Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:52 On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Sez who? 17 USC 101 <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101> A �collective work� is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A �compilation� is 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 term �compilation� includes collective works.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 12:59 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Sez who? > > 17 USC 101 > <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101> > A �collective work� is a work, such as a periodical issue, > anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, > constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are > assembled into a collective whole. > > A �compilation� is 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 term �compilation� > includes collective works. Hyman, please stop ignoring the facts. Facts such as http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE LINUX� AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " and http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html "The Software is a collective work of Novell" Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even "incompatible" with the GPL. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 13:49 On 3/25/2010 12:51 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without > inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange > to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from > the library, just because the _binaries_ of the library are loaded at a > later point of time. Copyright law is about copying protected works. When deciding on whether a program file may be copied, the first question is do determine if the file being copied contains any protected content. In a dynamically linked executable, the only such content is what the compiler and linker have placed into the executable in order to indicate that during execution the program will invoke some specified functionality. But that cannot be protected content because it lacks originality; there is generally only one way to indicate that such-and-such a function will be called in such- and-such a way, and any concept that can be expressed in only one way lacks originality as defined by copyright law - the idea has merged with the expression and the result is not copyrightable. > You may be ferociously defending your own legal theories, but as long as > nobody wants actually to rely on such a theory to a degree where he is > willing to let himself be taken to court over it, that's academical. In fact, such did happen with the distribution of a program which dynamically linked to the GPL-covered readline library. To avoid aggravation, the developer created a stub readline library, but it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate work after the original work has been created!
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 13:55 On 3/25/2010 12:59 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Hyman, please stop ignoring the facts. And in fact, "mere aggregation" means exactly what the FSF wants it to mean, not more and not less, because "mere aggregation" is not a term defined by copyright law but a term defined by a license, and as such it is to the license that one must go to to see if some combined work is a "mere aggregation" or not. It is clear from the text of the GPL that a statically linked program is not a "mere aggregation" of its components. For example, if a document was licensed to be freely copyable except that it must not be copied and distributed on a medium together with instructions on how to make bombs, it would be a reading of the license that determined whether it would be permitted to copy and distribute it on a medium together with instructions on how to make firecrackers. Copyright law would have nothing to say on the matter - there is no definition of "bomb" in copyright law, and there is no definition of "mere aggregation" in copyright law.
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 13:58
On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: > it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the > rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate > work after the original work has been created! Well, actually, let me take this part back. |