[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL traitor !

Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:18:45 -0500
User-agent: slrn/ (Debian)

On 2009-05-07, Tim Smith <> wrote:
> In article <slrnh04da1.43u.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>     No, the question is whether or not code that is entirely dependent
>> on some other person's work for it's existence is a derivative work. This
>> question doesn't magically go away just because you take the GPL out of
>> the picture.
> The question of whether or not a work is "dependent on" someone else's 
> work doesn't even arise, because the relationship "dependent on" is not 
> a relationship that has any meaning in copyright law.

    Stop pretending to be a lawyer. It's a felony in most places.

> This is one of the reasons companies making video game consoles have to 
> use technological means to prevent unauthorized games from being 
> released for their systems, rather than simply suing unauthorized 
> produces for copyright violation.  After all, the games are dependent on 
> the operating system in the game console, so by your logic (and the 
> FSF's logic), you have to have permission to release the games.
> They initially did try the copyright approach, and fell flat on their 
> faces in court, because the games were not derivative works of the game 
> console's code.  Hence, the companies had to switch to code signing, or 
> using patented mechanical interfaces for their cartridges, so they could 
> nail unauthorized cartridge makers for patent infringement.
>>     If you tried to use this sort of rationale to argue that you can
>> freely make Star Trek novels, you would probably get your ass handed 
>> to you.
> Writing a Star Trek novel would involve copying characters, settings, 
> and such from the existing Star Trek works.  Hence, it would run into 

     IOW, it involves "defined interfaces".

     The relationship can be very direct, leading to what is essentially
a wholesale clone of someone else's original or it could be something that
bears as much resemblance to the original Star Trek as Forbidden Planet

> copyright problems.  (Gee...copying leads to copyright problems...who 
> would have expected that?).
> Writing source code that can call functions from a library does not 
> involve copying the library.  There might be some copying of structure 
> definitions for the interface, but those are functional elements of the 
> library that are not subject to copyright.


It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
        In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
        been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]