic information, as public
goods.
5. Full respect for freedom of speech, including all forms of
technical speech.
6. Protection for the integrity of creative works.
7. Free and equal access to all publicly-produced information and
all educational material used in all branches of the public
education system.
Grow the fuck up.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
> [...]
> > Jesus H Christ.Hasnt anyone told Moglen that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 ?
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40E709D3.D55FBAEE%40web.de
Another pointless and public self masturbation^Wreference.
Rui
John Hasler
> Only in public - not in the IBM court case.
Despite their loud public assertions (which have thoroughly buffaloed the
trade press), they have not asserted that their code is in any Open Source
product in any court case.
> The difference there is that they're now emphasising a Derived Work line
> on why IBM weren't allowed to contribute their own code that had
> previously been in AIX or Dynix.
But they are not asserting copyright in the IBM-contributed code. They are
just asserting that IBM breached their contract by contributing it. This
claim has no effect on anyone not party to the contract.
> Because the GPL concerns derived works, this could set a precedent for
> cases about software alleged to be a derived work of something-GPL.
The "derived works" theory they are presently pursuing in the IBM case is
based on their interpretation of the contract and has no bearing on
copyright.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 16:57 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > >
> > > Greg Hennessy wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Jesus H Christ.Hasnt anyone told Moglen that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 ?
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40E709D3.D55FBAEE%40web.de
> >
> > http://www.kimsoft.com/dprk.htm
> > ("Communism Is Not Dead")
>
> You are an idiot if you compare freedom for all with dictatorships.
http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/social_roots_of_GPL.shtml
<quote>
The fundamental postulates of Stallmanism are revolving around
certain "unalienable rights" for software users. If we assume
that the "right" in philosophical sense is a moral principle
defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social
context, then the concept of rights without property is somewhat
questionable platform similar to other "collectivist" social
utopias which historically provided the terrifying experience of
human rights abuse. History had shown that hypertrophy of
collectivist rights makes an individual too dependent upon other
people, especially leaders ("cult of personality"), including
leaders wrongdoing, and thus implicitly undermines the right for
individuality which is a fundamental contradiction because, in
essence, all rights are individual rights. This hypertrophy also
objectively leads to the despotism and corruption of the leaders
and George Orwell coined the underling fundamental contradiction
in his immortal quote "All pigs are equal, but some are more
equal than others." It is interesting to note that in autumn
1996, the FSF experienced a full-scale staff defection, blamed
in large part on Stallman. Brian Youmans, a FSF employee hired
by Peter Salus just before the resignations, recalls the scene:
"At one point, Peter [Salus] was the only staff member working
in the office." [Williams2002]. Further discussion of
philosophical issues of interconnections between notions of
"freedom" and "property" is beyond the scope of the paper, but
we will touch another side of the problem of interaction of
individual rights with the collectivist vision later when we
will discuss the interaction of GPL with the acknowledgement of
the work of others.
</quote>
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 16:57 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > http://www.kimsoft.com/dprk.htm
> > > ("Communism Is Not Dead")
> >
> > You are an idiot if you compare freedom for all with dictatorships.
I stand corrected. There are other ways to be an idiot! Like not having
the capacity to keep a rational thought.
> http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/social_roots_of_GPL.shtml
>
> <quote>
>
> The fundamental postulates of Stallmanism are revolving around
> certain "unalienable rights" for software users. If we assume
> that the "right" in philosophical sense is a moral principle
> defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social
> context, then the concept of rights without property is somewhat
> questionable platform
Questionable? Why? Property only makes sense on materials with resource
limits. That's why gold and diamonds are so expensive, for instance.
Thought and immaterial representation of ideas are boundless. The only
limit is imagination.
> similar to other "collectivist" social
> utopias which historically provided the terrifying experience of
> human rights abuse.
Here is the strawman argument! The idiocy of glueing freedom for all
users to dictatorships. This is, of course, an absurd strawman argument,
trying to raise the fear of one thing into a totally opposite thing.
Dicatorships and freedom for all are mutually exclusive.
> History had shown that hypertrophy of
> collectivist rights makes an individual too dependent upon other
> people, especially leaders ("cult of personality"),
If one thing can be said of Richard Stallman's personality, is that it
doesn't create a cult out of it. Virtually all human beings are
uncapable of such a straight course of actions. He doesn't wonder a
milimeter out of freedom for all users of software.
> including
> leaders wrongdoing, and thus implicitly undermines the right for
> individuality which is a fundamental contradiction because, in
> essence, all rights are individual rights.
Where could Free Software, or even the GNU GPL, undermine the right for
individuality? If anything, the opposite was proven. In many software
projects forks have existed, some to wither and die, others become
successful, and others merge back. This is a totally absurd and
groundless fear mongering (just like what I've learned to expect from
you, Alexander Terekhov).
> This hypertrophy also
> objectively leads to the despotism and corruption of the leaders
> and George Orwell coined the underling fundamental contradiction
> in his immortal quote "All pigs are equal, but some are more
> equal than others."
? The FSF defends freedom for all, not more freedom to some.
Of course some of the freedoms require a) technical knowledge, b)
financial power to get a), or c) social skills to get a) for free.
I don't suppose you see us all knowing how to make shoes, but anyone can
go and start making shoes. Without a) they might come out bad, without
b) you may not be able to get someone who does them good and c) will
likely not get you anywhere because shoes are a physical good, which is
normally tied to limited resources which cost to obtain and modify,
requiring b).
> It is interesting to note that in autumn
> 1996, the FSF experienced a full-scale staff defection, blamed
> in large part on Stallman. Brian Youmans, a FSF employee hired
> by Peter Salus just before the resignations, recalls the scene:
> "At one point, Peter [Salus] was the only staff member working
> in the office." [Williams2002]. Further discussion of
> philosophical issues of interconnections between notions of
> "freedom" and "property" is beyond the scope of the paper, but
> we will touch another side of the problem of interaction of
> individual rights with the collectivist vision later when we
> will discuss the interaction of GPL with the acknowledgement of
> the work of others.
I am not familliar with Williams2002, but when talking about freedom,
many think that to be able to enforce restrictions upon others is a
freedom. It is not it is a power that is forced upon others.
Many are not able to make that distinction because they are looking
solely to their belly buttons.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> Questionable? Why? Property only makes sense on materials with resource
> limits. That's why gold and diamonds are so expensive, for instance.
http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004144.html
(followers of Benjamin Tucker...)
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
BTW, I'm the CEO of the investment company.
http://www.opengroup.org/austin
(see "Current Participants", right after IBM Corp.)
Wanna make investment? ;-)
regards,
alexander.
Stefaan A Eeckels
The Open Group is a money sink. Please send your
prospectus (Investmentclub BAXX GbR doesn't have a
Web presence) if you want to be considered for
an investment.
By the way, a German GbR ("Gesellschaft bürgerlichen
Rechts") does not usually have a "CEO" because it
is a partnership, not a corporation, and by default,
the approval of all partners is required for decisions
concerning the GbR.
You could have stipulated otherwise in the statutes,
but then you'd have foolish partners, because as all
partners remain fully and commonly responsible for all
debts contracted by the GbR, a pettyfogging CEO could
bankrupt them all :-).
Alexander Terekhov
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> prospectus (Investmentclub BAXX GbR doesn't have a
> Web presence) if you want to be considered for
> an investment.
I can send you our Gesellschaftsvertrag.
>
> By the way, a German GbR ("Gesellschaft bürgerlichen
> Rechts") does not usually have a "CEO" because it
> is a partnership, not a corporation, and by default,
It is partnership, but I'm the Geschäftsführer. Pro bono. ;-)
> the approval of all partners is required for decisions
> concerning the GbR.
Not all decisions. But our Anlageausschuß helps me, sometimes.
> You could have stipulated otherwise in the statutes,
> but then you'd have foolish partners, because as all
> partners remain fully and commonly responsible for all
> debts contracted by the GbR, a pettyfogging CEO could
> bankrupt them all :-).
Kredite sind ausgeschlossen. Futures too. We play with KO
certificates, though.
regards,
alexander.
tel...@xenon.triode.net.au
> Wanna make investment? ;-)
I thought that investment companies served the purpose
of handing out money. I'm amazed that anyone would consider
actually putting money into one (how backward).
I've got plenty of hair-brained schemes that sound good
if you read them fast with a brass band playing in the
background so next time you need to offload those big
euros just tell me when to start printing the share certs.
- Tel :-)
John Hasler
> I thought that investment companies served the purpose of handing out
> money. I'm amazed that anyone would consider actually putting money into
> one (how backward).
Where do you think investment companies get money to hand out?
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
tel...@xenon.triode.net.au
> Tel writes:
>> I thought that investment companies served the purpose of handing out
>> money. I'm amazed that anyone would consider actually putting money into
>> one (how backward).
> Where do you think investment companies get money to hand out?
From tasking the synergistic merger of investor optimism and technological
paradyme shifts of course (duh!)
And if that doesn't work, you probably have insufficient market deregulation.
- Tel