I can take material directly from published papers, cite them, and use their figures in my lectures. This is fair use. However, I cannot do the same with a textbook chapter, because the expectation is different.
Copying a function's source code directly into your application is clearly making a derivative work. It's analogous to copying the whole chapter into your lecture. But calling a function through its public interface is not. It doesn't even go as far as copying a paragraph out of a chapter. It's equivalent to a citing a page number in a footnote.
There are some cases where accessing the public interface *would* be derivative, such as writing a Python wrapper around a C++ library. But in most everyday cases of library use, no derivatives are made. A GUI application that uses GTK+ to draw a window on the screen is not derivative of GTK+.
Here's another way to look at it: The Right to Read. You have the right to read a book, because at its core, that is the only way to use the book. Copyright law is full of provisions allowing ephemeral copies, translations into braille, and all other sorts of stuff, just so the read is able to use the copyrighted material in the manner it was designed to be used.
But what about software? You can certainly read the source code, but that isn't using it. The only way to use it is to execute it, and the only way to execute it is to make function calls.
I think the reality is that specifics in some cases will make dynamic linking non-derivative sometimes, and derivative other times.
I agree, and so does the original article. The primary determining factor in my mind is whether the library was designed for general purpose use by those unrelated to the project. Another way to look at it is whether a library is a component or framework. Is the library complete or merely part of something else?
No, Al Gore did not fund the internet. I know most democratic office holders are multi-millionaires, but even Gore and his Daddy combined weren't rich enough to fund the creation of the internet.
The first ROM-BIOS was copyrighted by IBM. Compaq had one set of engineers document its function by studying it directly. Then, a second set of engineers used only the documents to create the clone (without using the expression).
The reason for this was not separability, but for two other reasons.
First, the source code to the BIOS was available to Compaq, so they had to demonstrate that they were not copying it. For low level software like the BIOS, there was a very high probability of duplication even if they never saw the source code. Even if there were already multiple implementations of the PC BIOS, they would still have done it. They were simply covering their butts.
Second, IBM was the 800 pound gorilla of the time. All they had to do to put Compaq out of business was to take them to court. Is it legal to dynamically link a non-GPL application to a GPL library? In my opinion it is. But I still wouldn't do it, because I don't have the deep pockets of the FSF. Again, Compaq was covering their butts.
The argument would be that the program is dependent on the expression of the unique library
I am still not convinced that dependency is derivation. It's necessary, but not sufficient. If you have any legal evidence to the contrary, please let me know.
Why is my application considered a derivative of a unique GPL'd library that it uses, but my shell script which uses a unique GPL'd utility is not? Both are dependent upon a unique expression of code.
That's not the point. The original poster asserted that "They [proprietary developers] are the only ones who'd be concerned about the derivative work issue." This isn't true, as they are not the only ones with this concern.
In the case of a unique library, the function and expression are inseparable, so establishing depency on function is adequate for establishing derivative on expression.
I understand your point. But I still have to disagree. Function and expression are separable even in unique libraries.
Consider the first libc created. It was a unique library. If your point is correct, then any additional libc that duplicates the functions also incorporates the expressions, and thus are derivatives of the original. But this is not the case.
The interface to a function is not the expression of the function. Perhaps many people in this community are confused because the source code is available for study. So let's examine a proprietary library with no source code available. The expressions of the library are a black box. It's impossible to derive anything from the expressions, because they simply aren't available to derive from. All you have available is the API in the form of header files listing function prototypes.
Dependency is necessary, but not sufficient, to determine derivation.
the GPL and the LGPL aren't allowed to dictate--in any fashion whatsoever--how end users are allowed to make use of software...That would seriously SUCK.
Have you actually read the GPL? Let me quote for you: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted".
In other words, making use of the software is not restricted.
If you include a GPL header file, it has integrated GPL code into that work.
Expect in the cases of macros and inlines, including a header file does not include any code. You are merely accessing the public API. C/C++ is not English. Do not confuse C's "#include" with English "include".
As for the case of macros and inlines, it's more probematic. For some macros, fair use definitely comes into play. For others it's hard to say.
However I am now failing to see how a program could simply "use" a library. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it.
Okay, let's imagine a hypothetical GPL'd glibc. Then you write a generic "Hello World" program. Your program merely uses glibc. It does not derive from it.
When someone asks you which libraries are involved in running your "Hello World" program, they will say "what libraries do you use", and not "what libraries have you derived from."
1) The C API is essentially in the public domain. There are many implementations of it, and your program has no way of knowing which implementation it is linking to.
2) The linkage happens at run time. It is the end user who actually shoves the program and the library into the same process space. Not the developer. What you are distributing has zero glibc code in it.
3) glibc was *meant* to be used in such a manner. It has been created and distributed for wide general use by people outside of the GNU project. This is the main point of the second bulletted item in the article.
4) Dependency is not derivation. It may seem so in some software languages, but they are two distinct things when it comes to copyright.
The article you link claims that "Many conservative Christians follow a dating system developed in the 1600s that places Earth's birthday at 9 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 23, 4004 B.C.".
As a Christian with numerous conservative fundamentalist friends and relatives, and who manages to keep straight the bizarre proclamations coming from the Big Hair Preacher Crowd, let me assure you that no conservative Christian believes this. You might find a few kneejerk populist readers of the National Enquirer that believe this, but they're a different kettle of fish.
route your PBX through a VOIP provider and get really cool phone service... We trade entire movies online like it ain't no big thing... You may not have seen high quality video conferencing via the internet
Somehow I'm guessing you're not using a dialup like the majority of users still are. Heck, you're not even using DSL or cable.
What's all the hoopla about? Geez! You think you guys have as many rights as your rulers or something? Hah!
It's been over two hundred years since the newborn United States made the heretical proclaimation that rights are unalienable. We were born with our rights, they were not given to us by the state. But the state no longer believes this, and neither should you.
You are here to serve the state. It is your rightful master. When your politicians are sworn into office, they miraculously become better than you. They become better able to run your life than you can yourself.
If they say they can rummage through their garbage but you can't rummage through theirs, then who are you to argue? Ingrate!
Bush won the election with the majority of votes. Electoral votes. No matter what your views are on the electoral college, it's still the law of the land until such a time as it's changed. The reason the popular vote was in the other direction, was because it was because it was a census year.
What other counties were studied? Were those counties similar to Lubbock in economics, education, demographics, etc? If the study didn't have them, then it was NOT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY!
Lubbock Texas has a character and set of attitudes distinct from all other counties in the country. Drawing nation wide conclusions from just Lubbock county is stupid.
In the county I grew up in, about 60% of the population were strict catholics. They were also immigrant and migratory workers. (sound a bit like Lubbock?) Teenage pregnancy is sky high and welfare assistance to single mothers is draining the county coffers dry. Is this the fault of catholic emphasis on abstinence? Or was it the fault of economic hopelessness? I strongly suspect the latter.
Persuade teenagers to abstain from sex? You've got to be kidding.
Absolutely right. To an extent...
Persuading ALL teenagers to abstain from sex? Hah! Persuading a few of them to wait until they're mature enough to be a parent? Possible. For those that can be persuaded, abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed pregnancy preventer. If you're absolutely going to have sex, use a condom. Duh! But if you can wait until the second, third, fifth or even tenth date, then you won't have to worry throwing away all your plans for the future because you became a parent before you were ready.
Go read the topic title and article again. The title is "U.S. Pushing Conservative Science", NOT "U.S. Pushing Religious Right Science". A big difference.
You know, if the government wasn't funding this research, no one would care.
Science has traditionally been funded by "patrons". In the modern world, the patron is often the government. Perhaps we need to go back to an earlier day when the state didn't have a near universal monopoly in the funding of science. Then the problem of taxing the liberals to pay for conservative research (or vice versa, lest we forget the 90's) will disappear.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game.
Yes, very good analogy. Think of it as a football game being played between Microsoft and Sun. The score is 78 to 3, Billy Boy's favor, at the start of the fourth quarter. So Sun bitches to the ref, the ref agrees, and makes Microsoft carry Sun's ball when Scotty Lad has possession.
Even in a level playing field, teams can still win and lose. The ref is there to keep people from cheating, not to ensure a tie game.
Slashdot Mirror
I can take material directly from published papers, cite them, and use their figures in my lectures. This is fair use. However, I cannot do the same with a textbook chapter, because the expectation is different.
Copying a function's source code directly into your application is clearly making a derivative work. It's analogous to copying the whole chapter into your lecture. But calling a function through its public interface is not. It doesn't even go as far as copying a paragraph out of a chapter. It's equivalent to a citing a page number in a footnote.
There are some cases where accessing the public interface *would* be derivative, such as writing a Python wrapper around a C++ library. But in most everyday cases of library use, no derivatives are made. A GUI application that uses GTK+ to draw a window on the screen is not derivative of GTK+.
Here's another way to look at it: The Right to Read. You have the right to read a book, because at its core, that is the only way to use the book. Copyright law is full of provisions allowing ephemeral copies, translations into braille, and all other sorts of stuff, just so the read is able to use the copyrighted material in the manner it was designed to be used.
But what about software? You can certainly read the source code, but that isn't using it. The only way to use it is to execute it, and the only way to execute it is to make function calls.
I think the reality is that specifics in some cases will make dynamic linking non-derivative sometimes, and derivative other times.
I agree, and so does the original article. The primary determining factor in my mind is whether the library was designed for general purpose use by those unrelated to the project. Another way to look at it is whether a library is a component or framework. Is the library complete or merely part of something else?
No, Al Gore did not fund the internet. I know most democratic office holders are multi-millionaires, but even Gore and his Daddy combined weren't rich enough to fund the creation of the internet.
The first ROM-BIOS was copyrighted by IBM. Compaq had one set of engineers document its function by studying it directly. Then, a second set of engineers used only the documents to create the clone (without using the expression).
The reason for this was not separability, but for two other reasons.
First, the source code to the BIOS was available to Compaq, so they had to demonstrate that they were not copying it. For low level software like the BIOS, there was a very high probability of duplication even if they never saw the source code. Even if there were already multiple implementations of the PC BIOS, they would still have done it. They were simply covering their butts.
Second, IBM was the 800 pound gorilla of the time. All they had to do to put Compaq out of business was to take them to court. Is it legal to dynamically link a non-GPL application to a GPL library? In my opinion it is. But I still wouldn't do it, because I don't have the deep pockets of the FSF. Again, Compaq was covering their butts.
The argument would be that the program is dependent on the expression of the unique library
I am still not convinced that dependency is derivation. It's necessary, but not sufficient. If you have any legal evidence to the contrary, please let me know.
Why is my application considered a derivative of a unique GPL'd library that it uses, but my shell script which uses a unique GPL'd utility is not? Both are dependent upon a unique expression of code.
That's not the point. The original poster asserted that "They [proprietary developers] are the only ones who'd be concerned about the derivative work issue." This isn't true, as they are not the only ones with this concern.
In the case of a unique library, the function and expression are inseparable, so establishing depency on function is adequate for establishing derivative on expression.
I understand your point. But I still have to disagree. Function and expression are separable even in unique libraries.
Consider the first libc created. It was a unique library. If your point is correct, then any additional libc that duplicates the functions also incorporates the expressions, and thus are derivatives of the original. But this is not the case.
The interface to a function is not the expression of the function. Perhaps many people in this community are confused because the source code is available for study. So let's examine a proprietary library with no source code available. The expressions of the library are a black box. It's impossible to derive anything from the expressions, because they simply aren't available to derive from. All you have available is the API in the form of header files listing function prototypes.
Dependency is necessary, but not sufficient, to determine derivation.
I see this article as an attack on the GPL
God forbid someone should question Saint Ignutius' interpretation of the Sacred and Profane General Public License. Heresy! Burn them at the stake!
the GPL and the LGPL aren't allowed to dictate--in any fashion whatsoever--how end users are allowed to make use of software...That would seriously SUCK.
Have you actually read the GPL? Let me quote for you: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted".
In other words, making use of the software is not restricted.
It's not just proprietary developers. It's also any Free Software developers who don't use the (L)GPL.
Let's take the extreme case: can a software developer release his own original work into the public domain if it links to libreadline at run time?
So, it is likely a judge would rule that it is dependent in copyright, and a derivative.
Dependency is not derivation.
Sigh, this is beginning to sound like my new mantra. Maybe I should make it my sig.
If you include a GPL header file, it has integrated GPL code into that work.
Expect in the cases of macros and inlines, including a header file does not include any code. You are merely accessing the public API. C/C++ is not English. Do not confuse C's "#include" with English "include".
As for the case of macros and inlines, it's more probematic. For some macros, fair use definitely comes into play. For others it's hard to say.
Doesn't matter--redistributing the software afterwards implies acceptance of the GPL terms
But it DOES matter! I'm not distributing the library when I distribute the application that links to it!
However I am now failing to see how a program could simply "use" a library. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it.
Okay, let's imagine a hypothetical GPL'd glibc. Then you write a generic "Hello World" program. Your program merely uses glibc. It does not derive from it.
When someone asks you which libraries are involved in running your "Hello World" program, they will say "what libraries do you use", and not "what libraries have you derived from."
1) The C API is essentially in the public domain. There are many implementations of it, and your program has no way of knowing which implementation it is linking to.
2) The linkage happens at run time. It is the end user who actually shoves the program and the library into the same process space. Not the developer. What you are distributing has zero glibc code in it.
3) glibc was *meant* to be used in such a manner. It has been created and distributed for wide general use by people outside of the GNU project. This is the main point of the second bulletted item in the article.
4) Dependency is not derivation. It may seem so in some software languages, but they are two distinct things when it comes to copyright.
No I'm not. I have a 1.5mbps connection. But it still isn't fast enough to deliver real time video.
As long as it takes more more than two hours to download a two hour movie, it's not worth it to me.
In addition, until the pipes become fatter instead of faster, bandwidth intensive media will never catch on in the mainstream.
a theory that it really doesn't matter where you went to school.
No shit sherlock!
The article you link claims that "Many conservative Christians follow a dating system developed in the 1600s that places Earth's birthday at 9 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 23, 4004 B.C.".
As a Christian with numerous conservative fundamentalist friends and relatives, and who manages to keep straight the bizarre proclamations coming from the Big Hair Preacher Crowd, let me assure you that no conservative Christian believes this. You might find a few kneejerk populist readers of the National Enquirer that believe this, but they're a different kettle of fish.
route your PBX through a VOIP provider and get really cool phone service... We trade entire movies online like it ain't no big thing... You may not have seen high quality video conferencing via the internet
Somehow I'm guessing you're not using a dialup like the majority of users still are. Heck, you're not even using DSL or cable.
What's all the hoopla about? Geez! You think you guys have as many rights as your rulers or something? Hah!
It's been over two hundred years since the newborn United States made the heretical proclaimation that rights are unalienable. We were born with our rights, they were not given to us by the state. But the state no longer believes this, and neither should you.
You are here to serve the state. It is your rightful master. When your politicians are sworn into office, they miraculously become better than you. They become better able to run your life than you can yourself.
If they say they can rummage through their garbage but you can't rummage through theirs, then who are you to argue? Ingrate!
"Hmmm, need money to pay off my credit cards after Christmas, let's see what else is in daddy's waste paper basket that I can publish..."
This isn't truth. It's media misinformation.
Bush won the election with the majority of votes. Electoral votes. No matter what your views are on the electoral college, it's still the law of the land until such a time as it's changed. The reason the popular vote was in the other direction, was because it was because it was a census year.
Frankly, both sides acted like spoiled children.
What other counties were studied? Were those counties similar to Lubbock in economics, education, demographics, etc? If the study didn't have them, then it was NOT A SCIENTIFIC STUDY!
Lubbock Texas has a character and set of attitudes distinct from all other counties in the country. Drawing nation wide conclusions from just Lubbock county is stupid.
In the county I grew up in, about 60% of the population were strict catholics. They were also immigrant and migratory workers. (sound a bit like Lubbock?) Teenage pregnancy is sky high and welfare assistance to single mothers is draining the county coffers dry. Is this the fault of catholic emphasis on abstinence? Or was it the fault of economic hopelessness? I strongly suspect the latter.
Persuade teenagers to abstain from sex? You've got to be kidding.
Absolutely right. To an extent...
Persuading ALL teenagers to abstain from sex? Hah! Persuading a few of them to wait until they're mature enough to be a parent? Possible. For those that can be persuaded, abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed pregnancy preventer. If you're absolutely going to have sex, use a condom. Duh! But if you can wait until the second, third, fifth or even tenth date, then you won't have to worry throwing away all your plans for the future because you became a parent before you were ready.
Go read the topic title and article again. The title is "U.S. Pushing Conservative Science", NOT "U.S. Pushing Religious Right Science". A big difference.
You know, if the government wasn't funding this research, no one would care.
Science has traditionally been funded by "patrons". In the modern world, the patron is often the government. Perhaps we need to go back to an earlier day when the state didn't have a near universal monopoly in the funding of science. Then the problem of taxing the liberals to pay for conservative research (or vice versa, lest we forget the 90's) will disappear.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game.
Yes, very good analogy. Think of it as a football game being played between Microsoft and Sun. The score is 78 to 3, Billy Boy's favor, at the start of the fourth quarter. So Sun bitches to the ref, the ref agrees, and makes Microsoft carry Sun's ball when Scotty Lad has possession.
Even in a level playing field, teams can still win and lose. The ref is there to keep people from cheating, not to ensure a tie game.