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 14:55 On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere > aggregation" in GNU-speak) > > Got it now? No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes. Naturally, courts see through such flimflam, and no amount of blustering on the internet can counter that. GPLv2 says <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. 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. It is clear, therefore, that GPLv2 distinguishes between mere aggregations and collective works which are not mere aggregations, so repeatedly claiming that it does not is foolish.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 15:18 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere > > aggregation" in GNU-speak) > > > > Got it now? > > No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who > deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes. > Naturally, courts see through such flimflam, and no amount of > blustering on the internet can counter that. > > GPLv2 says > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> > Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights > or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; > rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the > distribution of derivative or collective works based on the > Program. > > 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. > > It is clear, therefore, that GPLv2 distinguishes between mere > aggregations and collective works which are not mere aggregations, > so repeatedly claiming that it does not is foolish. http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf "I have already explained the fundamental difference in copyright law between a collective work and a derivative work. You will recall generally that the former is a collection of independent works and the latter is a work based upon one or more preexisting works. A work containing another work is a collective work. A work based on another work is a derivative work. Merging those concepts in the GPL would leave no distinction between a derivative and collective work, an absurd result considering the importance of those two defined terms in copyright law. [...] The law makes it clear that the GPL can�t affect the licenses to those preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesn�t matter. The GPL then expresses its intent this way: The intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (GPL section 2.) That may be the intent, but is that what the GPL actually does? This is a critical example of imprecise phrasing. Who gets �to exercise the right to control� distribution? Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets �to exercise the right to control� those works, and the owner of each contribution gets �to exercise the right to control� his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. � 103[b].) Does the phrase based on the program refer to both derivative and collective works? That isn�t technically correct, at least under the U.S. Copyright Act, because a derivative work is a work based on one or more preexisting works, but a collective work is not. (17 U.S.C. � 101.) There is still no meaningful clue about linkage. [...] 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). . . 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) Go to doctor, 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 15:24 On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf The author of this seems not to realize that there is no right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective work without the authorization of the rights holders of the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption, it is no wonder that error piles upon error. There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating the covered work provided you meet condition two".
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 15:47 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > The author of this seems not to realize that there is no > right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective > work without the authorization of the rights holders of > the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption, > it is no wonder that error piles upon error. Let the author http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm know about his "error piles upon error". <chuckles> > > There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights > holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone > copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make > and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating > the covered work provided you meet condition two". http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf "Courts that have embraced the doctrine of copyright misuse192 initially adopted a rationale developed in the patent context.193 The doctrine of patent misuse penalizes patent holders who try to expand their limited legal monopoly over the patented invention beyond the �four corners of the patent� and thus upset the balance that patent law has struck between protection and public access.194 In patent cases, courts have found a number of licensing practices to be abusive, including royalty requirements for components, territories, or time periods outside the scope of the patent grant, covenants not to deal in competing products, and package licensing.195 A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking to control external activities and subject matter�namely, the use of independent programs. Depending on the context, such a clause could, in effect, constitute a prohibition on using competing products. In any event, such a clause would limit a licensee�s right to create compilations and non-creative combinations�rights that the Copyright Act declares to be free, in contrast to the right to prepare derivative works.196 Thus, such a copyright owner would seem to run a significant risk that a court would classify such a clause as copyright misuse with the dramatic result that the copyright owner would be denied copyright protection even against outright piracy. A licensor who merely prohibits licensees from creating derivative works, as the term is defined by statute and through combinations or otherwise, would generally remain within the scope of its statutory rights and not risk a finding of copyright misuse. The need to prevent an abuse of intellectual property law is internationally recognized.197" 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 16:51
On 3/25/2010 3:47 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Let the author > http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm > know about his "error piles upon error". I'm insufficiently motivated to bug someone about some mistake he made years ago. If he shows up here, I'll change my mind. By the way, <http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf>, Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets �to exercise the right to control� those works, and the owner of each contribution gets �to exercise the right to control� his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. � 103[b].) so he's certainly not as wrong as you are. I shouldn't be surprised - as always, the things you quote contradict your thesis. |