On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> wrote: > Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote: >> Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> writes: >>> Niklas Larsson <metanik...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 2012/12/15 Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org>: >>>>> Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before >>>>> it was written. >>>> Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and >>>> hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that >>>> was reimplemented in Linux. >>> Ah, Minix isn't documentation. And it has a radically different >>> architecture >> The point is that Linux read the source code to Minix before >> implementing similar things - quite likely using the same algorithms, >> for instance. So if containers is a "translation" of FXT, then surely >> Linux is a "translation" of Minix. > > Since they are both C, the concept of "translation" doesn't enter into that > case at all. > > I never said that containers was a translation of FXT. I said that > translations are considered to be derived work requiring permission to copy. > This is deeply embedded in copyright law, and the GPL *depends* on it working > for software. Otherwise, a distribution of GPL' d software translated to > another language (say as asm from the compiler, or a linkable object, or even > an executable) wouldn't be a derivative work and could be distributed without > having to obey the license. > > The point is that containers being in haskell isn't a defense against > copyright violation. It doesn't mean that it *is* a translation, merely that > it might be. That the author of containers said it was "derived" from FXT > opens the possibility that his version is actually GPL'ed, so using it opens > up the possibility of a lawsuit. It may not stand up in court, but the lawyer > objecting is trying to avoid just that possibility. > >>> That makes a successful lawsuit unlikely >> The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of >> literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such, > > Actually, there *is* a precedent for considering them such. The clean-room > implementations of the IBM PC bios were done because a judge ruled that > translating from asm to binary was an infringing copy. > > If you have a precedent that translating from one programming language to > another is *not* the creation of a derived work, I'd be interested in hearing > about it. Without such a precedent, then a case can be made that such a > translation is a derived work (and you're the only person I've ever heard > claim otherwise) which opens up the possibility of a lawsuit, which is what > the problem is. > >> and >> that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before >> writing one's own does not imply that the 'somebody' will hold any >> rights to the subsequent work. > > This is correct. Reading a copyrighted work does not prove that some > subsequent creation is a copy of that work. It does, however, make it > *possible* that such a work is a copy and needs the appropriate permissions. > >> "Translations" in software is what compilers do, not reimplementing >> specific algorithms. > > "Translation" in a copyright case is a term of law, and has *nothing* to do > with the behavior of compilers (other than the precedent that what a compiler > does is considered a translation for copyright purposes). > > Reimplementing an algorithm may or may not be a copyright violation. Depends > on whether or not the reimplementation involved creation of a work derived > (in the legal sense) from the original. Access to the original is required > for that to happen. The two being in the same language is *not* required for > that to happen. Access to the original and working in the same language is > *not* sufficient for that to happen. > >>> it'll never go to court, so there isn't an infringement. > > Tannenbaum isn't going to sue Linus. So either he doesn't believe there is an > infringement (I suspect this is likely, as he has had access the source and > would probably have at least said something if he thought there was an > infringement) or doesn't care enough to go to court. Until a judge tells > Linus he's infringing, he isn't.
This is quite a digression from the topic of the thread, but it turns out Tennenbaum has actually stated publicly that he does not consider Linux to be copied from Minix at all: (from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/) "MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code. Linus also used MINIX as his development platform initially, but there was nothing wrong with that. He asked if I objected to that and I said no, I didn't, people were free to use it as they wished for noncommercial purposes. Later MINIX was released under the Berkeley license, which freed it up for all purposes." > -- > Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping. > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
