From: unruh on 15 Feb 2010 12:56
On 2010-02-15, Joerg Schilling <js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <slrnhn1l1r.5as.pm(a)nowster.eternal-september.org>,
> Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote:
>>A quick Google search throws up instances of German courts upholding
>>the GPL. I posted links to three of them for you earlier today.
> "A quick...." is the general problem with all answers I've seen
> so far from "Paul Martin".
> In order to understand what's going on, you would need to read and understand
> the substanciation for the judgement written by the judge.
> If you do this, you will find that the court did only look at a single
> sentence of the GPL and checked whether this single sentence might be in
> conflict with the Copyright law.
> The judge was very obvious that looking at the GPL in whole would result
> in a decision that would call the claims in the GPL invalid. The judge
> write that he intentionally only looked at the single sentence as this
> was the only part that was of interest for the claims of Harald Welte.
> As I am used to read substanciation for the judgements, I know that this
> specific wording was intended as a warning to Harald Welte not to expand
> his claims in future cases......
> So the conclusions we can draw from this substanciation for the judgement
> is that the explanations from my laywer from 2001 (when I tried to sue two
> companies and failed) is: They both confirm the GPL review from Lawrence
> Rosen is that most of the claims from the GPL would not stand in court.
I think that you are going a bit too far here. As I read Rosen, he is
very dubious that the claim by some of the GPL that if program A links
with library B, and B is under the GPL, that the resultant running binary
is a derived program of both A and B under copyright law, and thus
must fall under the GPL license, and furthermore that that derived program would
have been copied or distributed under copyright law ( GPL specifically
excludes performance as part of it purview.) Ie, does the fact that
cdrecord or lscg, CDDL programs, link with GPL programs place the result
under both CDDL and GPL which are claimed to be incompatible? Rosen is
HIGHLy dubious that any court would find this to be the case, especially
since the courts will put as as liberal (for the
consumer/user/distributor) as possible on this. Since the GPL explicitly
is not a contract, but states that it derives its force solely from
copyright law, it is copyright law that is important.
"Derived work" is a very tricky and amorphous concept in copyright law
as I understand it.
For example, SCO more of less claims that if work A has ever occupied the same disk
as work B then A is derived from B (yes, a slight overstatement). Some
seem to claim that if work A links with work B, then work A is a
derivative work of B. I find it really strange that a number of people
in the open source community would essentially be making the same
arguments as SCO has made.
This seems to me to be what Rosen doubts, and may be what the judge in the
German court hinted that he doubted, not "most of the claims from the
From: unruh on 22 Feb 2010 16:48
On 2010-02-22, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnhnl222.if1.pm(a)nowster.eternal-september.org>,
> Paul Martin wrote:
>> In article <7tt8mbFu6qU1(a)mid.dfncis.de>,
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> In article <slrnhn1l1r.5as.pm(a)nowster.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote:
>>> So the conclusions we can draw from this substanciation for the judgement
>>> is that the explanations from my laywer from 2001 (when I tried to sue two
>>> companies and failed) is: They both confirm the GPL review from Lawrence
>>> Rosen is that most of the claims from the GPL would not stand in court.
>> So, could you tell us all WHICH clauses in GPLv2 cause problems under
>> German law? Are you able to tell us some background about your failed
>> attempt to sue these companies (eg. what had they done, in your
>> opinion, that breached the GPL)?
> Interesting. Joerg has neglected to respond. One can only presume that
> his complaint was either vexatious or frivolous. I would like to be
> proved wrong in my assumption.
Or that he did not want to respond to you-- he may have regarded your
questions as vexatious or frivolous. The evidence is against your
statement "I would like to be proved wrong in my assumption."
If you read his web page, one of the issues is that question of whether
or not linking with a program creates a "derivative work" under
copyright law. Another is the relation between GPL works and "moral
rights" ( a concept which exists in various forms everywhere in the
world except the USA, where the GPL was written). Exactly what he tried
to sue for I do not know.
From: unruh on 22 Feb 2010 19:53
On 2010-02-22, Paul Martin <pm(a)nowster.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnho5utb.n21.unruh(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>,
> unruh wrote:
>> If you read his web page, one of the issues is that question of whether
>> or not linking with a program creates a "derivative work" under
>> copyright law.
> Static linking: does make a derivative work under the GPL (but not
> under the LGPL). Dynamic linking: maybe. That's the view of Linus and
> many others. The kernel has some interfaces which are not exposed to
> non-GPL modules.
Uh, what is and is not a derivative work is a matter for the courts to
decide, not Linus or you or Schilling. The question is what side the
courts would decide on. This is one of the issues in the SCO bs IBM
fight as I understand it. SCO has a very liberal view of what a
derivative work is ( Ie, it believes that many many things make a work
derivative). This is why I find it sometimes strange that sometimes the
most fervent GPL defenders start sounding much like some of the greatest
enemies of GPL.
>> Another is the relation between GPL works and "moral rights" (a
>> concept which exists in various forms everywhere in the world except
>> the USA, where the GPL was written). Exactly what he tried to sue
>> for I do not know.
> Which "moral rights" did Joerg wish to exercise?
> The USA has such a concept, eg:
No it does not have any separate category of moral rights, and if you
read that wikipedia entry you will see that the courts have always
excluded that as a concept in US law. Now, some of the rights under
copyright law could be argued to include what are defined as moral
rights in the rest of the world, but there is no separate category. You
cannot for example transfer copyright but keep moral rights in the US.
Once you have transfered copyright you are finished. The owner of the
copyright has all of the rights. This is not true in the rest of the
world. Thus, under the GPL, one has licensed copyright but not moral
rights. You must respect the author's desires as to attribution for
example, even after having given the copyright license.
> Incidentally, the CDDL says nothing about moral rights.
> One wonders whether the other authors of cdrecord were consulted about
> Joerg's complaint.
Have you informed everyone who has ever contributed to Linux of your "complaints"?
I assume that Joerg has obtained permission from the other authors to
release the components of cdrecord under the licenses he uses, and if
not it is up to them to complain to him, or ultimately the courts.
> The problem for us is that from the nature of Joerg's public
> pronouncements, one is led to think the worst.
What is the "worst"?
From: Nigel Feltham on 24 Feb 2010 19:32
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> My stereo system is quite old, consisting of Garrard 301 deck with an SME
> arm and Shure V15 cartridge driving a Quad 33/303 amp and Celestion
> Ditton 44 speakers. It has other sound sources too: a Quad FM3 tuner,
> Nakamichi BX-125 tape deck, Sony CDP338 CD player and (recently added) a
> Roku Soundbridge internet radio tuner.
When it comes to HiFi then old doesn't necessarily imply bad, especially
when it comes to the classic 301/SME/V15 combo (I personally use a Garrard
401 / SME Series 2 Improved removable shell version and Goldring 1042 cart)
and most of your other hardware (I'm using a late 60's Rogers Cadet III
valve/tube amp myself).
In fact the sales of used Garrard 301 and 401 models got so high a few years
ago one of the bigger dealers in the used decks and spares bought the name
and introduced models 501 and 601 based on the original 50's garrard designs
- hifi shows in the UK still often have 401's in use as source to demo new
amp and speaker products as well (I'm attending a yearly one in Bristol on
Sunday and expect to see at least one model 401 there - at either last
year's show or the one before one company even launched a new slate plinth
for the 301/401 models).
Amazing really that technology that was supposed to be not only killed off
by the CD back in 1982 but by japanese belt drive turntables before that
still performs at a level to match the best new kit (All these garrard
models including the 501/601 are idler/rim drive - technology once laughed
From: Martin Gregorie on 25 Feb 2010 11:42
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:32:31 +0000, Nigel Feltham wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> My stereo system is quite old, consisting of Garrard 301 deck with an
>> SME arm and Shure V15 cartridge driving a Quad 33/303 amp and Celestion
>> Ditton 44 speakers. It has other sound sources too: a Quad FM3 tuner,
>> Nakamichi BX-125 tape deck, Sony CDP338 CD player and (recently added)
>> a Roku Soundbridge internet radio tuner.
> When it comes to HiFi then old doesn't necessarily imply bad, especially
> when it comes to the classic 301/SME/V15 combo (I personally use a
> Garrard 401 / SME Series 2 Improved removable shell version and Goldring
> 1042 cart) and most of your other hardware (I'm using a late 60's Rogers
> Cadet III valve/tube amp myself).
Yeah, mines also a SME Series 2 with removable head shell.
> Amazing really that technology that was supposed to be not only killed
> off by the CD back in 1982 but by japanese belt drive turntables before
> that still performs at a level to match the best new kit (All these
> garrard models including the 501/601 are idler/rim drive - technology
> once laughed at).
Indeed. I've never understood why it works so well.
The real step backward, though, is the direct drive turntable, especially
when supplied with a lightweight low-inertia plastic platter. Ugh. I once
saw direct drive described as using a road drill as the turntable support.
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK