hgb3D | 1 Dec 05:07 2004
Picon

What happend if (related GPL & src)

I have mailed this two messages to GCC and mesa3d

=========================================================FIRST
MESSAGE:

I have a question.

I will read or desire to read the source code of gcc, but if I for
example make some anotations or some work based in my notes, or I get
a idea of how to implement X thing,  or I think that certain idea is
nice, and then I make my own compiler this compiler should need by
under GPL?

>From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

[quote]*6.* Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based
on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.[/quote]

Altought I consider a little opaque the concept of the "programm" in
that licence, but anyway, I like that you answer first this question.

Hope you can help me out. 

===============================================END FIRST MESSAGE

(Continue reading)

David Kastrup | 1 Dec 09:52 2004
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: What happend if (related GPL & src)

hgb3d <at> yahoo.com.mx (hgb3D) writes:

> I have mailed this two messages to GCC and mesa3d

Complete wild unstructured mess mostly elided.  If your question is
not as important for you to put in a sensible form before posting,
what makes you think that it should be worth it for people to answer?

I recommend that you read the GPL FAQ
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>.  If you still have any
question remaining, you can ask back.

> I have a question.
>
> I will read or desire to read the source code of gcc, but if I for
> example make some anotations or some work based in my notes, or I
> get a idea of how to implement X thing, or I think that certain idea
> is nice, and then I make my own compiler this compiler should need
> by under GPL?

If it is a derived work under copyright law: if you are copying actual
codes, structures or other stuff.  Algorithms are not covered by
copyright, their expression is.

So basically if you are getting ideas, and then sleeping over them and
after having seen the code write something from scratch without
looking at the original code, and don't have a photographic memory,
than chances are pretty well that you are fine.  Copyright and patents
are two different things: in the case of a patent, not having seen the
original is not helpful: you may not even use the idea if you've come
(Continue reading)

Bruce Lewis | 1 Dec 08:20 2004
Picon

Re: Why are software patents wrong?

on you, they can
read it off of you by minutely examining your body.

And: it is the NSA driving the fingerprint-rollout of the national ID card.

#   "The Body As Password", By Ann Davis, Wired Magazine, July 1997
#   
#   Currently housed at the National Security Agency, a working group of
#   federal bureaucrats founded the Biometric Consortium in the early 1990s.
#   Its 1995 charter promises to "promote the science and performance of
#   biometrics for the government."
#   
#   Consortium mumbers include state welfare agencies, driver's license
#   bureaus, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Social Security
#   Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service.

If my attempts to show how bad a thing this is have been too rambling,
too abstract, here is a simple and accurate analogy:

*   "Project L.U.C.I.D.", by Texe Marrs, 1996, ISBN 1-884302-02-5
*
*   It was Martin Anderson who, in his book, Revolution, revealed that during
*   the Reagan administration during the 1980s, several top cabinet officials
*   we
Alexander Terekhov | 1 Dec 10:22 2004
Picon

Re: Why are software patents wrong?

*   
*   "No evidence of wrongdoing was ever produced. No charges were ever filed.
*   As far as anyone knows, Willie Jones neither uses drugs nor buys nor sells
*   them. He is a gardening contractor who bought an airplane ticket. Who lost
*   his hard-earned money to the cops." After a long legal battle and a lot of
*   publicity, Jones got his money back.
*   [snip]
*   
*   Paolo Alvarez: "I believe in God, but the government's seizure of all my
*   savings was really horrible. I felt trapped and I almost flipped out."
*   
*   Alvarez was a landscape contractor, cautious and frugal, who saved his
*   money. Several years ago, however, Alvarez began listening to the
*   speeches of Ross Perot, especially Perot's exaggerated [beat the drum
*   of fear] warnings that the nation's savings and loan institutions
*   were about to collapse. As a reult of mounting anxiety generated by
*   the Texas businessman, Alvarez decided to move the nest egg from his
*   savings and loan.
*   
*   He placed some of the money in a regular bank and hid the balance in
*   small caches around the house.
*   
*   When the sky did not fall, when Ross Perot's predictions did not come
*   true, Alvarez began slowly moving the cash in his house back into a
*   bank. Partly because of his fear of a possible robbery, he chose to
*   redeposit his money in relatively small amounts, 
Bruce Lewis | 1 Dec 08:01 2004
Picon

Re: Why are software patents wrong?

--------- ------- --- ----- ----------

Newspeak: "It's never been abused, and we are doing this to protect you."

*   Dorothy "DoubleThink" Denning, "Encryption and Law Enforcement", 2/21/1994
*
*   Although there is no evidence of widespread abuse of wiretaps by law
*   enforcement officials, Key Escrow will effectively thwart any
*   potential abuse, thereby providing greater protection from illegal
*   government wiretaps than currently exists.

It is astonishing the extent the U.S. government feels its citizens and
the world's population must by spied upon.

The U.S. Government wants all communication systems in the world to be
designed so they can spy on it.

The U.S. Government wants to know every banking transaction in the world
in real-time.

What does it look like to you?

*   "Project L.U.C.I.D.", by Texe Marrs, 1996, ISBN 1-884302-02-5
*   
*   [The joint Australian/NSA building contains:]
*   A small, but highly significant, part of the building is, in fact,
*   occupied by Telecom. This is the part that contains the networking
*   junctions for the optical-fiber lines leased by the banks for their
*   "Electronic Funds Transfer System" (EFTS). ALL financial transactions
*   for the banks pass through there via subsidiary company, "Funds
(Continue reading)

Alexander Terekhov | 1 Dec 12:14 2004
Picon

Re: What happend if (related GPL & src)


David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Anyway: what is a derived work is not defined by the GPL, but by
> copyright law.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html

regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup | 1 Dec 13:43 2004
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: What happend if (related GPL & src)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyway: what is a derived work is not defined by the GPL, but by
>> copyright law.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html

Where you quote RMS as saying that a derived work is not defined by
the GPL, but by copyright law.

What's your point?

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
David Kastrup | 1 Dec 14:44 2004
X-Face
Picon
Picon

Re: What happend if (related GPL & src)

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Anyway: what is a derived work is not defined by the GPL, but by
>> >> copyright law.
>> >
>> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html
>> 
>> Where you quote RMS as saying that a derived work is not defined by
>> the GPL, but by copyright law.
>> 
>> What's your point?
>
> Read the rest.

In short, none even remotely relevant to the question.  You are being
your customary asinine self again.

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Alexander Terekhov | 1 Dec 14:15 2004
Picon

Re: What happend if (related GPL & src)


David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Anyway: what is a derived work is not defined by the GPL, but by
> >> copyright law.
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html
> 
> Where you quote RMS as saying that a derived work is not defined by
> the GPL, but by copyright law.
> 
> What's your point?

Read the rest.

regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov | 1 Dec 15:11 2004
Picon

Re: What happend if (related GPL & src)


David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> writes:
> >>
> >> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> Anyway: what is a derived work is not defined by the GPL, but by
> >> >> copyright law.
> >> >
> >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00390.html
> >>
> >> Where you quote RMS as saying that a derived work is not defined by
> >> the GPL, but by copyright law.
> >>
> >> What's your point?
> >
> > Read the rest.
> 
> In short, none even remotely relevant to the question.  

Try again. Although I'm afraid that since you're reading-
comprehension-impaired, it probably won't help.

regards,
alexander.
(Continue reading)


Gmane