Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find
>again
>until now:
>
>http://
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>>
Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again
until now:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/ms
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Glenn Maynard wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again
>>>until now:
>>>
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00369.html
>>>
>>>In this case, the only realistic
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again
>> until now:
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00369.html
>>
>> In this case, the only realistic way to fulfill this type of "sou
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again
> until now:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00369.html
>
> In this case, the only realistic way to fulfill this type of "source to
> network users" requirement is by some othe
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 01:16:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > >> Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
> > >> include output produce
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
> >> include output produced when running the program.
> >
> > If no one has tried, it's because it'
>>> So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any
>>> other machine is. Running some code doesn't interact with the
>>> creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by
>>> copyright[1]. This is old news.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I d
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
>> > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
>> > presenting now].
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400
Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I don't interact with Postfix. I also don't interact with the
>> kernel. I interact with things that interact with those -- Gnus, and
>> Emacs, for example. But many of the commands I run don't give
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
> > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
> > presenting now].
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> The execution is
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I don't interact with Postfix. I also don't interact with the
> kernel. I interact with things that interact with those -- Gnus, and
> Emacs, for example. But many of the commands I run don't give me any
> output; they just change the state of
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
> copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
> presenting now].
The execution isn't, any more than the cycle of an engine is
copyrightable. The code is. In o
> > I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees
> > the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:51:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> You just defeated yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the
> copyright of a program
Lewis Jardine writes:
> It might also be worth noting that proprietary applications such as
> Microsoft Office don't use copyright to restrict 'public performance'
> of the program, instead relying on an EULA
> (http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/2/5/12538ba0-3d24-4f00-aab1-dd9ff4aacfc9/en_c
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:56:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> OK, I forgot to mention those cases where the program includes parts
> of itself in the output. However, there is no way an email sent
> through postfix can be a work derived from the postfix code. The same
> reasons apply here as t
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
case where a program's output is copyrightable a
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
>> include output produced when running the program.
>
> If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
> case where a program
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
> include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
case where a program's output is copyrightable and covered by the
copyri
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, I'm not reciting, dancing, or acting postfix. I'm not rendering
>> it or playing it either, as far as I can tell. I don't even *see* its
>> code, which seems quite different from music I'm playing or a dramatic
>> work I'm rendering.
>
> "playing"
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's also clear to me, from reading the bit of 17 USC 101 you quoted,
> > that running postfix constitutes a performance, even if it's not a
> > public performance.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 07:25:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That would be t
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> The motion picture/audiovisual phrase doesn't apply at all. And the
>> device-or-process bit doesn't help you, because unlike the case of
>> playing a CD or a player piano, I still don't see the output at all.
>> I do n
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> The motion picture/audiovisual phrase doesn't apply at all. And the
> device-or-process bit doesn't help you, because unlike the case of
> playing a CD or a player piano, I still don't see the output at all.
> I do not perceive the work in any way.
Come again? Exa
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > 17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty probably
>> > suffice. They definitely classify a network-provided application as
>> > public performance -- unless you believe that executing a p
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty probably
> > suffice. They definitely classify a network-provided application as
> > public performance -- unless you believe that executing a program does
> > not count as a "performance"
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> It's not peculiar and dangerous; it's relatively common. Many HTTP
> proxies, for example, do this. What I'm trying to point out is that
> transformations happen along the way. Not all of them are strictly
> mechanical. This was meant to demonstrate the poor publ
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> > Yes, the person operating the router is publicly performing the
>> > router's code. However, because mechanical transformations are not
>> > derivative works under copyright law, and because communications
>> > provid
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > Yes, the person operating the router is publicly performing the
> > router's code. However, because mechanical transformations are not
> > derivative works under copyright law, and because communications
> > providers are allowed to forward data on request[1], the
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> But in your model, am I performing the MUA, the MTA, the network
>> stack, libc, the firewall, the NAT software, the routers in between,
>> Spamassassin on your side, the mailing list manager, your MTA, MDA, or
>> MUA?
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> But in your model, am I performing the MUA, the MTA, the network
> stack, libc, the firewall, the NAT software, the routers in between,
> Spamassassin on your side, the mailing list manager, your MTA, MDA, or
> MUA? All of them?
You perform the MUA, MTA, network st
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> In other words, it's very clear that my running postfix to send you
>> this message is not a public performance of postfix.
>
> Perhaps that is clear to you. I think to execute software is to
> render it, even if you do
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> In other words, it's very clear that my running postfix to send you
> this message is not a public performance of postfix.
Perhaps that is clear to you. I think to execute software is to
render it, even if you do not use common sense in applying the
standards for l
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> I disbelieve that, without agreeing to some EULA forbidding it, I am
>> forbidden by copyright law to install a computer game in a public
>> place. I might be wrong, but that sounds far enough out-there that
>> I'd want
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> I disbelieve that, without agreeing to some EULA forbidding it, I am
> forbidden by copyright law to install a computer game in a public
> place. I might be wrong, but that sounds far enough out-there that
> I'd want to see references.
17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
> recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
> distribute source is excessively burdensome?
Not really, since it's my time that I'm concerne
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to
>> rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the
>> program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of
>> oratory, d
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
> recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
> distribute source is excessively burdensome?
There's a fair cost involved in just keeping the
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> The only way I know of to give a public performance of apache is to
> rent a hall and read the source code from the stage. Running the
> program is not a public performance. Why? Because performance of
> oratory, dance, puppetry, or music itself has creative expre
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the
>> work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into
>> copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think
>> y
* Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040812 19:36]:
> I can think of many cases where the source is larger or more onerous to
> distribute than the binary. Consider the case where the binary is in an
> embedded system. Also consider the case when the "binary" is a printed
> book, or a reference ca
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the
> work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into
> copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think
> you have anything like that clear line for use.
At
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>My point is, you are asking for too much control over how the other
>>>party uses their hardware. You should certainly have the right to use
>>>it on your own hardware; that would be more freedom than you have now,
>>>and certainly enough to consider i
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As you said, that's not a criteria Debian can use; you need to quantify
> exactly what fails your "I'd cease using and/or modifying a work"
> critera. If anything that requires you to provide source for the server
> software you use to those who interac
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>And obtaining GNU Emacs does not entitle you to run it on a gnu.org
>>machine. Why should this be any different? You have control over your
>>own boxes and what runs on them. I have the same control over mine. If
>>you
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:32:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>True. The question becomes: is it too onerous?
>>
>>After all, people have said the GPL is onerous. Consider the reference
>>card scenario. Either you distribute source at the same time (which is
>>extreme
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:32:56AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> True. The question becomes: is it too onerous?
>
> After all, people have said the GPL is onerous. Consider the reference
> card scenario. Either you distribute source at the same time (which is
> extremely onerous for a reference
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:15:38PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>Note, of course, that you only need to release the source to the work(s)
>>derived from a work under this license, which may not be everything
>>running on the kiosk. (Of course, you _should_, but you are no
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And obtaining GNU Emacs does not entitle you to run it on a gnu.org
> machine. Why should this be any different? You have control over your
> own boxes and what runs on them. I have the same control over mine. If
> you make software available, I can
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:15:38PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Note, of course, that you only need to release the source to the work(s)
> derived from a work under this license, which may not be everything
> running on the kiosk. (Of course, you _should_, but you are not
> _required_ to.)
... u
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
How about something vaguely like:
"""
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by anot
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:11:12AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I won't overgeneralize; some free licenses do place restrictions on
> > security-
> > related decisions (the GPL prevents me from adding some security-related
> > features and
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I won't overgeneralize; some free licenses do place restrictions on security-
> related decisions (the GPL prevents me from adding some security-related
> features and not releasing the source for the above reason),
No, it doesn't. It merely requires
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:40:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Security isn't just a binary quality.
[Can't sleep, trying to find something boring enough to fix that.
Didn't quite work...]
Security is not always the same thing from one person to the next.
Ok, sure, some things are fairl
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But standard advice on network security is *not* to advertise specific
> > banners. I don't think much of that advice, but I sure do see a lot
> > of it. Is it free to make this kind of requirement of users of the
> > software, that they ignore good securit
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:22:39PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > But standard advice on network security is *not* to advertise specific
> > banners. I don't think much of that advice, but I sure do see a lot
> > of it. Is it free to make this kind of requirement of users of the
> > software, th
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Hmmm, good point. That goes back to the problem regarding Debian not
>>keeping old versions around. I had imagined that the user could usually
>>just point to their distributor unless they personally changed the
>>softwa
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm, good point. That goes back to the problem regarding Debian not
> keeping old versions around. I had imagined that the user could usually
> just point to their distributor unless they personally changed the
> software, but that doesn't cover the c
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>How about something vaguely like:
>>>
>>>"""
>>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>>direct use by another party, without actually distributi
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Walter Landry wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm
aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the
softwa
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm
> >>aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the
> >>software, so perhaps I should have sai
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does the Department of Transportation need to make stoplight software
> > generally available?
> While I do think government software should always be Free Software and
> distributed to the public, I would not really classify that case as
> "direct in
Walter Landry wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
How about something vaguely like:
"""
If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
direct use by another party, w
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>How about something vaguely like:
> >>
> >>"""
> >>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> >>direct use by another party, without actually distri
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>How about something vaguely like:
>>
>>"""
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>
* Josh Triplett:
> How about something vaguely like:
>
> """
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-rea
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:22:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I just don't see how compelling source
>> distribution from a networked provider actually increases freedom --
>> since I don't care about changing the code I have, I care about
>
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:22:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I just don't see how compelling source
> distribution from a networked provider actually increases freedom --
> since I don't care about changing the code I have, I care about
> changing the code *they* have.
Here's the loopho
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about something vaguely like:
>
> """
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>As is often mentioned, if you take DFSG6 that far, you could use it to
>>argue that the GPL discriminates against the field of offering
>>proprietary modified versions of the software. I don't think DFSG6 ca
Josh Triplett writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> The version I suggested might be easily violated by proxy, though.
>> Suppose Joe and Jane are in cahoots. Jane modifies an application
>> under the license and gives the source to Joe. Joe offers the
>> modified application, but not the source, to
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:18:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> First of all, that sounds more like a matter of inconvenience, not a
> matter of non-freeness. After all, there are probably situations under
> which it would be a burden to distribute the source for a GPLed binary
> you are distribu
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> As is often mentioned, if you take DFSG6 that far, you could use it to
> argue that the GPL discriminates against the field of offering
> proprietary modified versions of the software. I don't think DFSG6 can
> sanely be taken that f
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> It does seem like if the public performance right covers
> making a video game available for public use (which probably came up in
> a case against an arcade), it should also apply for making a web
> application available for public u
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>>
>>a) Distribute the comple
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>>>For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is
>>>probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based
>>>on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties)
>>>of soft
Josh Triplett writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is
>> probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based
>> on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties)
>> of software is not, as far a
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-r
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>How about something vaguely like:
>>
>>"""
>>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
>>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
>>to that party, you must either:
>>
>>a) Distribute the compl
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:45:03PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>
> > How about something vaguely like:
> >
> > """
> > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> > to t
Josh Triplett writes:
> How about something vaguely like:
>
> """
> If you make the software or a work based on the software available for
> direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software
> to that party, you must either:
>
> a) Distribute the complete corresponding machin
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>>The exception I mentioned would be for web application-type software.
>>I am somewhat biased since the free software I write and maintain is
>>in that category, but I think it is justifiable for a license to
>>r
81 matches
Mail list logo
