On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:17:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > This analogy doesn't really hold up, though: I don't know of any
> > scores that as well as requiring royalties for perfomance or
> > duplication forbid you to perform them with other songs.
> Are you suggesting that what you don't know is legally relevant?
Are you suggesting that your analogies have legal force?
Change "I don't know of any" to "there aren't any". Whatever. The analogy
doesn't hold becuase the interesting aspect of the GPL thing just doesn't
apply to music and such in general: music is generally licensed either
`no you can't use any of it', or `yes you can perform it', or `yes, you
can sample it', it doesn't have weird quandries like `yes, you can sample
it, but only if you distribute the score along with any recordings'.
> > And we already have permission to use both dpkg and the Corel
> > frontend. Just because you only use dpkg when Corel tells you too,
> > well, so what?
> Are you suggesting that that front end merely provides documentation on
> how to use dpkg?
No, it provides instructions on when to use dpkg.
> If I sold a cdrom which played music, and the music it played was a few
> bars of my own and some hit single I picked up from a music store, I'd
> have to have a legal right to sell that hit single.
Sure. But in this case you already have permission to put the hit single
on your CD. It's GPLed, remember.
> And it most certainly
> doesn't matter whether that computer program is statically linked or
> whether it uses a command interface to call the part that plays the hit
> single (unless the license on the hit single was sensitive to this point).
Please back this up.
The difference is that static linking produces a derived work (the
executable) that consists of both your work (foo.c) and a GPLed work
(bar.a). Dynamic linking produces a derived work that consists of
both your work (foo.c) and a GPLed work (bar.h). Calling a function
via system() or fork/exec doesn't combine your work with a GPLed work,
and thus doesn't produce a work derived from a GPLed work, and thus the
GPL, and copyright in general, simply doesn't apply.
Copyright is about /copying/ stuff, afterall. How have you copied anything
by simply referring to dpkg?
> Now, if you can show my anything in copyright law, or in the GPL,
> which makes any kind of distinction about the mechanics of how control
> is passed from the part of the work as a whole which is represented in
> one file to a part of that work which is represented in another file
> then I'll be happy to talk about that issue.
From section 0 of the GPL:
``The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)''
Note in particular the phrase `a work containing the Program or a portion
if it'. Note that Corel's alleged frontend doesn't contain dpkg or a
portion of it.
From http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/copyright.act.html#17usc411,
which purports to be the 1976 Copyright act, says:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
"derivative work".
which doesn't appear to include ``A work which passes control to the original
work is a derivative work''.
> Anyways, unless you want to provide a reference to back up your point,
> why are we even discussing this?
Because you're completely wrong, clearly.
(or, alternatively, is there any real need to get quite so snobby?)
Again, IANAL.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpXfD5ZgwRb4.pgp
Description: PGP signature