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: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 14:18 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > 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. Clear to whom? http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf "Finally the GPL directly addresses the distribution of collective works, noting that the GPL does not apply to them: ...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. (GPL section 2.) This sentence seems to mean that only derivative works are covered by the GPL reciprocity provision, and that �mere aggregation� of separate works onto common media (or common computer memory?) does not require reciprocity, even if those mere aggregations are distributed in one unit (i.e., �as part of the whole�). " http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "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." 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." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)" Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49) Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49) Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc. ICE MILLER One American Square Box 82001 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 317.236.2100 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 14:20 On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Clear to whom? Clear to those who are not eager to deliberately misinterpret the GPL for their own purposes.
From: David Kastrup on 25 Mar 2010 14:21 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: > 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. What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different other parts, this is definitely not the case. -- David Kastrup
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 14:36 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 2:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Clear to whom? > > Clear to those who are not eager to deliberately misinterpret > the GPL for their own purposes. Hyman, the FSF is on record: http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "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." 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." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). . . In pertinent part, the GPL provides that, if a licensee of computer software under the GPL modifies that software or creates a derivative work from it, that subsequent work, when distributed, must be licensed to all third parties at no charge under the same terms and conditions. " derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere aggregation" in GNU-speak) Got it now, silly Hyman? 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 14:44
On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Hyman Rosen<hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain > with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of > a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different > other parts, this is definitely not the case. No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author of a license can put in any conditions he wants, so if he wants to say that you can copy and distribute a combined work which includes my content provided that some separate content exists, he may do so, and then permission will change based on that existence. But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot affect the right to copy and distribute a separate work when that work does not contain the library. |