On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 19:10 +0200, ente via aur-general wrote: > On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 18:27 +0200, Ralf Mardorf via aur-general > wrote: > > Hi Manhong, > > > > it's squishy to form an opinion related to violation of a > > license and toleration of sensible modifications and sometimes even > > to > > distinguish between theft and fortuitousness. > > > > If you wrote a song named "love song" composed of holding the note > > c > > for > > 1000 beats and after that holding the note c# for another 1000 > > beats at > > 120 beats per minute and a year later I write two songs and name > > both > > "love song", too, one composed of holding the note c for 1000 beats > > at > > 120 beats per minute and the other one holding the note c# for 1000 > > beats at 120 beats per minute. Would it make sense to argue related > > author's rights? > > > > Sometimes disputes make no sense. Several factors must be taken > > into > > account and often common sense can be used to rate, if it's worth > > to > > argue. > > > > Regards, > > Ralf > > Hi Ralf, > > > You example is clearly missing the point. Let's unwrap. > > Scenario 1: You did not know of the other song. You coincidently > create > the same song as someone else, no copyright will be applied. You > simply > did not copy anything. This example is not related to GPL at all. > > Scenario 2: You did know about the song. You heard it in the radio. > You > liked the song, but you never actually did focus on the song trying > to > count how often each tone occured, you did not exactly measure the > beats per minute, you did not search the internet for the exact > details > of the song. You rather got inspired by the song. You set down, you > got > creative and wrote down a brand new song which coincidently is the > same > song as published a year ago. You simply did not copy anything, GPL > is > not related at all. > > In - broadly speaking - any other situation, you are copying. Copying > is protected by the copyright. GPL grants you rights under certain > conditions. If you don't fully comply with the restriction, you loose > the rights. > > There may be a fair use policy applying in certain situations. I am > not > aware, GPL grants any. As such: a patch file only containing 3 lines > of > the original is already copying. Writing those 3 lines "coincidently" > is bullshit. Your purpose was never to be creative, your purpose was > to > write exactly those three lines. If I could "coincidently" write the > same 3 lines in a patch file, then I could also "coincidently" type > all > the bits and bytes of the latest Star Wars movie in mp4 format by > coincident and all copyright laws are dead the same second. So no, > you > did not write coincidently the same lines. You did copy. > > Me personally I don't like the fact that big companies (unfortunately > mine included) are earning a big pile of money using software they > download for free from the internet without ever giving anything back > to the community. > > Now in this thread I got the feeling, many feel like "We are open > source. We should not be monitored too close.". Arguments came up > like > "We do not distribute the software. We only distribute an > installation > script.". The latter one sounds very much like PirateBay, doesn't it? > > Well, if we don't obey the GPL very strictly, why should those big > companies do? Should we as members of the open source community not > be > the first to actually obey the GPL? > > I am not blaming Arch Linux or any TU for wrong doing. I am not > blaming > anyone for anything because I am not a GPL / copyright expert. And I > know it has been fixed already. > > I just feel like supporting the opinion of Manhong and clearly > opposing > the mail of Ralf. > > Oh, sorry to say Ralf: in any scenario you should never again > consider > to write a song! That song is horrible!
Finally someone with plenty of musicial cells stood up. Thx! :) > > > > ente
