Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
On 5/13/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are other specific statements which you found to be
> insulting, please do let me know; it's possible that I have said
> something else comparable to "behest of the FSF" for which a similar
> apology is due.
Thanks, but I'll take the current apology in the spirit it's intended.
(I have better things to do than attempting to unearth insults.)
> > I find that using google's search engine on findlaw's siet
> > gives me better results than using findlaw's iinterface to
> > google's engine. If you think that means I'm using it
> > wrong, you're welcome to make suggestions.
>
> Are you using it at all?
I've used a search bar on the findlaw cite, if that's what you're
asking. Mostly, I've not gotten citations from my searches.
It's quite possible that I'm not using the right search bar,
but I can't think of anything else I might have done wrong.
> Have you cited any case law in this entire discourse,
Yes.
You've even disputed some of my comments which
these cites accompanied. (I believe "myopic" was one of
the terms you used, in one case.)
This is ironic, don't you think? Here you are, abrading
me about not having researched case law enough to
draw the same conclusions as you have. And, yet,
you're apparently disagreeing with yourself on
simple issues about what I wrote.
> or given any indication that you have read the precedents
> to which I have alluded, complete with convenient URLs?
That depends on what you call an indication. In general,
we've drawn different conclusions about what these precedents
mean.
> Are you even pretending that your arguments have been informed by
> research using FindLaw or any other source of references to the actual,
> historical law?
Complex question. [But I have, in fact, spent a fair amount of time
studying the laws in question, and precedents.]
>From my point of view, most of our differences have to do with
quantification issues. (Or, if you prefer, existential issues --
basically, distinctions between "some cases" and "all cases".)
Need I remind you of your assertion that collective works and
derivative works must be considered disjoint sets?
> > From the technical committee point of view, the "glibc is distributed in
> > binary" could only require intervention if the glibc maintainer were
> > in a dispute with other maintainers and they couldn't resolve it
> > between themselves. Even there, it's not guaranteed to be a salient
> > issue.
>
> Don't try to bullshit me here. That wasn't a discussion of
> theoretical limits within the technical committee,
I never claimed that discussion back then was.
However, this current discussion is -- and you brought up the issue.
> that was a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of a GR vote by
> raising the spectre of FSF action against Debian.
This has nothing to do with the technical committee.
And that vote was very much about what sort of approach
we should take to licensing issues, so discussion of licensing
issues was appropriate.
Also, you're dubbing in the bit about FSF action.
Quoting myself from the message in question: "I've not thought this
all the way through" -- I was thinking out loud. I was hoping to
invite discussion of the issues. Perhaps that was a mistake.
> You implied that reproducibility of the build environment was
> a factor in GPL compliance -- a statement perhaps applicable
> to the LGPL (as I articulated in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/12/msg01753.html ) but
> rather hard to construe in the GPL.
It could be. I was convinced later in that discussion that this
was not the case for current versions of GCC, but in the
general case it is an issue to be concerned about.
> And given the familiar tone of your references to RMS, and
> other evidence of your affiliation easily accessible to Google,
> I think I can be excused for reading it as effectively a threat
> from the FSF in light of the practical effects of the release
> manager's interpretation of the Social Contract GR.
I think you're creating conflicts out of thin air.
> I might add that the FSF can hardly prosecute such a claim
> against Debian without looking thoroughly hypocritical -- and
> perhaps opening themselves up further to allegations such as
> those made by Mr. Wallace -- in light of their business practices
> with respect to Windows-based cross-development environments
> such as Wind River's (not to mention Apple's XCode -- good luck
> rebuilding that). Or, to leave GCC out of it, the Windows build of
> GNU Emacs linked from
> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html .
I agree that they certainly have better things to do with their
time.
But I disagree the implication that "they won't sue us when we
mess up" should be the critical factor in our decision making
process.
> > Finally, having a seat on the technical committee isn't exactly
> > a coveted role in the project. Mostly you have to put up with
> > insults (and in that respect you're right -- yours have been
> > fairly mild), and occasionally you get to tackle a problem
> > that should never have happened.
>
> Thread at http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/03/msg00093.html .
Maybe it's just my browser messing up, but I don't see any
messages from Martin or Leader to the technical committee
in Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr or May of 2004. Nor in the latter half
of 2003, for that matter. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/
I'm guessing, but he might have made a suggestion to
someone and they might have responded "but that's
not what the technical committee is supposed to do"
and he might have responded "oh, you're right" and
left it at that.
--
Raul
Reply to: