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 29 Mar 2010 16:09 On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, > ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL That's correct, there is no automatic aggregation of software copyright under the GPL. Any acceptance of the GPL for a work, collective or derivative, is strictly voluntary on the part of the secondary author.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 16:28 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY, > > ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL > > That's correct, there is no automatic aggregation of software > copyright under the GPL. Any acceptance of the GPL for a work, > collective or derivative, is strictly voluntary on the part of > the secondary author. Go to doctor, silly Hyman. http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf "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 31 Mar 2010 23:27 On 3/29/2010 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > "It will be unprofitable > THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.
From: Hyman Rosen on 31 Mar 2010 23:48 On 3/29/2010 4:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf This is a quote of one person's opinions, not of a decided case, so it needs to be understood in that light. > "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. Fortunately, the GPL does not prohibit this, so any analysis of the consequences of such a prohibition is irrelevant to the GPL. <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> A �covered work� means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program. .... You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 1 Apr 2010 09:06
Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > A �covered work� means either the unmodified Program or > a work based on the Program. Uh stupid Hyman... yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL doesn't cover non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka collective works, aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak). 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.) |