Burning music CDs
in [UK Linux]
|
From: unruh on 30 Jan 2010 12:39 On 2010-01-30, Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > In article <slrnhm7hd6.8s4.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >>GPL is also limited in what you can do with it-- with the source code as >>well. > > You are correct, the GPL is a just a contract that has a lower relevance > than a law. A contract like the GPL cannot allow you to break a law. Contracts have higher relevance than copyright law. I can give away my copyrights by a relevant contract. GPL is a license, not a contract ( a contract requires both people to agree to the contract, GPL, CDDL, etc do not. They are one sided imposition under copyright law). > > The FSF does e.g. break the Copyright law when redistributing code taken from > cdrtools under an alleged GPLv3 although the code in question never has > been published under a license that would allow redistibution under GPLv3. They certainly cannot place a different license than the originator did without his permission, since the originator still retains the copyright. If libcdio and vcdimager do use code from cdrtools, then they must abide by the license from cdrtools. Note that GPL 3 is legally incompatible with GPL1 and 2, more incompatible than CDDL and GPL2, I believe. > > This is why libcdio and vcdimager are illegal. > > The Copyright law disallows to remove Copyright markers from a work and this > is why the fork cdrkit is illegal. Certainly the original copyright owner retains that copyright. It is certainly a severe breach of ethics to hide the source of code that is being used. Whetehr it is illegal, I could not say, especially with the broad modification permission that the GPL gives. > > In former times, OSS people did honor the Copyright law and licenses but > during the past years this did change. Some people believe thy can do everything > with OSS software because it is OSS. When the hostile Debian packetizer > did start his attacks in May 2004, he was a young and unexperienced guy > who may just have been under bad influence. I however cannot understand why > the FSF also started to ignore the Copyght law. > > This kind of behavior is an attack against OSS as it causes OSS to get a > bad reputation. We, the OSS community need to find a way to make the OSS > ecosystem immune against such attacks. > > Whenever I had a problem with the license of a piece of software, I kindly > asked the author for the permission to change the license and I was alway > successful. It seems that in special in the aera of GPLd software people now > believe that the GPL causes the ownership taken from the authors and give > users any permission. This is of course not the case. People who first > do something with the code that is forbidden by law should not be amazed > if they do not get the permission in case they ask _after_ they did something > that requires the permission from the author. > > The interesting aspect of this social problem is that users of liberal > licenses like BSDl and CDDL do give more respect to the law than users > of restrictive licenses like the GPL. >
From: unruh on 30 Jan 2010 13:47 On 2010-01-30, Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > In article <slrnhm8rm1.hd6.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >>> You are correct, the GPL is a just a contract that has a lower relevance >>> than a law. A contract like the GPL cannot allow you to break a law. >> >>Contracts have higher relevance than copyright law. I can give away my >>copyrights by a relevant contract. GPL is a license, not a contract ( a >>contract requires both people to agree to the contract, GPL, CDDL, etc >>do not. They are one sided imposition under copyright law). > > A legal construct called "license" does not exist anywhere but in the USA > so please leus us take this apart (this is a EU oriented newsgroup). Sorry, but I do not believe that. Copyrights give the creator certain rights to control the copying of his work. A License is a document by which the creator gives permission to copy their work under certain circumstances. It binds only the creator, not the user, and thus can be a one sided agreement, since it does not limit the user, it expands what the user can do. A contract is a two person affair, where both are bound by the terms of the contract. It requres consent from both parties. Note that copyright can be "given away" in the EU. I have dealt with publishers in Germany. What you cannot in some cases give away are moral rights. Those are the rights to known ( or not known) as the creator of the work. (the US does not have moral rights concept-- there is only one concept , where rights to control copying and rights to be known as the author are one and the same.) But the right to control copying CAN be sold or given away, or whatever. > > For the same reason you seem to make other assumptions on the legal system > that do not apply here. You may e.g. give away all Copyrights in the USA > but you are not allowed to do so my law in Europe. You are certainly allowed to give away copyright. It is moral right that may be more constrained. > >>> The FSF does e.g. break the Copyright law when redistributing code taken from >>> cdrtools under an alleged GPLv3 although the code in question never has >>> been published under a license that would allow redistibution under GPLv3. >> >>They certainly cannot place a different license than the originator did >>without his permission, since the originator still retains the copyright. >> If libcdio and vcdimager do use code from cdrtools, then they must abide by the license >>from cdrtools. >> >>Note that GPL 3 is legally incompatible with GPL1 and 2, more >>incompatible than CDDL and GPL2, I believe. > > Correct > >>> The Copyright law disallows to remove Copyright markers from a work and this >>> is why the fork cdrkit is illegal. >> >>Certainly the original copyright owner retains that copyright. >>It is certainly a severe breach of ethics to hide the source of code >>that is being used. Whetehr it is illegal, I could not say, especially >>with the broad modification permission that the GPL gives. > > I know of no OSS projects other than this cdrkit fork where people other than > the author of the code did ever try to change or remove such markers. > It may well be true that that violates the "moral rights" of the author almost everywhere in the world except the USA. For those in the US, "moral rights" are not a statement about morality, it is a legal part of the copyright law almost everywhere concerned with the rights of the author to be known as the author of a piece of work (or not known-- you can refuse to be identified as the author of a work as well). Removal of the notice of who the author is of a work almost certainly is a violation of the law, everywhere but in the USA, where no such legal concept exists. Note that this is different from copyright-- the right to control copying of the work. That the author can give away, sell, etc, in some countries only for a limited period (eg 25 years or 50 years or 75 years) after which it reverts to the author. Both moral rights and copying rights are defined in the "Copyright Law" of most nations.
From: Tony Houghton on 30 Jan 2010 13:59 In <slrnhm8rm1.hd6.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > Certainly the original copyright owner retains that copyright. > It is certainly a severe breach of ethics to hide the source of code > that is being used. Whetehr it is illegal, I could not say, especially > with the broad modification permission that the GPL gives. cdrkit still credits cdrtools copyright holders, including Jorg Schilling, in its copyright notices. There are at least 2 reasons why his claims that it violates GPL-2 clause 2c are false: (a) The program itself isn't required to print a copyright notice unless it reads commands interactively eg a shell. (b) Even if it is interactive, it isn't necessary to print a copyright message if the original work didn't anyway. As cdrtools' copyright notice includes libellous comments about cdrkit, it was obviously added after the fork. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: unruh on 30 Jan 2010 17:36 On 2010-01-30, Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote: > In <slrnhm8rm1.hd6.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >> Certainly the original copyright owner retains that copyright. >> It is certainly a severe breach of ethics to hide the source of code >> that is being used. Whetehr it is illegal, I could not say, especially >> with the broad modification permission that the GPL gives. > > cdrkit still credits cdrtools copyright holders, including Jorg > Schilling, in its copyright notices. There are at least 2 reasons why > his claims that it violates GPL-2 clause 2c are false: > > (a) The program itself isn't required to print a copyright notice unless > it reads commands interactively eg a shell. > > (b) Even if it is interactive, it isn't necessary to print a copyright > message if the original work didn't anyway. As cdrtools' copyright > notice includes libellous comments about cdrkit, it was obviously added > after the fork. \?? And even if it did is no evidence that it did not display notices before the fork. Since Schilling keeps copies of all his editions, finding out would not be difficult. Note that your "rules" seem to have been made up on the spur of the moment and have no standing in copyright law. Where in the world do they come from. They seem to have the same standing as scientists common knowledge that if they take a picture or diagram from an old paper of theirs which they gave away the copyright to to the journal, if they alter some small thing in the diagram, it no longer falls under the old copyright. That is simply false, but most physicists if you ask them will tell you it is true. Note that my cdrecord states >cdrecord --scanbus Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01 Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01a65 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) 1995-2009 J�rg Schilling Linux sg driver version: 3.5.34 Exactly which of those statements is libelous? >
From: Tony Houghton on 30 Jan 2010 18:49
In <slrnhm9d3a.tnh.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-01-30, Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote: >> In <slrnhm8rm1.hd6.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, >> unruh <unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: >> >> cdrkit still credits cdrtools copyright holders, including Jorg >> Schilling, in its copyright notices. There are at least 2 reasons why >> his claims that it violates GPL-2 clause 2c are false: >> >> (a) The program itself isn't required to print a copyright notice unless >> it reads commands interactively eg a shell. >> >> (b) Even if it is interactive, it isn't necessary to print a copyright >> message if the original work didn't anyway. As cdrtools' copyright >> notice includes libellous comments about cdrkit, it was obviously added >> after the fork. [Snip] > Note that your "rules" seem to have been made up on the spur of the > moment and have no standing in copyright law. Where in the world do they > come from. They come from clause 2c of GPL-2. Are you seriously challenging that's what the GPL means? In other words do you claim the GPL deliberately states: (a) All GPL software must print a copyright notice regardless of whether it's interactive. (b) A fork must print whatever whimsy the maintainer of the original branch demands as a copyright notice. > They seem to have the same standing as scientists common > knowledge that if they take a picture or diagram from an old paper of theirs > which they gave away the copyright to to the journal, if they alter some > small thing in the diagram, it no longer falls under the old copyright. > That is simply false, but most physicists if you ask them will tell you > it is true. ....Quacks like a Creationist. > Note that my cdrecord states > >>cdrecord --scanbus > Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01 > Cdrecord-ProDVD-ProBD-Clone 2.01.01a65 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Copyright (C) > 1995-2009 J?rg Schilling > Linux sg driver version: 3.5.34 > > Exactly which of those statements is libelous? I don't care what "your" cdrecord states. It's well documented that earlier versions printed complaints about "bastardized and defective versions" being shipped with distros. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk |