If they use Fox for distribution, then Fox gets a share of the money I would pay to go see the movie. I can't in good conscience give them my money, knowing that it will be used to sue innocents like Corley. Anyway, it's not just distribution -- the new SW movies (at least 2 and 3, dunno about 1) are made at Fox studios.
I was doing some research yesterday, and I came across a story by this guy. I didn't know at the time that it was by a Slashdotter. I read it, and it was good (tho perhaps a little too pat). Anyway, here's the link: http://www.pixelscapes.com/twoflower/fwls/n eofwls7.txt
So, there's your quality control: Peer recommendations.
There is nothing unmarketable about such a story -- it's not like he's going to screw princess Leia or something. Anyway, read what I said -- the *plot* is not so exciting (according to the original poster, anyway). The *characters* are chosen for marketting purposes -- specifically, Jar-Jar.
You must be a marketroid if you attribute that to marketing zombies !
That there are only a handful of basic plots does not mean that nothing original can be done. What is original is not the what, but the who and the why. In the case of SW, the who appears to be chosen purely by marketting concerns, and the why chosen not to offend anyone.
"E-mail gatherers/spiders fall under specific purpose tools."
Not so. I wished I had had one earlier today. I was pursuing a GPL violation for the FSF. I had found out who was doing it, and what they had done. I drafted a letter to be sent pending approval by RMS. Then I went to fill in the To: field, and realized that nowhere on the site could I find an email address (but I didn't check every page -- it's a big site). I ended up putting in webmaster@ and crossing my fingers. If I had had one of those email spiders (and if they were Free Software, of course), I could have used it for this legitimate purpose.
Wait, how do we trust this guy at all? They have a *huge* political agenda. Quote:
"SOCIAL ACTIVISTS, such as the "food police," environmental extremists, and gun-control advocates, may use junk science to achieve social and political change."
But polluting corporations and gun-control foes aren't mentioned... hmm...
If you look at the papers this dude writes for, it's pretty clear where his politics lie. Ooh, look, here's even something attacking evolution:
http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/darwin.htm
Yes, I know it's not by the site's main dude, but he printed it.
Notice that first paragraph. Do you want to talk about fucking junk science? There's no reference there! Maybe this "chinese scientist" is a total crackpot. Maybe the bones are really planted. Who knows? The only way to find out is to examine her research -- preferably, in a peer-reviewed jounal. Anyway, it ignores punctuated equilibrium.
Thanks, now I understand what I was doing differently! I retract my claim that your benchmark is faked.
I had started with your small image.
Your original hawk has a black border, which you cropped before compressing. I did a test: I shrunk the original image (black border cropped) down to 300x203, and jpeged it at 3000some bytes (about as many as your hawk). Then I blew it back up. It's about as good as your compression method, and royalty free.
Their still image compression comparison is *seriously* flawed.
I ran the hawk through GIMP and compressed it to roughly (slightly under) the size they had, and got an image at *noticably* better quality then their jpeg. Of course, they also didn't provide uncompressed (well, png) images for comparison, so I didn't have a real source image, but they're still cheats.
"Until recently, I thought that more heterosexual people had it. (Wrong - dead wrong.)"
Look at these stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
Total cases: 774,467
Men who have sex with men 355,409
And that's in the US... In places like africa:
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Notice in sub-saharan africa, heterosexual sex is the primary cause of transmission. They also have more AIDS cases than the rest of the world put together.
(2) These rights are restricted by general laws, legal regulations concerning the protection of the youth and by the right of personal honour.
Then what's the point? If "general laws" can restrict paragraph 1, then it's worthless -- for free speech protections to be effective, they need to be at a higher level than general laws.
Re:Bad screenshots for showing anti-aliasing
on
KDE 3.0 Screenshots
·
· Score: 1
ack, you're right, there were two possible parses of that! I am dumb.
Re:Bad screenshots for showing anti-aliasing
on
KDE 3.0 Screenshots
·
· Score: 1
No, the lzw compression is the patented part in GIF, not the color quantization.
|| What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
| The owner of the encryption system is meaningless. The permission you need is from "the copyright holder". I can only assume that means the copyright holder of the encrypted work. You agree with that, right?
Yeah, I agree. But the issue is that Software Hoarder would use SoftLock (before they went out of business), so your cracking program would also crack other locked programs, and would thus be illegal.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, I'm afraid.
. I still think it could, since I find it
hard to believe that a law banning trafficking in software which is designed solely for performing legal acts
could possibly be constitutional.
What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
| I don't see how providing the source in (I assume you mean human-readable) format makes any difference. Circumvention is circumvention, whether you do it by hacking the binary, or by modifying the source.
I mean machine-readable, so that they can't ship you a ream of printouts in MS Comic Sans when you ask for the source. It helps because that requirement makes it illegal for them to give you just an encrypted binary. They have to give you the source in a way you can use it.
Oh, I remembered the other reason your desires were silly -- it's no use to be able to modify a program when all you have is the binary. Sure, there are decompilers, but they don't work very well. You ought to require the source, and you ought to use a license looked over by a lawyer: the GPL.
So, xunker has to be with her at all times? What about in the bathroom? What if she wants to look at GNU/Linux booths and xunker wants to look at OpenBSD booths?
Sure, he's probably offered, but that's not a solution to the real problem, which is that this person has a disability and should be accomodated.
Do you think that places shouldn't install wheelchair ramps because it would be courteous if people lifted chairs up steps? Sure it would, but ramps allow disabled people greater independence and dignity.
||The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
|My assumption was that the movie contained the same basic story as the book (but not the same title).
Ack, s/story/words/. Yeah, it contained the same story.
||Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3).
| Likewise, if I download one copy of Red Hat, I can sell that one copy, if I download 50,000 copies, I can sell 50,000 copies. Further, if my friend downloads one copy, modifies it, and lets me download 50,000 copies, I can sell those 50,000 copies, without distributing the source. My friend would only be required under the GPL to give the source to me. Nothing more. But again, that has little to do with the point that we were discussing (although, if my friend is I, and no one realizes that, well, I guess it is what we're discussing).
No court anywhere would uphold that.
|| Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
| Because of the scenario I outline above (with the friend), I believe it is a major threat to the GPL.
For the reason I describe above (and in the quote from the copyright office, which you snipped), I think it's not.
|| Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not
Adobe.
| to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
| Emphasis mine. You are allowed to circumvent copyright protections with the permission of the copyright holder.
1201b doesn't mention permission, and that's what Sklyarov is charged with violating. So, your added clause would (unfortunately) be useless. Only requiring the provision of source in a machine-readable format, and forbidding other restrictions (GPL 7, IIRC) will allow you to fully make derivative works of your software forever.
|| The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
| Maybe that's what you were talking about, but I have said over and over that I am not talking about the creator of the derivitive work, as that could fall under breach of contract (but not copyright), assuming the creator accepts the GPL (would fall under copyright if s/he doesn't).
Violating the GPL is a copyright violation, not a contract violation, in all the situations I have heard of. If you aren't talking about the creator of a derivative work, then who are you talking about? What is your point here?
||| unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
|| OK, here's Stewart v. Abend
| Wow, that's a very good reference. Of course, I agree with it completely. In its essence it is saying "Therefore, if the author dies before the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work only if the author's successor transfers the renewal rights to the assignee. [...] Application of this rule to this case should end the inquiry". It also states that "The aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the pre-existing work remains on grant from the owner of the pre-existing work." But I think in this case we're both actually right...
Well, your contention was that the original author has no rights to prohibit or license derivative works that contain none of the original (but are not independent, of course). The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
|| Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
| In fact, it seems that the court rules here that it is impossible to create a derivitive work which is independent of the original.
Well, of course it is -- if it were independent, it wouldn't be derivative. But you were suggesting that different rules might apply to a derivative work which contained none of the original code (but would still not be independent). I said that this was unlikely.
| Section 6 of the 1909 Act, 17 U.S.C. 7 (1976 ed.) - which provides that derivative works when produced with the consent of the copyright proprietor of the pre-existing work "shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright . ..; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed . ..," or be construed to affect the copyright status of the original work - does not, as the dissent contends, give the original author the power to sell the rights to make a derivative work that upon creation and copyright would be completely independent of the original work
| So maybe in fact we're both right.
I can see that I'm right that derivative works of all kinds require consent of the original author to be distributed, but I can't see where you're right.
|| And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
| That is the part where I disagree, because as I say, there is no restriction in the GPL from distributing copies which are licensed under the GPL and another license. The other license would only apply to the new parts of the work, but in this hypothetical we were asserting that all of the derivitive work was new. Perhaps that hypothetical is impossible, but I hope you at least can agree that the creator of a derivitive work has the right to license the new parts of that derivitive work under any license s/he sees fit (barring any contractual agreement not to do so).
If the new parts are not independent, then they are derivative works of the original, and they fall under the terms of section 2. If they are independent, then they may be licensed as you like, as the GPL explicitly states.
|| Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
| As it turns out, I was misinformed that it was a court case, but it was in the U.S. Copyright office's report on the DMCA, page 78 (pdf page 120).
Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3). The next 20 pages are extremely clear that first sale is a limited right. Most salient is the following passage:
"The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between the two rights, creating an exception to the vending (i.e., distribution) right only to the extent that it didn't interfere with the reproduction right." (pdf page 80).
|| This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
| I only asserted that it allowed distribution of GPLed binaries without distribution of source code, which, hell, is what my license allows too.
Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
| Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction."
Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not Adobe.
| Actually, one of the main purposes is to ensure that I can never be sued for infringing on a derivitive of my own software.
That seems rather pointless to me because I think the terms of the GPL are all good, and I think that violations (even by the original authors) ought to be stopped.
"Consider a movie made from a novel. Consider that Steven King owns the novel copyright, and Warner Brothers owns the movie copyright (made under a legal agreement with SK). Now consider that I want to distribute the movie..."
The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
"unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
OK, here's Stewart v. Abend:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Rea di ngs/Copyright-UNT/abend.htm
Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
"Well, I argue above that a third party has a right to distribute a derivitive of a GPLed work which does not contain any of the original work itself without regard to the wishes of the copyright holder of that original work. This arguably may not apply to the actual creator of the derivitive work, because that creator must have accepted the GPL."
And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
"First sale doesn't directly apply in this case, but the courts have ruled that if you legally download software directly to your CD-R, you have a first sale right to resell that CD-R in any way you see fit (including without offering source code)."
This is definately a different case, because it doesn't involve modification. Also, it
applies to any content that is sold electronically, not just GPL software. Yes, it even
applies to your license.
This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
If you buy RedHat DB support, they will have to send out good people, and I think they will. Maybe you are thinking of their standard support instead of their new DB initiative?
Prizog:"The derivative writer has no right to distribute her derivative at all unless the original copyright holder consents. "
Aozilla:"Only to the extent that distribution of that derivitive work infringes upon the original work. For instance, if I create software which uses a GPLed library, and I have created that derivitive work under the terms of the GPL part 2, I now own the copyright to that work, and can license it under any terms I see fit."
GPL para 2 puts conditions on the distribution of that derivative work. Among the conditions is a requirement to license the derivative work under the GPL (2b). You do not have permission to distribute it under any other license; to do so would be infringing.
"Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it."
Incorrect. Consider a movie made from a novel. Even if it has no lines from the original novel in it, it is still derivative of the novel, and is infringing unless licensed.
"Now it could be argued that when you created the derivitive you became bound to a contractual relationship with the original copyright holder, as you accepted the terms of the GPL, but that's out of the scope of copyright law and would vary from state to state (it's essentially an EULA in that case)."
That's not how the GPL works. If you create a derivative work of a GPL'd program, you must follow the terms of the GPL (us code title 17 section 103 (a))
"In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing."
It restricts adding or removing license terms by anyone other than the sole copyright holder(s).
"distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL."
I can't understand this statement. What does first sale have to do with any of this?
Slashdot Mirror
If they use Fox for distribution, then Fox gets a share of the money I would pay to go see the movie. I can't in good conscience give them my money, knowing that it will be used to sue innocents like Corley. Anyway, it's not just distribution -- the new SW movies (at least 2 and 3, dunno about 1) are made at Fox studios.
Why don't you wait to see the movie and then judge it ?
Because I'm boycotting the major studios until they stop suing Eric Corley. I suggest that you do the same.
I was doing some research yesterday, and I came across a story by this guy. I didn't know at the time that it was by a Slashdotter. I read it, and it was good (tho perhaps a little too pat). Anyway, here's the link:n eofwls7 .txt
http://www.pixelscapes.com/twoflower/fwls/
So, there's your quality control: Peer recommendations.
There is nothing unmarketable about such a story -- it's not like he's going to screw princess Leia or something. Anyway, read what I said -- the *plot* is not so exciting (according to the original poster, anyway). The *characters* are chosen for marketting purposes -- specifically, Jar-Jar.
You must be a marketroid if you attribute that to marketing zombies !
I used to work for a marketting company. Sorry.
That there are only a handful of basic plots does not mean that nothing original can be done. What is original is not the what, but the who and the why. In the case of SW, the who appears to be chosen purely by marketting concerns, and the why chosen not to offend anyone.
They don't follow the GPL -- why should they follow the RFCs?
Anyway, webmaster@ is one of the standards.
"E-mail gatherers/spiders fall under specific purpose tools."
Not so. I wished I had had one earlier today. I was pursuing a GPL violation for the FSF. I had found out who was doing it, and what they had done. I drafted a letter to be sent pending approval by RMS. Then I went to fill in the To: field, and realized that nowhere on the site could I find an email address (but I didn't check every page -- it's a big site). I ended up putting in webmaster@ and crossing my fingers. If I had had one of those email spiders (and if they were Free Software, of course), I could have used it for this legitimate purpose.
Wait, how do we trust this guy at all? They have a *huge* political agenda. Quote:
"SOCIAL ACTIVISTS, such as the "food police," environmental extremists, and gun-control advocates, may use junk science to achieve social and political change."
But polluting corporations and gun-control foes aren't mentioned... hmm...
If you look at the papers this dude writes for, it's pretty clear where his politics lie. Ooh, look, here's even something attacking evolution:
http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/darwin.htm
Yes, I know it's not by the site's main dude, but he printed it.
Notice that first paragraph. Do you want to talk about fucking junk science? There's no reference there! Maybe this "chinese scientist" is a total crackpot. Maybe the bones are really planted. Who knows? The only way to find out is to examine her research -- preferably, in a peer-reviewed jounal. Anyway, it ignores punctuated equilibrium.
Thanks, now I understand what I was doing differently! I retract my claim that your benchmark is faked.
I had started with your small image.
Your original hawk has a black border, which you cropped before compressing. I did a test: I shrunk the original image (black border cropped) down to 300x203, and jpeged it at 3000some bytes (about as many as your hawk). Then I blew it back up. It's about as good as your compression method, and royalty free.
Their still image compression comparison is *seriously* flawed.
I ran the hawk through GIMP and compressed it to roughly (slightly under) the size they had, and got an image at *noticably* better quality then their jpeg. Of course, they also didn't provide uncompressed (well, png) images for comparison, so I didn't have a real source image, but they're still cheats.
"Until recently, I thought that more heterosexual people had it. (Wrong - dead wrong.)"
Look at these stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
Total cases: 774,467
Men who have sex with men 355,409
And that's in the US... In places like africa:
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Notice in sub-saharan africa, heterosexual sex is the primary cause of transmission. They also have more AIDS cases than the rest of the world put together.
(2) These rights are restricted by general laws, legal regulations concerning the protection of the youth and by the right of personal honour.
Then what's the point? If "general laws" can restrict paragraph 1, then it's worthless -- for free speech protections to be effective, they need to be at a higher level than general laws.
ack, you're right, there were two possible parses of that! I am dumb.
No, the lzw compression is the patented part in GIF, not the color quantization.
|| What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
| The owner of the encryption system is meaningless. The permission you need is from "the copyright holder". I can only assume that means the copyright holder of the encrypted work. You agree with that, right?
Yeah, I agree. But the issue is that Software Hoarder would use SoftLock (before they went out of business), so your cracking program would also crack other locked programs, and would thus be illegal.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, I'm afraid.
. I still think it could, since I find it
hard to believe that a law banning trafficking in software which is designed solely for performing legal acts
could possibly be constitutional.
What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
| I don't see how providing the source in (I assume you mean human-readable) format makes any difference. Circumvention is circumvention, whether you do it by hacking the binary, or by modifying the source.
I mean machine-readable, so that they can't ship you a ream of printouts in MS Comic Sans when you ask for the source. It helps because that requirement makes it illegal for them to give you just an encrypted binary. They have to give you the source in a way you can use it.
Oh, I remembered the other reason your desires were silly -- it's no use to be able to modify a program when all you have is the binary. Sure, there are decompilers, but they don't work very well. You ought to require the source, and you ought to use a license looked over by a lawyer: the GPL.
So, xunker has to be with her at all times? What about in the bathroom? What if she wants to look at GNU/Linux booths and xunker wants to look at OpenBSD booths?
Sure, he's probably offered, but that's not a solution to the real problem, which is that this person has a disability and should be accomodated.
Do you think that places shouldn't install wheelchair ramps because it would be courteous if people lifted chairs up steps? Sure it would, but ramps allow disabled people greater independence and dignity.
||The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
|My assumption was that the movie contained the same basic story as the book (but not the same title).
Ack, s/story/words/. Yeah, it contained the same story.
||Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3).
| Likewise, if I download one copy of Red Hat, I can sell that one copy, if I download 50,000 copies, I can sell 50,000 copies. Further, if my friend downloads one copy, modifies it, and lets me download 50,000 copies, I can sell those 50,000 copies, without distributing the source. My friend would only be required under the GPL to give the source to me. Nothing more. But again, that has little to do with the point that we were discussing (although, if my friend is I, and no one realizes that, well, I guess it is what we're discussing).
No court anywhere would uphold that.
|| Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
| Because of the scenario I outline above (with the friend), I believe it is a major threat to the GPL.
For the reason I describe above (and in the quote from the copyright office, which you snipped), I think it's not.
|| Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not
Adobe.
| to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
| Emphasis mine. You are allowed to circumvent copyright protections with the permission of the copyright holder.
1201b doesn't mention permission, and that's what Sklyarov is charged with violating. So, your added clause would (unfortunately) be useless. Only requiring the provision of source in a machine-readable format, and forbidding other restrictions (GPL 7, IIRC) will allow you to fully make derivative works of your software forever.
software bugs might not kill people
Wrong!
|| The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
.; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed . . .," or be construed to affect the copyright status of the original work - does not, as the dissent contends, give the original author the power to sell the rights to make a derivative work that upon creation and copyright would be completely independent of the original work
| Maybe that's what you were talking about, but I have said over and over that I am not talking about the creator of the derivitive work, as that could fall under breach of contract (but not copyright), assuming the creator accepts the GPL (would fall under copyright if s/he doesn't).
Violating the GPL is a copyright violation, not a contract violation, in all the situations I have heard of. If you aren't talking about the creator of a derivative work, then who are you talking about? What is your point here?
||| unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
|| OK, here's Stewart v. Abend
| Wow, that's a very good reference. Of course, I agree with it completely. In its essence it is saying "Therefore, if the author dies before the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work only if the author's successor transfers the renewal rights to the assignee. [...] Application of this rule to this case should end the inquiry". It also states that "The aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the pre-existing work remains on grant from the owner of the pre-existing work." But I think in this case we're both actually right...
Well, your contention was that the original author has no rights to prohibit or license derivative works that contain none of the original (but are not independent, of course). The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
|| Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
| In fact, it seems that the court rules here that it is impossible to create a derivitive work which is independent of the original.
Well, of course it is -- if it were independent, it wouldn't be derivative. But you were suggesting that different rules might apply to a derivative work which contained none of the original code (but would still not be independent). I said that this was unlikely.
| Section 6 of the 1909 Act, 17 U.S.C. 7 (1976 ed.) - which provides that derivative works when produced with the consent of the copyright proprietor of the pre-existing work "shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright . .
| So maybe in fact we're both right.
I can see that I'm right that derivative works of all kinds require consent of the original author to be distributed, but I can't see where you're right.
|| And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
| That is the part where I disagree, because as I say, there is no restriction in the GPL from distributing copies which are licensed under the GPL and another license. The other license would only apply to the new parts of the work, but in this hypothetical we were asserting that all of the derivitive work was new. Perhaps that hypothetical is impossible, but I hope you at least can agree that the creator of a derivitive work has the right to license the new parts of that derivitive work under any license s/he sees fit (barring any contractual agreement not to do so).
If the new parts are not independent, then they are derivative works of the original, and they fall under the terms of section 2. If they are independent, then they may be licensed as you like, as the GPL explicitly states.
|| Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
| As it turns out, I was misinformed that it was a court case, but it was in the U.S. Copyright office's report on the DMCA, page 78 (pdf page 120).
Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3). The next 20 pages are extremely clear that first sale is a limited right. Most salient is the following passage:
"The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between the two rights, creating an exception to the vending (i.e., distribution) right only to the extent that it didn't interfere with the reproduction right." (pdf page 80).
|| This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
| I only asserted that it allowed distribution of GPLed binaries without distribution of source code, which, hell, is what my license allows too.
Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
| Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction."
Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not Adobe.
| Actually, one of the main purposes is to ensure that I can never be sued for infringing on a derivitive of my own software.
That seems rather pointless to me because I think the terms of the GPL are all good, and I think that violations (even by the original authors) ought to be stopped.
"Monopoly is Competition" maybe works better.
:)
Talking about monopolies and competition together is not a non-sequitur.
And I like "Revenge is Justice"
What is that book about?
"Consider a movie made from a novel. Consider that Steven King owns the novel copyright, and Warner Brothers owns the movie copyright (made under a legal agreement with SK). Now consider that I want to distribute the movie..."
a di ngs/Copyright-UNT/abend.htm
The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
"unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
OK, here's Stewart v. Abend:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases%20&%20Re
Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
"Well, I argue above that a third party has a right to distribute a derivitive of a GPLed work which does not contain any of the original work itself without regard to the wishes of the copyright holder of that original work. This arguably may not apply to the actual creator of the derivitive work, because that creator must have accepted the GPL."
And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
"First sale doesn't directly apply in this case, but the courts have ruled that if you legally download software directly to your CD-R, you have a first sale right to resell that CD-R in any way you see fit (including without offering source code)."
This is definately a different case, because it doesn't involve modification. Also, it
applies to any content that is sold electronically, not just GPL software. Yes, it even
applies to your license.
This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
If you buy RedHat DB support, they will have to send out good people, and I think they will. Maybe you are thinking of their standard support instead of their new DB initiative?
"support. (who gives 24/7 support on postgress, and send out tech support guys giving consultations, will come on site on a sunday at 4am?)"
RedHat either already does or will soon.
"what OpenSource rdbms provide true mutli language support (we have records in cryllic, japanese, american, german, etc)?"
PostgreSQL.
"high availablity (i dont know the current state of HA functionality in the linux kernel)"
Why not look it up?
Prizog:"The derivative writer has no right to distribute her derivative at all unless the original copyright holder consents. "
Aozilla:"Only to the extent that distribution of that derivitive work infringes upon the original work. For instance, if I create software which uses a GPLed library, and I have created that derivitive work under the terms of the GPL part 2, I now own the copyright to that work, and can license it under any terms I see fit."
GPL para 2 puts conditions on the distribution of that derivative work. Among the conditions is a requirement to license the derivative work under the GPL (2b). You do not have permission to distribute it under any other license; to do so would be infringing.
"Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it."
Incorrect. Consider a movie made from a novel. Even if it has no lines from the original novel in it, it is still derivative of the novel, and is infringing unless licensed.
"Now it could be argued that when you created the derivitive you became bound to a contractual relationship with the original copyright holder, as you accepted the terms of the GPL, but that's out of the scope of copyright law and would vary from state to state (it's essentially an EULA in that case)."
That's not how the GPL works. If you create a derivative work of a GPL'd program, you must follow the terms of the GPL (us code title 17 section 103 (a))
"In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing."
It restricts adding or removing license terms by anyone other than the sole copyright holder(s).
"distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL."
I can't understand this statement. What does first sale have to do with any of this?