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 1 Apr 2010 12:50 On 4/1/2010 9:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > 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). You are wrong in every way. Permission from the rights holders of components is is required in order to copy and distribute a collective work which contains those components, and such a collective work may or may not be "mere aggregation" as defined by the GPL depending on the nature of the collective work. You are very confused. Copyright law indeed does not require permission from the rights holders of components in order to create a collective work containing them if the collective work is not a derivative work. However, copyright law does not give the creator of the collective work the right to copy and distribute the components without permission. For GPL-covered works, the GPL uses the nature of the collective work to determine how it may be copied and distributed.
From: Hyman Rosen on 1 Apr 2010 12:54 On 4/1/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > �[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause � is the conviction > that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way > to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.� <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 1 Apr 2010 15:30 Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > For GPL-covered works, the GPL uses the nature of the collective > work to determine how it may be copied and distributed. Go to doctor, 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: RJack on 1 Apr 2010 16:37 Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 4/1/2010 9:06 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> 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). > > You are wrong in every way. Permission from the rights holders of > components is is required in order to copy and distribute a > collective work which contains those components, and such a > collective work may or may not be "mere aggregation" as defined by > the GPL depending on the nature of the collective work. > > You are very confused. Copyright law indeed does not require > permission from the rights holders of components in order to create a > collective work containing them if the collective work is not a > derivative work. However, copyright law does not give the creator of > the collective work the right to copy and distribute the components > without permission. For GPL-covered works, the GPL uses the nature of > the collective work to determine how it may be copied and > distributed. Do you make this stuff up on the fly or do you sit around and dream about it first? Sincerely, RJack :0
From: RJack on 1 Apr 2010 16:43
Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 4/1/2010 9:34 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> �[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause � is the >> conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal >> gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents >> of authors and inventors.� > CAFC: > <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf> Traditionally, > copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for > money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing > should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic > consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including > economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted > works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license > royalties. CAFC: "Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. .... The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc). Sincerely, RJack :) |