GPL and other licences
Fung
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
derivative work combined from software licensed under the Apache
Software Licence 2.0 and software licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0 is not
possible, due to the patent terminating clause in the Apache Software
Licence. But is it forbidden to create a derivative work from software
licensed under those two licences, without distributing? So only using
it for personal/internal use.
In the GPL licence I can only find provisions on distribution of the
original form or modified/covered form. Or is this restricted by
copryright law?
Yours,
Fung
Fung
just want to know if it is legal to use the differently licensed
software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use eventhough the
licences exclude eachother
Alexander Terekhov
Fung wrote:
>
> Dear folks,
>
> I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
> reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright
law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work.
If you don't happen to live in the GNU Republic, linking of computer
programs (and libraries are computer programs) isn't one of exclusive
rights reserved to copyright owners and any attempts to extract the
rights to linked works which are separate and independent computer
program works under copyright law (google the AFC test) and are merely
linked to/from the GPL'd code constitutes misuse of copyright. The
penalty for copyright misuse – unenforceability of the copyright in
court until the misuse has been purged and its effects no longer
exist – is tantamount to losing the copyright.
Outside the GNU Republic there isn't such thing as "GPL
incompatibility". Ignore the FSF's FAQ and list of purportedly
"incompatible" licenses.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html
<quote>
consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other.
The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does
not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A
are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or
separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are
defined in 17 USC as literary works
</quote>
Note also that exclusive distribution right is severely limited by
"first sale".
Finally, regarding ESR's statement "FSF has stated its willingness to
go to court for this position", don't believe it.
http://novalis.org/talks/lsm-talk-2004/slide-31.html
<quote copyright=Free Software Foundation>
Don't go to court
FSF hasn't.
Court is expensive
Judges don't understand technology
"Is static linking like two icons on one desktop?"
-Judge Saris, MySQL v. Nusphere oral argument
</quote>
Translation: the FSF doesn't really believe that they could fool a
judge into buying
http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html
[begin textual copying copyright=Free Software Foundation]
July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal notes
Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying
Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library
Still a derivative work:
Dynamic linking
Distributing only the executable (testtriangle)
Still a derivative work:
Distributing the source code of software which links to a library
[end textual copying]
FSF's "legal notes" idiocy.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> Fung wrote:
>>
>> I am currently doing some research on open source licences and
>> while reading the GPL licence the following question arose:
>> Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed
>> under [whatever]
>
> Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright
> law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work.
Nonsense. "compilation" in copyright law and "compilation" in
computing are completely different things.
> If you don't happen to live in the GNU Republic, linking of computer
> programs (and libraries are computer programs) isn't one of
> exclusive rights reserved to copyright owners
Quite so. It will be "fair use" most of the time. Redistribution of
the results, however, is nothing copyright law permits by default, so
you need to consult your license for the terms, if any, you need to
fulfill for redistribution of a combined work.
So the question of the poster can be resolved without listening to
your usual irresponsible hogwash: he can indeed combine a GPLed work
in private with whatever software he wants to, as long as he does not
redistribute the results.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > Fung wrote:
> >>
> >> I am currently doing some research on open source licences and
> >> while reading the GPL licence the following question arose:
> >> Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed
> >> under [whatever]
> >
> > Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright
> > law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work.
>
> Nonsense. "compilation" in copyright law and "compilation" in
> computing are completely different things.
Hey retard, I meant compilation as in copyright law. Once you've
got a lawfully made copy of a "computer program" (a set of
instructions... see the definition) in source code form, you can
reproduce it in object code form (as an additional copy per 17 USC
117) using compilation process (as in computing), link it together
with other stuff and run. It has nothing to do with "fair use".
Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
(source code see above) to distribute additional copies (in object
code form see above) "along with the copy from which such copies
were prepared".
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
> on.
"We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
and achieving pretty good results already. For example,
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf
Breaking news. FSF says that the contract controls.
<quote>
Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because
the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the
terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the
complaint, the contract controls."
</quote>
Reactions:
-----
Re: FSF says that the contract controls
by: day5done 01/27/06 04:38 pm
The lawyers for the FSF must'a been smokin' the good stuff from
Merkey's stash.
Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for certain that
the GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard Stallman has
clarified that fact at least a hundred times.
Dollar to a dime Eben Moglen fires the lame asses over at the ICE
MILLER law firm real soon.
-----
-----
Re: FSF says that the contract controls
by: day5done
>> I'm sure there would be people willing to take you up on that bet
if they thought you'd actually pay. <<
If Moglen doesn't fire them he has some serious explaining to do to
thousands of people on why he misled programmers and companies on the
legal nature of the GPL -- he is, after all, a Professor of Law and
lead counsel for the FSF.
"This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that
is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden.
Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain
within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised,
but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the
license permits."
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
Since the GPL is now proclaimed a contract, its terms are subject to
interpretation under the common law of *fifty* different state
jurisdictions -- there is no "federal common law".
That fact is a real can of worms in its own right. Most states have
their own restraint of trade laws. Linux may face fifty different
Wallace's in fifty different states.
If Wallace lost in Federal Court he could still sue under Indiana law:
IC 24-1-2-1 Illegal combinations; exceptions; offense; defense Sec. 1.
Every scheme,
contract, or combination in restraint of trade or commerce, ...
-----
Furthermore,
-----
GPL Hollaaring
by: walter_oak_night 01/27/06 03:04 pm
ICE on automatic aggregation of software copyrights
In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License."
Linux kernel v. application
And as the copyright notice in the kernel sources says, user
applications are not subject to the GPL.
Supported by Hollaar:
With dynamically-linked libraries, the application program being
distributed is no longer a compilation that includes the library.
Because the library is not being distributed with the application
program, no permission is needed from the copyright owner of the library
for the distribution to users. Users must, of course, be authorized to
use the library, but if they are owners of a copy of the library, under
Section 117 they can make any adaptations of the library necessary to
use it with the application program.
FSF GPL FAQ
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the
portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the
source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these
versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't
the GPL permit this? ….
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc
FAQ as Fact
In 2002, a company named Global Technologies Ltd (now defunct) had
ported some 4.5M lines of GPL/BSD and other open source code to Windows
using AT&T Uwin. They claimed less than 500 lines had to be changed and
all changes went back to original authors. The binaries were distributed
from their web site, but one day disappeared. My $50.00 check for a CD
distribution of the binaries and source, which indicated $25 gift to
FSF, was returned with a letter explaining Moglan threatened legal
action for violating the GPL because the code was linked with AT&T
uwin’s proprietary posix.dll that provided the POSIX interface on
windows.
Hollaar disagress
Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library for
its operation is a derivative work of that library. They take that
position because the application program is “based on” the library
because it was written to use the subroutines and other aspects of the
library. Such a position is misplaced....
No other conclusion makes sense. If it were not the case, then any
program using the applications program interfaces (APIs) of an operating
system could be considered a derivative work of that operating system.
And, under the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, the
copyright owner of an operating system such as Microsoft Windows could
control who was allowed to write programs for that operating system.
What was that automatic rejection again?
-----
-----
Re: GPL Hollaaring FAQ or Fiction
by: walter_oak_night 01/27/06 03:56 pm
Moglen got on the phone, resulting in both of the attorneys backing out
of publicly discussing a moot court argument involving a scenario
wherein a company used GPL software with a dynamically linked library,
and wherein an issue would have been whether the DLL was then subsumed
under the GPL.
Darn. Would have been interesting.
Beyond the Basics: Advanced Legal Topics in Open Source and
Collaborative Development in the Global Marketplace
When: Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/Events/FOSS/
Appellate Argument Moot: The Scope of Derivative Works under an Open
Source Software License
Respected FOSS experts will argue the proper scope of a “derivative
work” under U.S. copyright law, as applied to reuse of software source
code, before a distinguished panel of federal appeals court judges:
* Honorable William C. Bryson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
* Honorable Haldane Robert Mayer, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
* Honorable Margaret McKeown, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit
This simulated appellate argument will permit some of the most difficult
issues facing practitioners to be debated fully and vigorously. The oral
argument will be preceded by an optional one-hour analysis of the legal
and technical issues raised in the hypothetical fact pattern.
-----
And finally,
-----
Re: Icing on the GPL
by: day5done
Wallace used the term "intellectual property" seventeen times in his
Answer brief. He is complaining about the price fixing of *intellectual
property* (that is to say licensing of exclusive rights in copyrights
and patents).
The FSF states:
"…The GPL expressly allows a fee to recover the variable or
incremental costs associated with distributing software licensed under
the GPL: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
copy." (GPL 1.).
See the "…fee for the physical act of transferring …"?
This fee for transfer has nothing whatsoever to do with the allegation
of price fixing of "intellectual property". Neither do charges for
service and support. The FSF is confusing the intangible copyright
with the tangible physical embodiment of a copyrighted work.
§ 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
object Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights
under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object
in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material
object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first
fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work
embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does
transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under
a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
-----
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
>> on.
>
> "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
> have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
> and achieving pretty good results already. For example,
<URL:http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf>
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
> >> on.
> >
> > "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
> > have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
> > and achieving pretty good results already. For example,
>
> <URL:http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf>
Yes. And? The last time the FSF's didn't get what they wanted
(dismissal with prejudice) and they actually got spanked by judge for
using "extraneous materials FSF relied upon in drafting the motion".
Note that the judge also rejected a number of the arguments of the FSF,
including that the nature of the GPL providing free access to software
programs, subject to some limitations, necessarily aids competition.
And here we go, brave FSF now "incorporates by reference and reasserts
all of the arguments made in its briefing in support of its prior
motion to dismiss".
We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think.
As for judge's comments about the GPL... one can tie oneself in knots
trying to make sense of the GPL. It ignores provisions of the
copyright statutes that allow the modification or redistribution of
works without permission of the copyright owner. It talks about
"derived" works which don't seem to be the same as "derivative works",
etc. etc. It's quite easy for a judge to get a bit confused on a first
glance. Wallace will gradually straighten him out.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
>> >> on.
>> >
>> > "We" don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
>> > have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
>> > and achieving pretty good results already. For example,
>>
>> <URL:http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-30.pdf>
>
> Yes. And? The last time the FSF's didn't get what they wanted
> (dismissal with prejudice) and they actually got spanked by judge
> for using "extraneous materials FSF relied upon in drafting the
> motion".
Uh, the case has been dismissed. Without prejudice, meaning that
Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough
merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings.
> We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think.
Well, we certainly can't see any less.
> As for judge's comments about the GPL... one can tie oneself in
> knots trying to make sense of the GPL.
Well, so far you are tieing yourself in knows trying to pass it off as
nonsense.
> It's quite easy for a judge to get a bit confused on a first
> glance. Wallace will gradually straighten him out.
Certainly so, since Wallace has had a profound legal education like
yourself, in contrast to the judge who is confused about legal
matters.
Too bad that in the courts judges rule, and not Wallaces and
Terekhovs.
Alfred M. Szmidt
This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you
can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two
incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
of your own internal use. It would in the end still be a violation of
copyright law.
Cheers.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough
> merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings.
"By making certain software programs available to users at no charge,
the GPL may be discouraging developers from creating new and better
programs because they will not receive compensation for their work,
thereby reducing the number of quality programs available to users.
This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can
be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended
Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended
Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, under the rule of reason doctrine."
>
> > We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think.
>
> Well, we certainly can't see any less.
See above.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Wallace gets a last chance, but the court has not even found enough
>> merit in Wallace's ramblings to even start proper proceedings.
>
> "By making certain software programs available to users at no charge,
> the GPL may be discouraging developers from creating new and better
> programs because they will not receive compensation for their work,
> thereby reducing the number of quality programs available to users.
> This may be considered anticompetitive effect, and it certainly can
> be inferred from what Mr. Wallace alleges in his Third Amended
> Complaint. Therefore, this court finds that the Third Amended
> Complaint states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
> Act, under the rule of reason doctrine."
Well, the court is trying to find out a way to interpret Wallace's
ramblings within the context of law, since he is unable to do so
himself. So they try to construe what he might be talking about
legally, and then dismiss this claim without prejudice.
Not really an impressive achievement.
>> > We'll see much more FSF's blood this time, I think.
>>
>> Well, we certainly can't see any less.
>
> See above.
I can't see the FSF bleeding just because the court tries to pound
some coherence into Wallace's claims before dismissing them.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> I can't see the FSF bleeding just because the court tries to pound
> some coherence into Wallace's claims before dismissing them.
"The GPL allows free access to software programs, subject to some
limitations. This does not mean that the GPL necessarily aids
competition as contemplated by the Sherman Act, as FSF contends."
regards,
alexander.
Isaac
No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is whether
the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as long as
you do not distribute the combination.
Looking at the GPL, it seems to me that modifying GPL software and not
distributing it merely requires providing some notices in the software.
Unless the non GPLed software has some usage restriction that prevents you
modifying or combining the other code with GPL software, I believe that the
GPL allows you to combine or modify as you like on your own system for
your own use. In fact, you could use the combination internally within a
single business organization as doing so does not constitute distribution.
No significant GPL restriction kicks in until you try to distribute your
combination.
Isaac
Barry Margolin
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
> Fung wrote:
> >
> > Dear folks,
> >
> > I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
> > reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
> > derivative work combined from software licensed under [whatever]
>
> Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright
> law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work.
...
>
> consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other.
> The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does
> not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A
> are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or
> separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are
> defined in 17 USC as literary works
But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
copy of the other. To use your analogy to scientific papers, it would
be like copying sections of B into A rather than referring to them in a
footnote.
I think a compilation usually means that the original works can be
recognized as distinct components of the result. A conference
proceedings book is a compilation. But when the originals are comingled
as I describe above, the result is a derivative work, not a compilation.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Alan Mackenzie
> Too bad that in the courts judges rule, and not Wallaces and Terekhovs.
Don't you mean Wallaces and Grommits? ;-)
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aa...@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
Alexander Terekhov
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
> But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
> just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
> copy of the other.
What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer
programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
components.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Isaac wrote:
[...]
> No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is whether
> the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as long as
> you do not distribute the combination.
The GPL (or any other license) just can't grant something that
doesn't fall under exclusive rights of copyright owners. It can
restrict something (subject to contract existence and regulations
concerning invalid contract terms), but not grant. An "owner" of
a copy can copy and adapt (modify) under 17 USC 117. No grant is
required. And even with existence of a contract (and rather silly
language "no title"/"is licensed, not sold"), 17 USC 117 bars
cause of action for copyright infringement, says UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Feel free to correct me
if I'm wrong.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf
</quote>
Several considerations militate against interpreting § 117(a) to
require formal title in a program copy. First, whether a party
possesses formal title will frequently be a matter of state law.
See 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright §
8.08[B][1] (stating that copy ownership “arises presumably under
state law”). The result would be to undermine some of the
uniformity achieved by the Copyright Act. The same transaction
might be deemed a sale under one state’s law and a lease under
another’s. If § 117(a) required formal title, two software
users, engaged in substantively identical transactions might
find that one is liable for copyright infringement while the
other is protected by § 117(a), depending solely on the state in
which the conduct occurred. Such a result would contradict the
Copyright Act’s “express objective of creating national, uniform
copyright law by broadly preempting state statutory and common-
law copyright regulation.” Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v.
Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 740 (1989); see also 17 U.S.C. § 301(a).
Second, it seems anomalous for a user whose degree of ownership
of a copy is so complete that he may lawfully use it and keep
it forever, or if so disposed, throw it in the trash, to be
nonetheless unauthorized to fix it when it develops a bug, or
to make an archival copy as backup security.
We conclude for these reasons that formal title in a program
copy is not an absolute prerequisite to qualifying for §
117(a)’s affirmative defense. Instead, courts should inquire
into whether the party exercises sufficient incidents of
ownership over a copy of the program to be sensibly considered
the owner of the copy for purposes of § 117(a). The presence or
absence of formal title may of course be a factor in this
inquiry, but the absence of formal title may be outweighed by
evidence that the possessor of the copy enjoys sufficiently
broad rights over it to be sensibly considered its owner.
</quote>
regards,
alexander.
John Hasler
> Don't you mean Wallaces and Grommits?
No. Wallace and Grommit are much more intelligent and their behavior makes
more sense.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
You can't include someone else's book into your own book unless they
allow so.
That's what is meant by "merge" and what happens in linking software.
Now, if you were offering a legitimate copy of someone else's book when
you offered your own, as two distinct items, than you would be talking
about your theory.
You keep confusing two books with one book composed of two books,
without either of which the book makes absolutely no sense.
It borderlines intentional misleading, if not at all.
Rui
Alfred M. Szmidt
> can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two
> incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
> of your own internal use. It would in the end still be a violation of
> copyright law.
No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is
whether the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as
long as you do not distribute the combination.
It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license, and in
turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so nobody can sue
you.
Looking at the GPL, it seems to me that modifying GPL software and
not distributing it merely requires providing some notices in the
software. Unless the non GPLed software has some usage restriction
that prevents you modifying or combining the other code with GPL
software, I believe that the GPL allows you to combine or modify as
you like on your own system for your own use. In fact, you could
use the combination internally within a single business
organization as doing so does not constitute distribution.
No significant GPL restriction kicks in until you try to distribute
your combination.
And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
the program to anyone who uses it.
You are asking if you can break the law as long as nobody knows about
it, or if only a selected few know about it. Sorry, this isn't how
law works.
David Kastrup
> And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
> the program to anyone who uses it.
Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF.
Isaac
> > This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you
> > can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two
> > incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
> > of your own internal use. It would in the end still be a violation of
> > copyright law.
>
> No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is
> whether the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as
> long as you do not distribute the combination.
>
> It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license, and in
> turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so nobody can sue
> you.
The license allows you to do what I've described. Making derivative
works with permission is not copyright infringement.
>
> Looking at the GPL, it seems to me that modifying GPL software and
> not distributing it merely requires providing some notices in the
> software. Unless the non GPLed software has some usage restriction
> that prevents you modifying or combining the other code with GPL
> software, I believe that the GPL allows you to combine or modify as
> you like on your own system for your own use. In fact, you could
> use the combination internally within a single business
> organization as doing so does not constitute distribution.
>
> No significant GPL restriction kicks in until you try to distribute
> your combination.
>
> And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
> the program to anyone who uses it.
Your statement differs from what the FSF has said.
>
> You are asking if you can break the law as long as nobody knows about
> it, or if only a selected few know about it. Sorry, this isn't how
> law works.
I'm not asking anything. I'm describing what the license says.
Isaac
Isaac
> > This boils down to: Can you break the law at home? Of course you
> > can't. So the same applies to the GPL. Since you cannot mix two
> > incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
> > of your own internal use. It would in the end still be a violation of
> > copyright law.
>
> No it does not quite boil down to that. What it boils down to is
> whether the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as
> long as you do not distribute the combination.
>
> It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license, and in
> turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so nobody can sue
> you.
This should be pretty easy to resolve. Show me the license provision of the
GPL that allows me to combine (and not distribute) GPL code that is broken
when I combine (but do not distribute) GPL and non GPL code. I don't
believe you can find a provision that does this. You can only find provisions
which disallow distribution of funky combinations.
Isaac
Alfred M. Szmidt
> and in turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so
> nobody can sue you.
The license allows you to do what I've described. Making
derivative works with permission is not copyright infringement.
This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine non-free
software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not allow this,
so you have no permissions to do so be it for your private use or not.
Your statement differs from what the FSF has said.
No, they do not.
> You are asking if you can break the law as long as nobody knows
> about it, or if only a selected few know about it. Sorry, this
> isn't how law works.
I'm not asking anything. I'm describing what the license says.
No, you did not.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> the program to anyone who uses it.
Your opinion differs from that in the GPL FAQ as writtem by the FSF.
I fail to see how it differs. You are still required to follow the
license even if you are only using it internally. I never claimed
that you are forced to distribute your changes to everyone.
Alfred M. Szmidt
provision of the GPL that allows me to combine (and not distribute)
GPL code that is broken when I combine (but do not distribute) GPL
and non GPL code. I don't believe you can find a provision that
does this. You can only find provisions which disallow
distribution of funky combinations.
See the GNU GPL, section 2. You are not required to distribute the
changes, you are required to follow the license.
Isaac
Section 2 tells me that I can modify and distribute as long as I meet
all of the three provisions 2(a), (b) and (c). Those provisions are
extremely easy to meet no matter what I combine GPL code with unless I intend
to distribute.
If I try to distribute, I have to distribute the combination under the GPL
as required by part 2(b). If it is impossible to do so, then I cannot
distribute. But if I want to combine on my own system without distribution,
I must comply with part (a) which just requires annotating the modified
source code modules. If my program does not read commands interactively,
then I need to nothing to comply with part (c).
Quite frankly, I would be surprised if any copyright holder cared the
least whether I ever got around to annotating source code modules that
I don't distribute or whether some program on my system failed to spit
out a no-warranty notice.
Isaac
Barry Margolin
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
Who said "combined executable"? I'm talking about copying parts of the
source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
program C. For instance, A, may be a newsreader, B a mail reader, and C
would be a program that can read both mail and news, created by
combining parts of A and B at the source code level.
An analogy in traditional media would be a collage, I think.
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
> > > just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
> > > copy of the other.
> >
> > What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer
> > programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
> > protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
> > work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
> > program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
> > with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
> > components.
>
> You can't include someone else's book into your own book unless they
> allow so.
One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any "I accept") directly
to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
form (both forms are wildly available).
Archivers and linkers don't create derivative works.
----
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative
work is copyrightable if it represents an ''original work of
authorship'' and falls within one or more of the categories listed
in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that
the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102
apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to
those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also
intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7
of the present law (section 7 of former title 17), the important
interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting
and of ''new'' material in a particular work. The most important
point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright
in a ''new version'' covers only the material added by the later
author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or
public domain status of the preexisting material.
Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works''
which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable
work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There
is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically
represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a
process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging
previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether
the individual items in the material have been or ever could have
been subject to copyright. A ''derivative work,'' on the other
hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting
''one or more preexisting works''; the ''preexisting work'' must
come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in
section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted.
The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a)
deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work
unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In
providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the
work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill
prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright
protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves
protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the
preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel
could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in
an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole
anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of
one of the poems was unauthorized.
----
>
> That's what is meant by "merge" and what happens in linking software.
Nothing is merged "in linking software."
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 11:43 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > Barry Margolin wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
>> > > just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
>> > > copy of the other.
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer
>> > programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
>> > protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
>> > work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
>> > program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
>> > with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
>> > components.
>>
>> You can't include someone else's book into your own book unless they
>> allow so.
>
> One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any "I accept")
> directly to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or
> object code form (both forms are wildly available).
The mere presence of duplicable material somewhere does not give you
any automatic right to create copies of it.
If somebody leaves his door open, that does not mean that this gives
me the right to go inside and take or copy whatever I wish.
Alexander Terekhov
Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> In article <43E090DB...@web.de>,
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
> > > just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
> > > copy of the other.
> >
> > What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer
> > programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
> > protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
> > work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
> > program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
> > with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
> > components.
>
> Who said "combined executable"?
I said.
> I'm talking about copying parts of the
> source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
> program C.
You're talking nonsense. Or, if you like, you're talking marketing.
Go read IBM's GLOSSARY, for example.
Application program
A collection of one or more programs cooperating to achieve
particular objectives, such as inventory control or payroll.
> An analogy in traditional media would be a collage, I think.
Oh yeah, still can't forget those former sins of yours in grade
school?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal.computing/msg/3d8d2d6ee96a9322
Relax, Barry. Relax.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Go tell this to Honorable ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
"Netscape’s SmartDownload, ... allows a user to download and use
the software without taking any action that plainly manifests assent
to the terms of the associated license ... Netscape argues that the
mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is
hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of
downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement.
... Netscape’s failure to require users of SmartDownload to indicate
assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and using its
software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been formed.
... From the user's vantage point, SmartDownload could be analogized
to a free neighborhood newspaper, readily obtained from a sidewalk
box or supermarket counter without any exchange with a seller or
vender. It is there for the taking. ... Defendants argue that this
case resembles the situation where a party has failed to read a
contract and is nevertheless bound by that contract. See, e.g.,
Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo, 54 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1109, 63
Cal.Rptr.2d 261 (Cal.Ct.App. 1997); Rowland v. PaineWebber Inc., 4
Cal.App.4th 279, 287, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 20 (Cal.Ct.App. 1992). This
argument misses the point. The question before me is whether the
parties have first bound themselves to the contract. If they have
unequivocally agreed to be bound, the contract is enforceable
whether or not they have read its terms."
Under your silly GNUtian logic, plaintiffs are either IP thieves or
must be bound by the licensing provisions (including arbitration
clause in Netscape’s license). Yet AOL/Netscape didn't countersue
for copyright infringement and instead agreed to quite draconian
settlement. How come?
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
No need to:
> http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/01-07482.PDF
>
> "Netscape's SmartDownload, ... allows a user to download and use
> the software without taking any action that plainly manifests assent
> to the terms of the associated license ... Netscape argues that the
> mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is
> hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of
> downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement.
> ... Netscape's failure to require users of SmartDownload to
> indicate assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and
> using its software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been
> formed.
"Contract". See? The GPL explicitly states:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
In the court case you cited, the judge decided that if a copyright
holder makes something available for download without further
technical measures to announce its licence, then no contract is formed
and the recipient is merely bound by copyright law if he decides to
ignore the license.
But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
additional rights.
Alexander Terekhov
It does. 17 USC 109, idiot. See also
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
"There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical
copies in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy
of a digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a
floppy disk, Zip™ disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section
109."
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
You are losing it. You always resort to insults when running out of
arguments.
> See also
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf
>
> "There is no dispute that section 109 applies to works in digital
> form. Physical copies of works in a digital format, such as CDs or
> DVDs, are subject to section 109 in the same way as physical copies
> in analog form. Similarly, a lawfully made tangible copy of a
> digitally downloaded work, such as a work downloaded to a floppy
> disk, Zip disk, or CD-RW, is clearly subject to section 109."
"lawfully made". There is no law that permits you making copies of
whatever you may come across on the web. You need the permission of
the copyright holder. There is permission implied in the act of
making the stuff available for download, but it is certainly a stretch
to assume that this implied permission would cover an unlimited number
of downloads for the sole purpose of artifically and nominally
circumventing the restrictions on the number and use of copies for
_personal_ use that copyright law permits.
In general, courts don't react favorably to trickery intended to
circumvent the intent of a law.
Alexander Terekhov
Handwaving. Go tell it to Microsoft. I'm eagerly awaiting to be sued.
In addition to a copy of winxp64 download (which was meant for you
my dear dak -- recall it?) that I sold on ebay, the rest (14 copies)
went on sale recently on debian-legal.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00161.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00177.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00466.html
BTW, consolidated know-how on escaping the GPL can be found in that
"Distributing GPL software" thread on debian-legal. And it's free as
in beer.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00163.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html
and etc.
Enjoy.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any "I accept") directly
> to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
> form (both forms are wildly available).
Of course, you don't have to agree when your rights are increased upon
copyright law, only when they are decreased. The decree of rights is
unilateral, you can only abide them or not at all.
> Archivers and linkers don't create derivative works.
Yes on the first case, not on the second. In the second case you make a
work that is the direct combination of two works, without either of
which nothing exists.
Either you are allowed to combine thus creating a derived work or not at
all.
> Nothing is merged "in linking software."
Of course not, in the domain of lies, mischiefs and circular
self-references.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:07 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > One can download a copy of GPL'd work (without any "I accept") directly
> > to a compilation on a tangible medium. In source code or object code
> > form (both forms are wildly available).
>
> Of course, you don't have to agree when your rights are increased upon
> copyright law, only when they are decreased. The decree of rights is
> unilateral, you can only abide them or not at all.
What?
>
> > Archivers and linkers don't create derivative works.
>
> Yes on the first case, not on the second. In the second case you make a
> work that is the direct combination of two works, without either of
> which nothing exists.
>
> Either you are allowed to combine thus creating a derived work or not at
> all.
When two or more preexisting works are combined to form a new work,
in copyright law that work is called a “compilation” – “a work formed
by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data
that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the
resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”
The copyright in the resulting overall computer program comprises the
copyrights in the preexisting component computer programs and a new
copyright in the compilation. But that compilation copyright is very
limited.
There's no exclusive right to prepare compilations -- you just can't
"allow" it.
Once you've got a lawfully made copy of a "computer program" (a set
of instructions... see the definition) for example in source code
form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
statute.
Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
object code form see above) "along with the copy from which such
copies were prepared".
>
> > Nothing is merged "in linking software."
>
> Of course not, in the domain of lies, mischiefs and circular
> self-references.
Apart from "circular self-references" this nicely characterizes the
domain of GNU.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
> GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
> additional rights.
<quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2> [cacd.uscourts.gov]
Adobe characterizes each transaction throughout the entire stream
of commerce as a license.8 Adobe asserts that its license defines
the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a
breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This
assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides
certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights
is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe.
</quote>
s/Abobe/FSF
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
the least whether I ever got around to annotating source code
modules that I don't distribute or whether some program on my
system failed to spit out a no-warranty notice.
The point isn't about caring or not caring, many people license things
under the GPL and don't care if the work is used in non-free programs.
It is still a license violation; only that nobody knows about it or
can prove that it happend.
David Kastrup
Still confused about the difference license/contract? Or why do you
think bringing up unrelated quotes bolsters your case?
Lee Hollaar
>Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
>(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
>object code form see above) "along with the copy from which such
>copies were prepared".
That's not really what it says, especially if the copy contains
modifications. What it does say is:
Any EXACT copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of
this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred,
along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, ONLY
as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in
the program.
ADAPTATIONS so prepared may be transferred ONLY with the
authorization of the copyright owner.
(Emphasis added.)
Alexander Terekhov
Lee Hollaar wrote:
>
> In article <43E22B5E...@web.de> tere...@web.de writes:
> >Furthermore, 17 USC 117 entitles the owner of a lawfully made copy
> >(source code see above) to distribute those additional copies (in
> >object code form see above) "along with the copy from which such
> >copies were prepared".
>
> That's not really what it says, especially if the copy contains
> modifications.
My reading of what it says is that if a copy contains modifications
than it's an adaptation and not an "exact" copy. I know that
adaptations may be transferred only with the authorization of the
copyright owner. I don't think that unmodifed copies in object code
form fall under adaptations.
-----
The Copyright Act defines a computer program as "a set of
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
§ 101. Computer programs can be expressed in either source
code or object code. "Source code is the computer program
code as the programmer writes it, using a particular programming
language." Compendium of Copyright Office Practices,
§ 321.01. Source code is a high level language that people can
readily understand. "Object code is the representation of the
program in machine language [binary] . . . which the computer
executes." Id. at § 321.02. Source code usually must be
compiled, or interpreted, into object code before it can be
executed by a computer. Object code can also be decompiled into
source code. Source code and object code are "two representations
of the same computer program. For registration purposes,
the claim is in the computer program rather than in any
particular representation of the program." Id. at § 321.03.
However, source code created by decompiling object code
will not necessarily be identical to the source code that was
compiled to create the object code.
-----
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
I did read the FAQ, I just failed to read the correct question. :-)
In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting staff
from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my opinion.
And I think it is a weird stance from the FSF to support such
practises.
Thanks.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> form, you can reproduce it in object code form (as an additional
> copy per 17 USC 117) using compilation process (as in computing),
> link it together with other stuff and run. It's all allowed per
> statute.
Folks, read what he points to instead of taking his word.
Alex, you should know that that is about you giving _your_ copy to
someone else, and not about giving _a_new_copy_ of _your_copy_ to
someone else.
While on the first case you are right, on the second you made a copy,
which you can only as long as you respect the conditions stated by the
author.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> But copyright law does not allow you redistribution of copies. The
> >> GPL grants you additional rights. You are free not to accept those
> >> additional rights.
> >
> > <quote source=http://tinyurl.com/3c2n2> [cacd.uscourts.gov]
> >
> > Adobe characterizes each transaction throughout the entire stream
> > of commerce as a license.8 Adobe asserts that its license defines
> > the relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a
> > breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This
> > assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides
> > certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of rights
> > is independent from any purported grant of rights from Adobe.
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > s/Abobe/FSF
>
> Still confused about the difference license/contract?
Yep. Totally confused. Illuminate me. Please.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
>
-----
Further, my understanding is that Alexander was proposing lawfully acquiring
and distributing copies and not making new copies. If the law requires that
a backup or adapted copy be distributed with the originals, Alexander would
do that and then acquire, at no expense, a new copy. Rinse lather repeat.
You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
I'm not aware of an expectation or requirement to accept the GPL before
downloading the software. Free software is often made available for
downloading without any notice obtained before, during or after the download
that the copies obtained must be deleted if the GPL is not accepted.
Anyone can obtain GPLd software, and provided only that they include source
code, operate a free or paid distribution ftp site in which they allow
GPLd software to be downloaded without restriction.
Isaac
-----
The only correction is for an "adapted copy" to escape the GPL, it requires
two legal persons and two transfers.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Lee Hollaar wrote:
[...]
> Any EXACT copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of
> this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred,
> along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, ONLY
> as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in
> the program.
And contu6 elaborates: The sale of a copy of a program by a rightful
possessor to another must be of all rights in the program, thus
creating a new rightful possessor and destroying that status as regards
the seller. This is in accord with the intent of that portion of the
law which provides that owners of authorized copies of a copyrighted
work may sell those copies without leave of the copyright proprietor.50
50 17 U.S.C. § 109(a).
>
> ADAPTATIONS so prepared may be transferred ONLY with the
> authorization of the copyright owner.
And contu6 elaborates: translations, transformations, and adaptations
... conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another
to facilitate use would fall within this right.
But object code is not a result of conversion of a program from one
higher-level language to another [higher-level language]. It's just
another representation of the same program. Source code and object
code are "two representations of the same computer program. For
registration purposes, the claim is in the computer program rather
than in any particular representation of the program." I suppose
that for 117 purposes it is the same as for registration purposes.
No?
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
those copies unless you are authorized, even if you got the software as
a gift :)
If the author has authorized you because he licensed it as Free
Software, great. If not, you can't make any copies and distribute them.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
>
> Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
copyright owner) is statutory. 17 USC 109. And license-not-a-contract
fiction just can't interfere with that right. But anyway, if one needs
to distribute multiple copies (no sources, draconian contractual terms
that impose forbearance from the GPL via shrink-wrap or something), one
can simply unrestrictedly download multiple copies (implied license to
save bandwidth aside for a moment). I keep all my download logs in safe
place. ;-)
regards,
alexander.
Stefaan A Eeckels
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license, and in
> turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so nobody can sue
> you.
Not quite, as (at least in the USA) the copyright statues allow you to
take reasonable action (including making or commissioning modifications)
to make a legally obtained program run on your equipment.
> And if you use it internally in a business then you are distributing
> the program to anyone who uses it.
There seems to be large agreement on the interpretation that letting
employees and agents of an organisation use software does not
constitute distribution.
> You are asking if you can break the law as long as nobody knows about
> it, or if only a selected few know about it. Sorry, this isn't how
> law works.
Theoretically, one should not violate the law, and know all laws.
Practically, laws that can be violated with impunity whilst forbidding
what most people consider normal behaviour (like not making copies of
records for private use), and cannot reasonably be enforced, are bad
laws and should be struck.
--
Stefaan
--
As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning,
and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh
Stefaan A Eeckels
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> The point isn't about caring or not caring, many people license things
> under the GPL and don't care if the work is used in non-free programs.
> It is still a license violation; only that nobody knows about it or
> can prove that it happend.
In which case the law doesn't consider itself competent to intervene.
Absence of proof means innocence. What you are talking about is
morality, not legality.
Take care,
Stefaan A Eeckels
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> In this case, it seems that I and the FSF disagree. Prohibiting staff
> from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my opinion.
No, it is circumscribing what they can do as agents of the company,
with the property of the company. One very important issue is limiting
liability. Whereas there would be few issues with distributing copies
of unmodified free software, any modifications commissioned by the
company could engage its liability.
> And I think it is a weird stance from the FSF to support such
> practises.
There happens to be solid realism in most of the FSF stances.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> and in turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so
> nobody can sue you.
Not quite, as (at least in the USA) the copyright statues allow you
to take reasonable action (including making or commissioning
modifications) to make a legally obtained program run on your
equipment.
I'm not that familiar with the laws in the USA, but you have things
like the DMCA which prohibit exactly that.
> And if you use it internally in a business then you are
> distributing the program to anyone who uses it.
There seems to be large agreement on the interpretation that
letting employees and agents of an organisation use software does
not constitute distribution.
It is distribution to the employees/agents. One could claim that each
and every person is an agent, so and keep the software non-free
without violating the licnse.
Cheers.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> things under the GPL and don't care if the work is used in
> non-free programs. It is still a license violation; only that
> nobody knows about it or can prove that it happend.
In which case the law doesn't consider itself competent to
intervene. Absence of proof means innocence. What you are talking
about is morality, not legality.
I'm talking about legality. Law has nothing to do with morals, sadly.
Otherwise, you're entierly correct; but it is still a violation of the
law.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> staff from distributing free software is the same as a NDA, in my
> opinion.
No, it is circumscribing what they can do as agents of the company,
with the property of the company. One very important issue is
limiting liability. Whereas there would be few issues with
distributing copies of unmodified free software, any modifications
commissioned by the company could engage its liability.
Shake, doesn't make any sense. It is an NDA, I'm not allowed to give
you a program since I'm under this NDA. I also fail to see how one
could be liable for anything.
> And I think it is a weird stance from the FSF to support such
> practises.
There happens to be solid realism in most of the FSF stances.
Indeed, I happen to agree on many (if not most) of the stances of the
FSF, but this one is one of the few I personally strongly disagree
with. It is an excuse for making non-free software. Infact, it is
the exact situation that RMS was once found in when asking for a
program and someone had signed an agreement not to give people the
code. All this makes this stance from the FSF really weird...
I'm fine if you simply don't want to give it, but not being allowed to
give it is something completely different.
Barry Margolin
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > In article <43E090DB...@web.de>,
> > Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not
> > > > just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
> > > > copy of the other.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer
> > > programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
> > > protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
> > > work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
> > > program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
> > > with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
> > > components.
> >
> > Who said "combined executable"?
>
> I said.
OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the
topic of the thread? The OP said "a derivative work combined from
software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software
licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0". This sounds to me like he's using
pieces of source code, not combining executables.
>
> > I'm talking about copying parts of the
> > source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
> > program C.
>
> You're talking nonsense. Or, if you like, you're talking marketing.
I'm talking about what programmers do when they copy source code to
create a new program.
It sounds like you're assuming that he's linking a program with a
library. I'm not sure how you got that from what he wrote.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Isaac
> > It does boil down to that, you are still violating the license,
> > and in turn copyright law. Just that nobody knows of it so
> > nobody can sue you.
>
> derivative works with permission is not copyright infringement.
>
> This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine non-free
> software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not allow this,
> so you have no permissions to do so be it for your private use or not.
Cite me a provision of the GPL that does not allow this. Preferrably
support your answer with a quote of a sentence or two.
> Your statement differs from what the FSF has said.
>
> No, they do not.
The FSF has said that allowing employees to use software internal to
a company does not constitute distribution.
Isaac
Isaac
I note you've skipped to portion of my post where I've pointed out that
the license does not prohibit the activity. My point about caring just
suggests a rational reason why no one has bothered to prohibit the
activity on your own system.
Isaac
Alfred M. Szmidt
> non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not
> allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your
> private use or not.
Cite me a provision of the GPL that does not allow this.
Preferrably support your answer with a quote of a sentence or two.
Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free work
with a GPLed program?
I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
system. Can I do this?
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
non-free too.
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended
version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version
of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released
at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who
get the software get the freedom they should have, and to
encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered
software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly,
you must make sure that the free and non-free programs
communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way
that would make them effectively a single program.
The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so
that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you
can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to
cover the whole thing.
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler
and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can
treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it
properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe
what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want
to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of
the GPL-covered software in the collection.
If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it
"part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users
might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered
software. But if they know that what they have received is a
free program plus another program, side by side, their rights
will be clear.
Isaac
> > This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine
> > non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not
> > allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your
> > private use or not.
>
> Cite me a provision of the GPL that does not allow this.
> Preferrably support your answer with a quote of a sentence or two.
>
> Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free work
> with a GPLed program?
Yes.
> I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> system. Can I do this?
>
> You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
> system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to
> copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you
> could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system,
> it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software
> non-free too.
>
Is software on my home system that I never distribute proprietary? If
I combine two GPL licensed programs on my system, which I believe you
would agree is allowed, does that allow everyone to copy, redistribute,
etc? Doesn't that suggest to you that maybe this paragraph is not
germane to the discussion?
Why don't you quote me some language from the license? Surely if the
license does not allow me to do what I suggest there would be words in
there to point to.
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
Barry Margolin wrote:
[...]
> OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the
> topic of the thread? The OP said "a derivative work combined from
> software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software
> licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0". This sounds to me like he's using
> pieces of source code, not combining executables.
Because just like with combined executable, copying source code doesn't
create a derivative work. If anything, it creates a compilation. When
you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF), you're
not creating a derivative work. And the same goes when you put several
pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. Think
tarball.
>
> >
> > > I'm talking about copying parts of the
> > > source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
> > > program C.
> >
> > You're talking nonsense. Or, if you like, you're talking marketing.
>
> I'm talking about what programmers do when they copy source code to
> create a new program.
Yeah, "new program"? That "new program" is nothing but a compilation
(as in copyright law) of multiple computer program works.
>
> It sounds like you're assuming that he's linking a program with a
> library. I'm not sure how you got that from what he wrote.
See above.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
[snip]
Hey Isaac, for uber GNUtian ams corporations are not legal persons...
at least when it comes to "propagating" software from one employee to
another.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> There happens to be solid realism in most of the FSF stances.
You must be kidding. http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
> >
> > Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
>
> The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
_copies_of_your_copy_
And since it's not for lack of information, I can only assume that it's
either for lack of English Comprehension, because otherwise it would
have to be malice.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
GNUtian Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
> >
> > The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
>
> Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
> _copies_of_your_copy_
Ok. Think of two copies. Try to understand that I've downloaded both
copies. Downloaded two times. And I didn't click on any "I agree".
As for additional copies of these two copies (apart from 17 USC 117)
that I can as well make pursuant to the GPL, they also fall under 17
USC 109 because they are authorized and only contractual covenant
(restriction) can interfere with my right to distribute those copies
as I see fit. Everyone who is neither blind nor an idiot knows for
certain that the GPL is a *LICENSE NOT A CONTRACT* -- Richard
Stallman has clarified that fact at least a hundred times.
>
> And since it's not for lack of information, I can only assume that it's
> either for lack of English Comprehension, because otherwise it would
> have to be malice.
Hey r...@1407.org, you are as "malice" as Mini Me of Doctor Evil
(except that you are a Mini Me of RMS). Translation: you both are
so amusingly insane that it is really fascinating.
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup
> > This is not what you asked, you asked if you could combine
> > non-free software with a GPLed work internally. The GPL does not
> > allow this, so you have no permissions to do so be it for your
> > private use or not.
>
> Cite me a provision of the GPL that does not allow this.
> Preferrably support your answer with a quote of a sentence or two.
>
> Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free work
> with a GPLed program?
>
> I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary
> system. Can I do this?
>
[...]
> A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an
> extended version of that program. The GPL says that any
> extended version of the program must be released under the
> GPL if it is released at all.
And it is not released. That's the key. Internal use.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alfred M. Szmidt
> work with a GPLed program?
Yes.
Then you really ought to read the GPL. Specially the clauses about
not being able to put restrictions on a user, i.e. making the software
non-free.
Is software on my home system that I never distribute proprietary?
How should I know what license your software at home is licensed
under?
If I combine two GPL licensed programs on my system, which I
believe you would agree is allowed, does that allow everyone to
copy, redistribute, etc?
If they hold a copy of the program, yes.
Doesn't that suggest to you that maybe this paragraph is not
germane to the discussion?
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Why don't you quote me some language from the license? Surely if
the license does not allow me to do what I suggest there would be
words in there to point to.
Why don't you _read_ the license? Please, just do that instead, the
GPL isn't that hard to read.
David Kastrup
> > Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free
> > work with a GPLed program?
>
> Yes.
>
> Then you really ought to read the GPL. Specially the clauses about
> not being able to put restrictions on a user, i.e. making the software
> non-free.
Read the GPL? You are joking.
0. [...]
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on
the Program (independent of having been made by running the
Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
So we have established that we are _not_ talking about copying and
distribution: we are talking about internal use here. So the only
relevant points are those concerned with modification. The only
relevant point would be
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
Note that this concerns modification _and_ distribution. It talks
about the requirements that have to be met towards users and
recipients of the software. That is, when there _is_ such a third
party. If the only user is the company itself, the paragraph is
pretty irrelevant.
And indeed, copyright law permits you to mutilate your physical copy
of any content to your heart's content. You are allowed to burn books
or cut and paste them together as you like once you acquired them.
The restrictions of copyright come into play only when copying and
redistribution come into play.
> If I combine two GPL licensed programs on my system, which I
> believe you would agree is allowed, does that allow everyone to
> copy, redistribute, etc?
>
> If they hold a copy of the program, yes.
Oh nonsense. Only if they legally acquired a copy. Nobody is allowed
to steal software just because _if_ it would be released, it would
have to be under a free license.
For example, I develop and sell software under the GPL and am getting
paid for it. Do you think that people would be allowed to break into
my computer, steal the software and distribute it themselves?
Hogwash. My customers may choose to redistribute the software at
their discretion once they have legally acquired it under the GPL.
But nobody gets rights to GPLed software magically without someone
granting them who has the right to do so.
> Why don't you _read_ the license? Please, just do that instead, the
> GPL isn't that hard to read.
Which makes it surprising that you manage to come up with all those
misconceptions.
Alexander Terekhov
also fall under the GNU GPL? Hmmmmmmm.)
regards,
alexander.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
wrote:
> Because just like with combined executable, copying source code doesn't
> create a derivative work. If anything, it creates a compilation.
Your examples of juxtaposing works on the same medium is indeed just a
compilation.
However, not all ways of comining parts of different works will be a
compilation.
If I take parts of copyrighted pictures, cut them into pieces and put the
pieces
together in a collage, then I have created a derivative work. It is a work
because
it expresses my creative effort. It is a derivative work because it uses
the other
works to do so.
You can combine software to create both a plain compilation and a derived
work.
I shall not try to draw the line, but I'd put my money on there being more
derived works than you seem to think.
> When you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF),
> you're
> not creating a derivative work.
Exactly. There is no creative effort on my part in just putting one after
the other
(except perhaps if the selection of stories in itself has artistic merit).
> And the same goes when you put several
> pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. Think
> tarball.
Intentions matter. Putting things in a tar file is usaually with the
intention
of moving them together. Putting them in the same jar file usually means
using
them together. A jar file can be a single program, combining different
works
into one derived work.
> Yeah, "new program"? That "new program" is nothing but a compilation
> (as in copyright law) of multiple computer program works.
All programs are combinations of 0's and 1's. That does not mean that the
combination is not a (new) work. The act of comining can create new works,
even if the only creative action is that of selecting what to combine and
how.
/L
--
Lasse R. Nielsen - atw...@infimum.dk
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine'
Alexander Terekhov
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[... collage ...]
http://www.uspatentinfo.com/copyright.html
(THE COPYRIGHT OF VISUAL ART)
----
How about collages of portions of copyrighted publications or other
works--is permission from the copyright owner of each work used
necessary?
It depends on whether there is a copying and, if so, whether the
copying is a fair use. Directly attaching clipped out portions of the
copyrighted work is not copying, thus doing so is generally not
considered a copyright violation. However, if a photograph or some other
copy is made of the collage, then the question is whether this
photograph is a fair use of the original works. If the collage is put on
public display, it may constitute a violation of the exclusive right of
the copyright owners in the individual collage works to publicly display
their works. True, we have discussed an exception which states that the
owner of a copy may publicly display that copy without the permission of
the copyright owner. However, this exception only applies to authorized
copies. Taking a photograph of a copyrighted work without the copyright
owner's permission constitutes unauthorized copying.
----
See also <http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm>.
Now please go back and read again what I said (including copying under
17 USC 117 to make software "collage").
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
allowed to steal software just because _if_ it would be released,
it would have to be under a free license.
First of all, you can't steal software. Secondly, I was assuming that
it was legally aquired, if it wasn't then the license doesn't apply to
begin with. So there is no nonsense, you are making it up as you go.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> extended version of that program. The GPL says that any
> extended version of the program must be released under
> the GPL if it is released at all.
And it is not released. That's the key. Internal use.
If I give you a copy, it is distribution. The whole concept of
internal `use' is bogus. I can claim that the whole world is internal
for my use, and then simply refuse to release the source to anyone,
since it is `internal use', if one would follow your thread.
Alfred M. Szmidt
property for the duration of use?
If you have a replication machine that can copy cars like a computer
can copy programs, yes.
> I can claim that the whole world is internal for my use, and then
> simply refuse to release the source to anyone, since it is
> `internal use', if one would follow your thread.
Tell that to the FSF and to judges and lawyers in general.
Maybe I will. :-)
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 22:00 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 19:19 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > > > You ask how a copy would be acquired without accepting the GPL.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. You still don't have the right to make copies and distribute
> > >
> > > The right to distribute lawfully made copies (without authority of the
> >
> > Irrelevant. You're still confusing _your_copy_ with
> > _copies_of_your_copy_
>
> Ok. Think of two copies.
You keep insisting on irrelevant points, why? They don't help your case.
You're still confusing _your_copies_ with _copies_of_your_copies_
The quantity doesn't alter the fact, it's mere other instances of the
same case.
Rui
Alfred M. Szmidt
becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied?
CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
> I've got a bit tired of all that nonstop GNU nonsense, but ok.
Why don't you go away then? :)
> copying is a fair use. Directly attaching clipped out portions of the
> copyrighted work is not copying,
> Now please go back and read again what I said (including copying under
> 17 USC 117 to make software "collage").
Funny Alex... however you still and yet again confuse what you do with
_your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_ and produce
irrelevant garbage "disguised" of 17 USC 117.
Rui, who read 17 USC 117 instead of just believing treacherous Alex.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> _your_copy_ and what you do with _copies_of_your_copy_
Rue, Rue. You are a clinical case.
Given: initially no copies at all (t0)
t1: download a copy
t2: distribute that particular copy
t3: download a copy
t4: distribute that particular copy
Q) How many _copies_of_your_copy_ do we have here?
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> becomes yours? Because CDs can be copied?
>
> CDs are still physical like cars. Apples vs rocks.
You'll be hard put to run a program without a physical copy.
You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not duplicating
the software. If you can show me a method to duplicate a CD that
contains GNU hello, N times, then you have a point. And you will get
the Nobel price at the same time.
David Kastrup
So what? If you use a company CD burner to move company software to a
company CDR which you then use on a company computer in the field, how
does this CD or its contents magically become the property of the
company worker?
Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about?
John Hasler
> You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not duplicating the
> software.
Copies are physical entities. Copyright law is about copies.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Isaac
>
> Note that this concerns modification _and_ distribution. It talks
> about the requirements that have to be met towards users and
> recipients of the software. That is, when there _is_ such a third
> party. If the only user is the company itself, the paragraph is
> pretty irrelevant.
>
> And indeed, copyright law permits you to mutilate your physical copy
> of any content to your heart's content. You are allowed to burn books
> or cut and paste them together as you like once you acquired them.
> The restrictions of copyright come into play only when copying and
> redistribution come into play.
Maybe not. Copyright law gives to copyright owners the exclusive right to
authorize the creation of derivative works. Creating a derivative work even
without distributing it or even displaying it publicly can be infringement.
Of course doing either with the copyright holder's permission is not
infringement.
Isaac
Isaac
So if I go into Staples and five finger discount some copies of Turbo Tax
I have not stolen some software?
Isaac
Isaac
> > Are you really disputing the fact that one can combine non-free
> > work with a GPLed program?
>
> Yes.
>
> Then you really ought to read the GPL. Specially the clauses about
> not being able to put restrictions on a user, i.e. making the software
> non-free.
What user? I am the only one who uses this computer? I'm not putting
any restrictions on anyone. Are you suggesting that you are free to
drop by and help yourself to GPL software on my computer?
> Is software on my home system that I never distribute proprietary?
>
> How should I know what license your software at home is licensed
> under?
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Isaac
Isaac
You can claim whatever you want. Some claims will be listened to
and respected, while others would be considered by a court to be
frivolous.
There is nothing unusual about copyright law distinguishing between
groups of people. You can show a movie at home and let your wife/SO
watch it with you without the copyright holder have a claim that
you are having an unauthorized public display. Do you think that
if you showed the movie at a public event you could say that all
the viewers were part of the family of man?
Isaac
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote: (to uber GNUtian ams)
[...]
> Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about?
Property is theft.
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
[...]
> You can combine software to create both a plain compilation and a
> derived work.
Only in the GNU Republic.
> I shall not try to draw the line, but I'd put my money on there being more
> derived works than you seem to think.
Yeah, I know.
http://web.novalis.org/talks/compliance-for-developers/slide-49.html
[begin textual copying]
July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal notes
Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying
Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library
Still a derivative work:
Dynamic linking
Distributing only the executable (testtriangle)
Still a derivative work:
Distributing the source code of software which links to a library
when that library is the only software to provide that interface
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2004, Free Software Foundation. Verbatim copying
permitted provided this notice is preserved.
[end textual copying]
I suppose that "through textual copying", this message and all
archives (google's, etc. that now contain and combine it),
constitute unauthorized (note that only verbatim copying was
permitted and no right to prepare derivatives was conveyed)
"derived work" (i.e. "derivative work" under GNU law) of the
FSF's "legal notes". I've thoroughly contaminated the Internet.
Oh my bad.
>
> > When you print two short stories on the same sheet of paper (or PDF),
> > you're not creating a derivative work.
>
> Exactly. There is no creative effort on my part in just putting one after
> the other (except perhaps if the selection of stories in itself has artistic
> merit).
>
> > And the same goes when you put several
> > pieces of source code under different licenses in one file. Think
> > tarball.
>
> Intentions matter. Putting things in a tar file is usaually with the
> intention of moving them together. Putting them in the same jar file
> usually means using them together.
So what? Copyright protects software as literary works (subject
to the AFC test). Functional and environmental aspects like "using
together", address spaces, enclaves, kernel/user space, and etc.
are all totally irrelevant.
> A jar file can be a single program,
> combining different works into one derived work.
The copyright law outside the GNU Republic doesn't concern itself
with "single programs". Whatever that is. It's just a bunch of
literary works to be used in a computer in order to bring about a
certain result. And a jar is just an archive (apart from optional
META-INF), my GNUtian friend.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/guide/jar/jar.html
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
And here comes bloby Eben.
http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123
(Professor Eben Moglen Replies)
----
2) Clarifying the GPL
by sterno
One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in
situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually
modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is
reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software?
I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with
my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR
themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package.
Eben:
The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the
rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified.
The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on
static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your
code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code,
forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2 (b) must be
distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL.
----
IBM: (Tenth Defense)
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.
s/SCO/FSF
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov
I suppose that id "lrosen" belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm.
Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense
version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU definition of
"derivative work".)
-----
comment 637: Derivative works
Regarding the text: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a
portion of it, either modified or unmodified.
In section: gpl3.definitions.p0.s2
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST
comments:
The statement beginning "that is to say..." is not an accurate
description of "derivative works" under US copyright law. If you want
the copyleft provisions of GPLv3 to apply to "collective works" then you
should say so explicitly, rather than use language reminiscent of the
definition of collective works when trying to describe derivative works.
The current draft, in this respect, is both ambiguous and potentially
very misleading. See 17 USC 101.
noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST
comment 635: Derivative works
Regarding the text:
In section: login
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST
comments:
The "that is to say..." provision following the colon in section 0.A
is not a correct summary of what a derivative work is under copyright
law. See 17 USC 101 ["Definitions"]. In fact, it is an inaccurate way of
describing derivative works. This makes the license ambiguous and
potentially unenforceable in some circumstances. If you wish the reach
of the GPL copyleft provision to include collective works, say so
explicitly.
noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST
-----
AFAICS the GPLv3 is quite explicit in regards of manifesting blatant
misuse of copyright by trying to extract rights to non-derivatives (see
the definition of "Complete Corresponding Source Code).
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> my possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to
> make copies for your private use.
>
> If the license explicitly states so, yes.
Wrong. You are not the licensee. The licensee is the company.
The license is completely irrelevant for you.
You obviously didn't mean to write that in that form. If the license
isn't relevant to me, then the whole discussion is quite pointless. :-)
The license obviously does apply to me. Otherwise one could simple do
what the heck one wants.
But you have no license to do whatever you want with the content if
you just have a copy that is the property of the company you are
working for.
Since I legally aquired the content, the license applies, and if the
content contains GPLed software, I am free to distribute it.
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
Wrong again. No fair use at all.
> But that's not what happens when you link software. :)
Ah that. Well, copying and distribution under 17 USC 117 aside for a
moment, suppose that downloaded copies contain stuff already linked.
Think outsourcing. Suppose it's simply cheaper to link in China.
Another legal person does it. I merely distribute.
regards,
alexander.
Alfred M. Szmidt
property (such as a software CD) that he needs for doing his job.
He is not the rightful owner.
If you are an employee of mine and get access to software in my
possession for the purpose of job, you are not permitted to make
copies for your private use.
If the license explicitly states so, yes. But the GPL does not, so I
am allowed to make copies of GPLed software for my own private use.
This is where our opinions differ I think.
A tangible copy _is_ property, and getting company-internal access
to it does not grant you the rights connected with owning this
property: namely copying its contents.
But the content isn't property! The _medium_ that the content resides
on is.
Alfred M. Szmidt
Alfred M\. Szmidt writes:
> You are speaking about duplicating a physical entity, not duplicating the
> software.
Copies are physical entities. Copyright law is about copies.
Then copyright law doesn't apply to software, since software isn't
physical.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> duplicating the software. If you can show me a method to
> duplicate a CD that contains GNU hello, N times, then you have a
> point. And you will get the Nobel price at the same time.
So what? If you use a company CD burner to move company software
to a company CDR which you then use on a company computer in the
field, how does this CD or its contents magically become the
property of the company worker?
Software cannot ever become property. What the heck are you arguing
about? You have already claimed things like `stealing' software. If
you give me a CD with software on it (legally), then I am entitled to
making a copy of the software, keep it on my box, and distribute it
under the license that the software is licensed under.
Do you even remember what you try to be arguing about?
Yes, do you? You have already made claims that one `steals software',
and now that `software is property'; I'd really you of all people to
know the differenence between these things.
Alfred M. Szmidt
groups of people. You can show a movie at home and let your
wife/SO watch it with you without the copyright holder have a claim
that you are having an unauthorized public display. Do you think
that if you showed the movie at a public event you could say that
all the viewers were part of the family of man?
Once again, people are starting to compare apples to rocks. The
distribution terms for movies are different than to software. So
please stop comparing two different things that have nothing in
relation.
Alfred M. Szmidt
Turbo Tax I have not stolen some software?
I don't know what Staples is or what Turbo Tax is. But you cannot
steal software. Period. You can infringe on the copyright license.
You can steal the CD, you can steal the harddisk, but you cannot steal
software. Software is not a physical entity, so the only thing you
can do is steal the _medium_--which is a physical entity--that the
software is located on. In the end, you might be violating two laws,
theft and copyright.