so long as my work contains nothing that is copyrightable they can't do anything
In fact, you got that the wrong way around. If your work "contains nothing that is copyrightable" they *can* sue you for copyright infringement (assuming, of course, your work forms a copyrightable work when combined with theirs (which it almost defintely will) and you don't release your work under the GNU GPL).
As an example here is a link. Does/. now have to bow down to the copyright of Websters.. NO.
I agree, you wouldn't (and an equivalent sort of dynamic linking also would not result in legal action).
However, hypothetically, you might agree with most of Webster's definitions but not agree with a few words from lots of the entries (or might think the some entries needed updating due to changes in the language). You might, therefore, want to put a pile of instructions or diffs here for which words to change (e.g.: "change word 5 of line 18 of page 789 from `intellectual property' to `exclusive intellectual exploitation rights'").
You should then prepare yourself for a visit from their lawyers (or the FSF's if you do an equivalent sort of thing using dynamic linking with one of their exclusively GNU GPLed libraries).
I'm not sure what your point is here. Headers are probably irrelevant as they probably are not a copyrgihtable work. Remember, I can't copyright random numbers. A copyrightable work (whether a book or program or whatever) has to be creative (e.g.: perform a function in a human being or computer system).
A work (e.g.: program) is derived from another work (e.g.: libraries) if it could not form a complete creative work without being combined with the other work (e.g.: via dynamic linking).
I didn't reference the parent post. I didn't even quote the parent (which would be fine anyway if it wasn't significant).
But, if a program dynamic links to an application in such a way as it only references it, that is fine. The problem is when the program could only form a complete creative work when combined (via dynamic linking) with the libraries. (Remember, I can't copyright random numbers. It has to be creative.)
or is code something different from the rest of the world
No, because, if I took a copyrighted novel and made a diff for it along the lines of "change line 35 on page 63 to read..." (with various different changes) and published it, I would have the copyright holders of the novel on my back. Actually notice the way many technical standards (like RFCs) have a copyright notice which restricts such modification in cetain circumstances.
When I said "copy, modify or distribute it" I meant in ways which are not allowed in copyright law (obviously). You don't seriously expect me to copy every copyright law of every jurisdiction and all the case law on fair use from every jurisdiction into my post do you? (Of course, that would be illegal becuase many copyright laws (e.g.: UK) are covered by copyright law...oh...the irony.)
if you give me a copy of a work, I can back it up, compile it, modify it, otherwise tinker with it, and so on.
This depends very much on your jurisdiction. Some allow all backing up, most allow some, some allow none. Same goes for the rest really.
As I'm in the UK and you seem to be, I'll assume we are talking UK law, in which case:
compiling is not allowed
copying into memory is not allowed
modification is not usually allowed
otherwise tinkering with it probably falls into one of the above
See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for more info. The only thing I can't do is distribute it, or works derived from it.
You are mistaken (and don't read everything you read on the WWW about the law especially if it says it doesn't apply to your jurisdiction). Try here for some better advice:
You can give me example after example of dynamic linking and say it would not be a derived work and you'd be right, because, as I said before, the only time dynamic linking forms a derived work is when your work is based on the work you are dynamic linking to as opposed to being a truly seperate work.
For the answer to the Dummies question see my reply to the post with that question in--clever that.
No it isn't a derived work unless my post is based on the parent's post. Based means it actually does not form a work on its own but forms a work when combined with the parent. Also, if I copied significant parts of the parent's post into my post, it would then be actually copying their work (but not necessarily based on the original).
That's rubbish, what you include in the work you produce makes every difference when it comes to copyright.
I never said it didn't. Indeed I said it most definitely is what makes the difference and the type of linking was what did not make any difference.
If I include 'nothing' that is copyrightable by the original author then I don't have to bow down to the copyright requirements aka GPL.
Wrong. Follow my advice above: read any of the following:
the GNU GPL FAQ
a good copyright book
your local copyright legislation
the Berne convention
Yes, so long as you don't include anything that is in the original work..
Wrong.
just like I can write dummies guide to Linux and not have to release it under GPL, or is my 'dummies guide' also a derived work?
No because it is not based on Linux (assuming you don't include Linux code or code based on Linux). It isn't even a similar thing. One is a kernel; the other is a manual. (Also, note that Linux isn't a good example to use here as it has an added clause allowing linking that wouldn't normally be allowed by the GNU GPL.)
Your getting confused between static, aka distributing someone elses work as well as your own, and dynamic distributing only your work.
No. I'm not. See my comment on diffs. Something can be based on another work without actually including any part of the other work. I can take one work and modify it and come up with something (e.g.: a diff) that doesn't include the orignial work--it still relies on the copyrightable parts of the original work unless it constitutes a complete work by itself.
Interfaces are facts and not copyrightable (only the presentation of the facts is), thats why I can write an application against ATI's OpenGL driver but the user can be using Mesa and my application doesn't have to pay up to either.
Microsoft wouldn't agree with you on interfaces, but the FSF (and most same people) do. For that reason, if the dynamic linking uses a standard interface it is not considered to be based on the original work wrt copyright law. If your software doesn't require those libraries (e.g.: because it can be used with others created independently), it is definitelynot based on the libraries.
For more information on how the FSF believe this works in practice (in terms of different sorts of linking, &c), see the following from the GNU GPL FAQ:
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"?
Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program.
That may be true, but an important issue is who does the linking. The link (static or dynamic) produces a derived work. But if the dynamic linking is done by the end user, he or she has the right to produce the derived work, even containing non-GPL'd code, provided that he or she does not distribute the derived work.
That is exactly the position of RMS and the FSF (and, indeed, pretty much anyone else who knows much about copyright law). Read the GNU GPL FAQ.
I've never read so much bullshit as that page. It has all sorts of BS about the BSD and GNU GPL licenses like "[the GNU GPL] allows companies to release source code to their customers, without allowing them to use the code in competing products."
So, apparently this license "permits incorporating into proprietary products" and "ensures derivative works will also be open source". Raiightttt....
Here's the license (which needless to say isn't free and probably isn't even a valid license) for those who can't be bothered clicking the link and want a laugh:
You may use this product in any way you choose. If sold commercially, you have two years from the date of the first sale before you are required to release the complete derivative product, if any, and it's sources under the most recent version of this same license.
Disputes involving this license are to be judged and decided solely by Zesiger Inc., or whoever the company chooses to assist or serve in it's stead, with the GPL and BSDL serving as guides. Penalties, damages, awards, and/or fees may be assessed for any or all parties to the dispute, as deemed reasonable or necessary.
This license may be modified at any time, even retroactively, by Zesiger Inc., or whoever it chooses to serve in it's stead, in order to preempt all possible legal issues which may pervert the intent of this license.
Except trojan horses are generally malicious. What is malicious about the GNU GPL? It gives everyone the freedom to copy, modify and redistribute the software. That is not malicious (compared with many licenses which are).
I think this is actually what the OSI are saying. They have realised that they have been giving out certification for licenses (and enocuraging the use of licenses) which are badly-written versions of existing licenses (and sometimes incompatible with existing ones), and want to stop doing this by only encouraging the use of a few core licenses that embody genuinely different licensing models.
Good points. Although, I think you'll find that Bruce Perens (who wrote the Open Source Definition) now prefers to call it "free software" (as he thinks "open-source software" causes too much confusion).
Well the only difference with the MPL is it is for egotistical developers and encourages proprietary software. I don't see that as being a significantly difference license and the differences aren't based on a viable FOSS model (indeed they encourage proprietary software).
However, maybe they are referring to something MPL-like by their tautological "commercial GPL". I've no idea.
WTF are "stallmanisms"? It is long because it explains itself in simple easy-to-understand English. If you think the GNU GPL is too "extreme" just ignore it--your loss.
(And if you give a work no license at all then no one is allowed to copy, modify or distribute it until you release it into the public domain ir it automatically goes into the public domain).
Well, I've bought £100s of pounds of unsupported, unofficial, unpackaged free software (because it was easier than hunting for it, downloading it and burning it to CD and the CD-Rs are good quality). When you add in support, manuals, warranties, CD-ROMs, &c it makes a lot of sense.
Your arguments are moot anyway because the vast majority of software is only used in-house (within a single company). The vast majority of the rest is still made to specification for a particular client (who often doesn't care if others use it).
You seem to be arguing against any copyright at all--everything should be in the public domain--which I don't agree with.
You'll be pleased to hear that their trademark application for "open source" was thrown out by the USPTO on the grounds that it is descriptive. Although why you feel the need to use the term is how different matter...
They don't own a trademark on the term "open source". They tried getting it registered but it was deemed to be descriptive so the USPTO threw out their application.
Of course, the fact that they want to control its use is another good reason to carry on calling it "free software" (as opposed to using their buzzphrase,"open-source software", designed for suits).
"Free" (once you've gotten over that you mean the orginal meaning) is far less ambigous than "open-source" which could, franky, mean anything (and misses the imprtant bit that you are allowed to modify, copy and distribute the software).
Slashdot Mirror
However, hypothetically, you might agree with most of Webster's definitions but not agree with a few words from lots of the entries (or might think the some entries needed updating due to changes in the language). You might, therefore, want to put a pile of instructions or diffs here for which words to change (e.g.: "change word 5 of line 18 of page 789 from `intellectual property' to `exclusive intellectual exploitation rights'").
You should then prepare yourself for a visit from their lawyers (or the FSF's if you do an equivalent sort of thing using dynamic linking with one of their exclusively GNU GPLed libraries).
A work (e.g.: program) is derived from another work (e.g.: libraries) if it could not form a complete creative work without being combined with the other work (e.g.: via dynamic linking).
But, if a program dynamic links to an application in such a way as it only references it, that is fine. The problem is when the program could only form a complete creative work when combined (via dynamic linking) with the libraries. (Remember, I can't copyright random numbers. It has to be creative.)
No, because, if I took a copyrighted novel and made a diff for it along the lines of "change line 35 on page 63 to read..." (with various different changes) and published it, I would have the copyright holders of the novel on my back. Actually notice the way many technical standards (like RFCs) have a copyright notice which restricts such modification in cetain circumstances.As I'm in the UK and you seem to be, I'll assume we are talking UK law, in which case:
- compiling is not allowed
- copying into memory is not allowed
- modification is not usually allowed
- otherwise tinkering with it probably falls into one of the above
You are mistaken (and don't read everything you read on the WWW about the law especially if it says it doesn't apply to your jurisdiction). Try here for some better advice:For the answer to the Dummies question see my reply to the post with that question in--clever that.
No it isn't a derived work unless my post is based on the parent's post. Based means it actually does not form a work on its own but forms a work when combined with the parent. Also, if I copied significant parts of the parent's post into my post, it would then be actually copying their work (but not necessarily based on the original).
I never said it didn't. Indeed I said it most definitely is what makes the difference and the type of linking was what did not make any difference.
Wrong. Follow my advice above: read any of the following:
Wrong.
No because it is not based on Linux (assuming you don't include Linux code or code based on Linux). It isn't even a similar thing. One is a kernel; the other is a manual. (Also, note that Linux isn't a good example to use here as it has an added clause allowing linking that wouldn't normally be allowed by the GNU GPL.)
No. I'm not. See my comment on diffs. Something can be based on another work without actually including any part of the other work. I can take one work and modify it and come up with something (e.g.: a diff) that doesn't include the orignial work--it still relies on the copyrightable parts of the original work unless it constitutes a complete work by itself.
Microsoft wouldn't agree with you on interfaces, but the FSF (and most same people) do. For that reason, if the dynamic linking uses a standard interface it is not considered to be based on the original work wrt copyright law. If your software doesn't require those libraries (e.g.: because it can be used with others created independently), it is definitely not based on the libraries.
For more information on how the FSF believe this works in practice (in terms of different sorts of linking, &c), see the following from the GNU GPL FAQ:
That's because Linux adds a clause to the GNU GPL to allow them. It is a special case.
WTF are you talking about? No one mentioned patent law.
So, apparently this license "permits incorporating into proprietary products" and "ensures derivative works will also be open source". Raiightttt....
Here's the license (which needless to say isn't free and probably isn't even a valid license) for those who can't be bothered clicking the link and want a laugh:
I think you'll find that the primary concern when writing the GNU GPL was to make sure it was commerce-friendly (which of course it is).
Except trojan horses are generally malicious. What is malicious about the GNU GPL? It gives everyone the freedom to copy, modify and redistribute the software. That is not malicious (compared with many licenses which are).
It should be noted, however, that working "BSD" systems include lots of GNU-GPLed software.
Mod Parent Insightful.
I think this is actually what the OSI are saying. They have realised that they have been giving out certification for licenses (and enocuraging the use of licenses) which are badly-written versions of existing licenses (and sometimes incompatible with existing ones), and want to stop doing this by only encouraging the use of a few core licenses that embody genuinely different licensing models.
Good points. Although, I think you'll find that Bruce Perens (who wrote the Open Source Definition) now prefers to call it "free software" (as he thinks "open-source software" causes too much confusion).
However, maybe they are referring to something MPL-like by their tautological "commercial GPL". I've no idea.
WTF are "stallmanisms"? It is long because it explains itself in simple easy-to-understand English. If you think the GNU GPL is too "extreme" just ignore it--your loss.
(And if you give a work no license at all then no one is allowed to copy, modify or distribute it until you release it into the public domain ir it automatically goes into the public domain).
He clearly means "eliminated from those they suggest one uses". Stop trying to be clever.
Maybe because they mean "free" in its orginal sense as opposed to its more recent gratis/free-of-charge meaning.
Your arguments are moot anyway because the vast majority of software is only used in-house (within a single company). The vast majority of the rest is still made to specification for a particular client (who often doesn't care if others use it).
You seem to be arguing against any copyright at all--everything should be in the public domain--which I don't agree with.
You'll be pleased to hear that their trademark application for "open source" was thrown out by the USPTO on the grounds that it is descriptive. Although why you feel the need to use the term is how different matter...
Of course, the fact that they want to control its use is another good reason to carry on calling it "free software" (as opposed to using their buzzphrase,"open-source software", designed for suits).
"Free" (once you've gotten over that you mean the orginal meaning) is far less ambigous than "open-source" which could, franky, mean anything (and misses the imprtant bit that you are allowed to modify, copy and distribute the software).