Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> > that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> > of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> > mechanical (non-creative, ergo
Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>>See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
>>that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
>>of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
>>mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copy
Joe Moore writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
>> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
>> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
>> mechanical (non-creative, ergo no
Michael Poole wrote:
> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transfor
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:22:06 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
>>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).
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:37:09 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
> > would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy,
> > right? A hardcoded string, copied to some device which runs it, and
> > maybe with some additio
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:22:06 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
Raul Miller writes:
> Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
>
> However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
> derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
> into the kernel.
>
> According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective wo
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
> By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
> large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware
> > If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
> > work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
> differences be
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 14:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
> > licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
> > license's author for gu
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
>> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
>
> I'm writing in english, not greek.
>
> If you think there is some legally relev
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
> licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
> license's author for guidance. In this case the FSF indicates the binary
> firmwar
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:35:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
> >> Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped wi
@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
la
@ 17/06/2004 15:14 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
@ 17/06/2004 01:06 : wrote Michael Poole :
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 lik
> >False dichotomy.
> >
> >There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
> >derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
> law following the Geneva convention *does* such a d
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
> the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
> copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
>
> _Not_ collective/compilation/antholo
@ 17/06/2004 14:12 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
> to use GPL"), the very last paragraph of [1]:
>
> QUOTE
>
> This General Public License does not permit incorporating your
> program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine
> library, you may consider it more useful to permit link
Michael wrote:
> Several (a plurality, if not majority) of US federal court districts
> use the Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison test to determine
> whether one computer program infringes on another's copyright --
[snip]
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreti
> 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?).
> >
> >
Michael Poole wrote:
> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
> license requirements, he should check.
I think that expecting all GPL code to come with full source under the
terms of the GPL is not an uncommon interpretation, and neither is
expecting all code linked i
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:44:37AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
>
> > 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)
> >
> >
>
@ 17/06/2004 12:26 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>Humberto Massa wrote: [snip]
>
It's a compilation work.
>>>
>>>Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
>>>compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
>>>
>>>Thiemo
>>
>>not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _se
@ 16/06/2004 20:48 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>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 de
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
>>>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:
>
>>
Humberto Massa wrote:
[snip]
> >> It's a compilation work.
> >
> > Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
> > compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
> >
> > Thiemo
>
> not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I referred only to the
@ 17/06/2004 11:07 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Raul Miller wrote:
> It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
Let's
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> > Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case?
> > And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than "this is
> > nonsense", "this is obvious", or some broken analogy.
>
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If
Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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 deri
@ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
> 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 GP
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
>> license requirements, he should check.
>
> I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
> would be compli
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
> license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy, right?
A har
Frank Küster writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> [firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
> [...]
>> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/ms
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
> program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
> a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
> times an identifier is used, count the number of lines
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 him or Yggdrasil before
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040616 22:25]:
> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
There is a company that claims that itself is the copyright holder of
some Unix sources, and that thinks that use of that concepts is a
breach of copyright. Should we accept tha
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [firmware as mere aggregation]
>>> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
[...]
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately f
41 matches
Mail list logo
