Glibc patent - Linux

This is a discussion on Glibc patent - Linux ; On 2006-12-19, JoelKatz wrote: > > jasen wrote: > >> On 2006-12-16, JoelKatz wrote: > >> > I don't know how to reason with you. It is simply completely obvious >> > that coloring in a page in a coloring ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8
Results 141 to 147 of 147

Thread: Glibc patent

  1. Re: Glibc patent

    On 2006-12-19, JoelKatz wrote:
    >
    > jasen wrote:
    >
    >> On 2006-12-16, JoelKatz wrote:

    >
    >> > I don't know how to reason with you. It is simply completely obvious
    >> > that coloring in a page in a coloring book is both copying the lines
    >> > (by making them the perimeter of your colored areas) and is preparing a
    >> > derivative work (because it adds onto the original work and transforms
    >> > it).

    >
    >> definately , and if you were to attempt to distribute copies of your
    >> coloured picture you'd need the permissionof the copyright holder.
    >> or possibly you could purchase uncoloured books and overprint them.

    >
    > I agree with you, but the question is, if those colored pages are
    > derivative work


    They are, each one includes a complete uncoloured page.

    > from where do you get the right to *make* them in the first place.


    fair use.

    > Copyright law clearly grants to copyright holders the
    > exclusive right to authorize the *making* of derivative works.


    making of copies of derivative works I think.

    I thinkl it's OK as long as you're not copying anything of thwe original.

    Bye.
    Jasen

  2. Re: Glibc patent


    JoelKatz wrote:
    >
    > jasen wrote:
    >
    > > GPL permission is not required to modify,
    > > it's required to distribute modified copies.

    >
    > Where are you getting that from? Read GPL section 4. That's the section
    > that begins "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
    > Program except as expressly provided under this License."


    Just because the GPL states something doesn't make it so.

    17 USC 117 does grant permission to copy and also modify:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
    infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
    make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
    that computer program provided:

    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential
    step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction
    with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ...

    So, as long as the copying or the adaptation (modification) is "an
    essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
    conjunction with a machine" it is permitted without the GPL.

    See

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...nd/039303p.pdf

    Futhermore, apart from distribution of additional exact copies under
    17 USC 117 (along with the copies they were made from), 17 USC 109(a)
    states that:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner
    of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
    title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled,
    without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
    otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or
    phonorecord.

    However, you can't dispose of the possession of a computer program
    by rental or lending. See 17 USC 109(b). Also, you can't distribute
    17 USC 117 adaptations (derivative works) without permission (i.e.
    license, which is a contract governed by ordinary principles of
    state contract law).

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "Join the boycott of Chinese products"

    -- www.stallman.org

  3. Re: Glibc patent


    jasen wrote:

    > > from where do you get the right to *make* them in the first place.


    > fair use.


    That was my only reason for bringing this up. To show that permission
    of the copyright holder is not the only way you can get the right to
    create a derivative work. We are in violent agreement.

    DS


  4. Re: Glibc patent


    Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > JoelKatz wrote:


    > > jasen wrote:


    > > > GPL permission is not required to modify,
    > > > it's required to distribute modified copies.


    > > Where are you getting that from? Read GPL section 4. That's the section
    > > that begins "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
    > > Program except as expressly provided under this License."


    > Just because the GPL states something doesn't make it so.


    Ahh, so you are talking about the actual affect of the GPL rather than
    its claims.

    > 17 USC 117 does grant permission to copy and also modify:
    >
    > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
    > infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to
    > make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of
    > that computer program provided:
    >
    > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential
    > step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction
    > with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ...
    >
    > So, as long as the copying or the adaptation (modification) is "an
    > essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
    > conjunction with a machine" it is permitted without the GPL.
    >
    > See
    >
    > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...nd/039303p.pdf


    This is really just redundantly saying that you can run the program.
    (Even if, for example, this might create a copy or a derivative work in
    your computer's memory.) This is redundant because you have the right
    to ordinary use anyway.

    > Furthermore, apart from distribution of additional exact copies under
    > 17 USC 117 (along with the copies they were made from), 17 USC 109(a)
    > states that:
    >
    > Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner
    > of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
    > title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled,
    > without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
    > otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or
    > phonorecord.


    Right, this is first sale.

    > However, you can't dispose of the possession of a computer program
    > by rental or lending. See 17 USC 109(b). Also, you can't distribute
    > 17 USC 117 adaptations (derivative works) without permission (i.e.
    > license, which is a contract governed by ordinary principles of
    > state contract law).


    Actually, courts have held that you can get the same effect as
    distributing 17 USC 117 adaptations without permission simply by
    arguing that they're not 17 USC 117 adaptations. (17 USC 117 didn't
    give you any right you didn't already have except the right to create a
    backup copy. Adaptations that are necessary for use are part of use and
    aren't backup copies.)

    One case involved software with a Y2K bug. A company (not the original
    one) created a binary patch to fix the bug. The original author
    preferred to sell upgrades and argued that this patch was an unlawfully
    created derivative work. The patch creator's defense was that this was
    necessary to use the software and courts agreed. They then sold copies
    of the patch, and the court held that there was no right to restrict
    the distribution of lawfully-created derivative works. (That patch was
    not useful except to those licensed to use or own the original work,
    but everyone is licensed to use and own every GPL'd work.)

    DS


  5. Re: Glibc patent


    Robert Redelmeier wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.development.system JoelKatz wrote in part:


    > > *ASSUMING* I lawfully prepare a derivative work, not pursuant
    > > to 17 USC 117, nothing reserves to the copyright holder
    > > any right to control the distribution of the derivative work.


    > Good question. I don't know whether you can reproduce and
    > sell copies of your filled-in coloring book. I suspect not
    > if the lines showed, otherwise yes. I bet this has been
    > court-tested because paint-by-numbers was once a big thing.


    You almost certainly can provided you lawfully acquire one copy of the
    not-filled-in coloring book for each copy of the filled-in coloring
    book you distribute.

    DS


  6. Re: Glibc patent


    Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    > The right to prepare derivative works is a right beyond verbatim
    > copying of protected expression, but it still requires COPYING of
    > protected elements of expression. It's COPYright thing, Random832.


    If this were true, you could prepare and distribute binary patches of
    other people's software without running afoul of copyright. The patch
    is not a copy of any protected expression in the original work because
    the patch generation process removes any content that is already
    present in the original.

    This would mean I could create a patch to the Linux kernel and
    distribute a binary of the original Linux kernel, source to the
    original Linux kernel, and the binary patch to convert the binary of
    the original Linux kernel to the binary of my patched kernel without
    running afoul of the GPL. The source to the kernel binary is shipped,
    the binary patch is not a derivative work because nothing is copied
    from the Linux kernel, and the three programs are merely aggregated
    into the shipment.

    However, I think this is simply, but subtly, wrong. The reason is very
    simple -- if you couldn't prepare a derivative work without copying
    protected expression from the original, the grant of the exclusive
    right to prepare derivative works to the author would be pure
    surplussage. You can't copy protected expression anyway, so if you have
    to do that to prepare a derivative work, you already couldn't make one.

    In fact, in cases where the derivative work contains such protected
    expression, courts generally simply find infringement in the copying
    and don't even look at whether the work is a derivative work or not.
    Derivative works contain transformations or adaptations of the original
    work's protectable elements, not copies.

    See, for example, Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publishing.

    DS


  7. Re: Glibc patent


    JoelKatz wrote:
    [...]
    > One case involved software with a Y2K bug.


    Do you have a link?

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "Boycott Coca Cola Company"

    -- www.stallman.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8