On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
> >
> > If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> > large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> > ls source.
Raul Miller writes:
>> The deception is calling it "great lengths." When I said the GPL
>> "deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
>> the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
>> other (because you don't like what it says?).
>
> You seem to be i
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
I disagree here. Why do you claim that is derivative work? N
> > However, this sentence makes clear that "works based on the Program"
> > is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
> > collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> In addition, mere aggregation of another w
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:59, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
>
> If I write a program that cont
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
>> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
>> GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
>> deri
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:32, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
> >>
> >> Unfortunately for Mr. Ri
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> [snip]
> > When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
> > distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
> > the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmwa
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
> GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
> derivative) works in just two p
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
> copyright notices attributable to hi
Raul Miller writes:
> It's a compilation work.
>
> [Some people might think that "compilation" and "aggregation" are the
> same thing -- but the GPL goes to great lengths to specify that it does
> apply where the compilation is a program and not where the compilation
> is not a program.]
I think
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:23:19PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The question is not whether you
> extract the work later, but whether the collective work is governed by
> the GPL.
I agree that this is the question.
> Copyright covers creative content, not mechanical
> transformations, so whether
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
> > is "mere aggregation" is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
> > code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
> > external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course i
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:25:17PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> How to use it without Linux? There is more than one operating system
>> in the world. At least a few of them (including Linux) provide more
>> than one way to load firmware to a device, al
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
> distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
> the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware is a
> derivative of the Linux kernel, or vice versa. Rat
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
>> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>>
>> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
>> copyright notices a
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:25:17PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> How to use it without Linux? There is more than one operating system
> in the world. At least a few of them (including Linux) provide more
> than one way to load firmware to a device, although not all device
> drivers may support al
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:34:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
>> on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
>
> How are going to use that firmware without the linux kernel?
>
Francesco Poli wrote:
> IMHO the best solution would be to contact the firmware copyright holder
> and persuade her to rilicense it under a GPL-compatible license (so that
> every doubt would go away immediately).
This would not solve the problem, unless they also released the source
of the firmwa
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >
> > [firmware as mere aggregation]
> >> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, could you pl
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:34:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
> on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
How are going to use that firmware without the linux kernel?
Because if you're using it wi
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
>> whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
>> believe it goes back to the argument whether the "mere aggregation"
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> [firmware as mere aggregation]
>> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
>
> Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
> holder (with some referen
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
> whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
> believe it goes back to the argument whether the "mere aggregation"
> clause applies.
Here's t
Humberto Massa writes:
> Brazilian copyright law distinguishes between derivative works,
> compilation works (in which the organization/selection/disposition of
> the contents *is* an intellectual creation on its own), and collective
> works (where you just select a load of works and bundle them
>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
holder (with some references to the code in kernel contributed b
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:21:08 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel,
> drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h has a specific proprietary rights
> statement which does not give permission to distribute.
I will not enter in the discussion about the nature of those firmw
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this
> library a derivative work makes)
There is no point discussing this issue with you until you comprehend
the GPL. Go and read it until you understand that there is no suc
[Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.]
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > >
>
@ 16/06/2004 16:01 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any oth
Geachte klant, Hartelijk dank voor het sturen van uw bericht aan Microsoft voor Ondernemers. Indien u een vraag heeft dan zal één van onze medewerkers van het Microsoft Contact Center uw vraag binnen 2 werkdagen beantwoorden. U kunt ons ook, tijdens kantoortijden, telefonisch bereiken van maandag t
@ 15/06/2004 23:09 : wrote Evan Prodromou :
>>"BTS" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>BTS> Yes. And this picture of a Gnu is not a derivative work of
>BTS> Emacs. But if I package it with Emacs as the Emacs icon, the
>BTS> combination IconEmacs is a deriva
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 13:21, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> I ask because of #242895. In the Linux kernel, drivers/usb/misc/emi26_fw.h
> has a specific proprietary rights statement which does not give permission
> to distribute. The previous kernel maintainer merged it with other bugs
> (IMO incorrect
33 matches
Mail list logo
