Date: 22 Dec 2001 16:09:14 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009402429.602581@mired.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <mi4rmivlud.rmi@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <15395.43708.816636.295489@guru.mired.org> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/Pine.LNX.4.43.0112181134500.21473-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011218110645.A2061@tisys.org> <200112182010.fBIKA9739621@prism.flugsvamp.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost> <20011219091631.Q377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <0en10ey5jo.10e@localhost.localdomain> <20011219215548.D76354@prism.flugsvamp.com> <lpellpwlhe.llp@localhost.localdomain> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> <fxlmfxukw9.mfx@localhost.localdomain> <15394.56866.830152.580700@guru.mired.org> <18d718uuw2.718@localhost.localdomain> <15395.43708.816636.295489@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009402429.602581@mired.org> writes:
> Slight change. Let's make S originally a BSDL source, but what A gets
> is a binary under their license, as allowed by the BSDL. Would you
> thereby claim that C's actions places a requirement on B to provide
> source to S to A if they want it? Or would B no longer be allowed to
> distribute a binary built from S without that requirement?
This looks very interesting. New stuff. But I need more info before
spending more time on it. What is "their license" (of S to A)? Is it a
standard BSDL or a private, two-party thing? I infer that S has been
licensed to the public under BSDL, but not distributed. Did you mean
that?
Note that my quick re-read of a BSDL reveals no reason it couldn't be
used in a private license, but I haven't thought through what the
implications of such private license would have on source or binary.
This makes me worry how I prove that the BSDL code I derive from is
really under public BSDL or is just a copy of privately-BSDL'd code
which I've obtained. Maybe it makes no difference. ????
As to the source-binary thing, I don't know how to explain it well,
probably because I don't understand it as well as I would like. I'm
quite sure that compilation and linking isn't an act of authorship
sufficient to make the binary a work deserving of copyright protection
apart from the sources (code and "make" files, etc). Probably the best
way to look at binaries is as one kind of tangible copy of the single
intangible work. 17 USC 102 (beginning):
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device.
Maybe a binary is just one kind of medium of expression of the work.
Another way to approach it is as a translation. I think (human)
translations are legally worthy of separate, or I should say, additional
copyrights, with the translated work being copyrighted by two parties.
But I doubt that this applies to either machine translation (unless the
courts find the translator an extention of it's human designer) or
compilation and linking.
I suppose the act of linking is a kind of author-ish act which could be
done without benefit of source material of the "make" kind. So, yes, I
guess it's possible that a binary could be created which embodies a work
which is separate from it's source code. But I'd probably argue that
there is still an intangible selection of other works from which the
binary copy is generated. Maybe you'd care to work that into your
scenario, but I hope not; it's too weird.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?mi4rmivlud.rmi>