Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The GPL is an approved Open source license, so you are the one who is wrong. [3]
The GPL itself is approved but a GPL + geographical restriction would contradict the "definition". That's not the only contradiction though and this is why they had to explicitly state that the GPL is compatible with this "definition". But what can you expect when you write "guidelines" and then change the name to call them a "definition" ?-)
The key here is to understand that this "definition" is really a set of "guidelines" to help you figure out if a license is Free Software. As long as you keep this in mind, you're safe. You need a lot more background material to figure if a license is Free Software.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
You could argue that they could get a PC and then use it, so it isn't discriminating.
If so, then if I said "Jews aren't allowed to use this software', then is that? You could argue that they could denounce their faith and become muslims, and then use it...
Just being difficult, JohnFlux
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
Yes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 04 May 2002 6:17 pm, you wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
Yes.
But it can't - I'd be stating a fact.
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:02:19PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
On Saturday 04 May 2002 6:17 pm, you wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
Yes.
But it can't - I'd be stating a fact.
No. There are many uses, like: * using on a mobile phone, game console or other non-PC * reading printed sources * etc.
On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 19:07, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:02:19PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
On Saturday 04 May 2002 6:17 pm, you wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
Yes.
But it can't - I'd be stating a fact.
No. There are many uses, like:
- using on a mobile phone, game console or other non-PC
- reading printed sources
- etc.
I suspect you're taking John's words too literally, if he's, in reality, using PC to mean any electronic/mechanical device capable of running the software.
Cheers,
* Tomasz Wegrzanowski writes:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must
not discriminate against any person or group of > persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
Yes.
So you are saying that anyone without a car is being discriminated because they cannot drive on a highway (this particular highway only allows cars :)? That is just hilarious.
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:17:36PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
Yes.
Notice that in item 8 of the GPL is not "the license" who is discriminating against anyone; it is just a reminder that somebody else (for instance a paranoid state who thinks comunists are dangerous criminals) has decided to forbid some individuals to have equal access to technology. It is not the holder of the copyright who has decided that.
Jaime
* Jaime E Villate writes:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:17:36PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote: > > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of > > persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access
to PC's, > would I be discriminating?
Yes.
Notice that in item 8 of the GPL is not "the license" who is discriminating against anyone; it is just a reminder that somebody else (for instance a paranoid state who thinks comunists are dangerous criminals) has decided to forbid some individuals to have equal access to technology. It is not the holder of the copyright who has decided that.
Wrong, please read the section again. A communist is a person, it specifically states a geographical territory, not a group of people.
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:43:31PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Notice that in item 8 of the GPL is not "the license" who is discriminating against anyone; it is just a reminder that somebody else (for instance a paranoid state who thinks comunists are dangerous criminals) has decided to forbid some individuals to have equal access to technology. It is not the holder of the copyright who has decided that.
Wrong, please read the section again. A communist is a person, it specifically states a geographical territory, not a group of people.
You're right, what I meant to say was: "for instance a paranoid state whou thinks that anyone living in a comunist country is a dangerous criminal" and of course, this is just a hypothetical example I came up with; any resemblance to real cases should be mere coincidence.
Jaime
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:53:48PM +0100, Jaime E . Villate wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:43:31PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Notice that in item 8 of the GPL is not "the license" who is discriminating against anyone; it is just a reminder that somebody else (for instance a paranoid state who thinks comunists are dangerous criminals) has decided to forbid some individuals to have equal access to technology. It is not the holder of the copyright who has decided that.
Wrong, please read the section again. A communist is a person, it specifically states a geographical territory, not a group of people.
You're right, what I meant to say was: "for instance a paranoid state whou thinks that anyone living in a comunist country is a dangerous criminal" and of course, this is just a hypothetical example I came up with; any resemblance to real cases should be mere coincidence.
There are enough real cases, Irak to name an example.
Jeroen Dekkers
* John Tapsell writes:
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not
discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
You could argue that they could get a PC and then use it, so it isn't discriminating.
If so, then if I said "Jews aren't allowed to use this software', then is that? You could argue that they could denounce their faith and become muslims, and then use it...
Getting a computer and denouncing ones faith cannot be compared, that is like comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a physical object like a computer with a faith.
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:14:59PM +0100, John Tapsell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
What does it mean to discriminate against a group of people btw? If I said this program cannot be used by anyone who has no access to PC's, would I be discriminating?
You could argue that they could get a PC and then use it, so it isn't discriminating.
If so, then if I said "Jews aren't allowed to use this software', then is that? You could argue that they could denounce their faith and become muslims, and then use it...
Just being difficult,
We all know open source, including the OSD, is flawed. Does it really matter to argue about this? Other than that, I haven't seen this option of the GPL used. I worry more about the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but that's also known to be flawed (in relation with the GNU FDL). And at least they call it guidelines instead of definition.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:54:22PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
We all know open source, including the OSD, is flawed. Does it really matter to argue about this? Other than that, I haven't seen this option of the GPL used. I worry more about the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but that's also known to be flawed (in relation with the GNU FDL). And at least they call it guidelines instead of definition.
No, it's not. DFSG is perfect, it's GFDL what is flawed. GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is proprietary license.
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 10:54:22PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
We all know open source, including the OSD, is flawed. Does it really matter to argue about this? Other than that, I haven't seen this option of the GPL used. I worry more about the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but that's also known to be flawed (in relation with the GNU FDL). And at least they call it guidelines instead of definition.
No, it's not. DFSG is perfect, it's GFDL what is flawed.
No, the first flaw of the DFSG is that it only goes about software and not about documentation.
GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is proprietary license.
It isn't, it only takes away freedoms you can't do anything useful with and is generally only abused. The same does the GPL.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:40:40AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
No, it's not. DFSG is perfect, it's GFDL what is flawed.
No, the first flaw of the DFSG is that it only goes about software and not about documentation.
There was always lot of documentation in Debian. If FSF didn't introduce completely broken GFDL, it would all be alright.
GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is proprietary license.
It isn't, it only takes away freedoms you can't do anything useful
Not having to publish crap is something very useful.
with and is generally only abused. The same does the GPL.
Have you ever worked with open/free documentation ?
It would completely destroy Wikipedia if we allowed some 'invariant sections'.
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:41:48AM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:40:40AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
No, it's not. DFSG is perfect, it's GFDL what is flawed.
No, the first flaw of the DFSG is that it only goes about software and not about documentation.
There was always lot of documentation in Debian.
I've read part of the discussion.
If FSF didn't introduce completely broken GFDL, it would all be alright.
It isn't broken, it's a good license, only the reasoning might be difficult to understand.
GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is proprietary license.
It isn't, it only takes away freedoms you can't do anything useful
Not having to publish crap is something very useful.
Why?
with and is generally only abused. The same does the GPL.
Have you ever worked with open/free documentation ?
I work with it on a dialy base. Most of the documenation I work with is under the GNU FDL.
It would completely destroy Wikipedia if we allowed some 'invariant sections'.
Why? What's wrong with an invariant section telling why wikipedia was created? Or to raise money for the project?
Jeroen Dekkers
On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 00:41, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 12:40:40AM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
GFDL with "invariant sections" or some "front/back cover" things is proprietary license.
It isn't, it only takes away freedoms you can't do anything useful
Not having to publish crap is something very useful.
You have not read carefully what GFDL states and do not consider that documentation has some real difference from software. You cannot threat toughts and software exactly the same way.
with and is generally only abused. The same does the GPL.
Have you ever worked with open/free documentation ?
It would completely destroy Wikipedia if we allowed some 'invariant sections'.
Many of us have worked with documentation, have you ever read any doco on www.gnu.org site? What licence do they have? Do you think that is bad?
The possibility to modify a software is obviously a good thing! The possibility to modify a technical document to update or correct it is of course a very good thing (and GFDL permit it if used correctly)!
But the possibility to change a person's toughts is NOT!
If in a document I say: "I think Free Software is a good thing!" and I licence the document under GPL, you are entitle to change (without even notify me) it to be: "I think Free Software is a BAD thing!".
Now do you think this is fair? What is the meaning of permitting other people to change MY toughts?
They are MY toughts not something general that is useful to change, I'm the only entitled to change my toughts, so applying invariant sections to personal toughts is The Right Thing! and GFDL is the right way to preserve the ability to correct wrong or outdated techincal statements without changing the philosophical/political/whatever personal opinions of the author.
Stating that GFDL is not a valid free documentation license, is just a miscomprension of this point.
Sincerely, Simo.
Simo Sorce simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
If in a document I say: "I think Free Software is a good thing!" and I licence the document under GPL, you are entitle to change (without even notify me) it to be: "I think Free Software is a BAD thing!".
Now do you think this is fair? What is the meaning of permitting other people to change MY toughts?
Quoting: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Rather, it is clearly marked as a combination of your thoughts and theirs. In that, even the above edit is accurately described. There's nothing to stop someone making a program that you have authored display the above untrue message anyway.
Simo:
If in a document I say: "I think Free Software is a good thing!" and I licence the document under GPL, you are entitle to change (without even notify me) it to be: "I think Free Software is a BAD thing!".
Now do you think this is fair? What is the meaning of permitting other people to change MY toughts?
Mark:
Quoting: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Rather, it is clearly marked as a combination of your thoughts and theirs. In that, even the above edit is accurately described.
True. Still, there is a great difference. A program usually has little "philosophy" in it, it's mostly practical work. If a derived program doesn't work properly people just doesn't use it and will most likely be able to retrieve the original program by the original author. There is little damage to the original author if the modified program doesn't work.
On the other hand, one can read a modified document and not understand that it "doesn't work". Such a document can be printed on paper, so the reader can't readily get to the original document. And even if there is "prominent notice" of every file that has been changed, it's rarely read.
So I agree with Simo that the GPL isn't really suited to more-than-trivial documentation works, and invariant sections are an important feature. This even though I agree with Mark that the "prominent notice" part of the GPL is a very important issue, even though it's too often forgotten.
I also think that "verbatim copying is permitted" is the best license for non-documentation writings.
[PS: I know perfectly that my own use of the FDL hasn't been completely consistent with these ideas. I know my errors: raising them here won't lead to anything. If anyone wants more details please write me offlist]
/alessandro
Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnu.org wrote:
[...] A program usually has little "philosophy" in it, it's mostly practical work.
I thought the GNU documentation licence was intended for manuals?
[...] There is little damage to the original author if the modified program doesn't work.
If it works in an "incorrect manner", does it damage the original author? Is the author harmed if their software is modified to help run and promote a detestable organisation?
[...] Such a document can be printed on paper, so the reader can't readily get to the original document.
Programs may be run disconnected from a network.
[...] And even if there is "prominent notice" of every file that has been changed, it's rarely read.
I think people normally read the author's names on the "cover".
[...] I also think that "verbatim copying is permitted" is the best license for non-documentation writings.
That may be the case, if you purely want to spread your opinion. It's not a Free licence, though, is it? It doesn't help people to build upon your work, unless you allow "verbatim copying in whole or part with attribution".
Despite its name, the GFDL appears not to give the full freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute. After thinking about this some more, I think Debian are probably correct to classify it as non-free and FSFE may wish to consider asking GNU to fix their licence, even only the name.
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 12:23:16PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnu.org wrote:
[...] A program usually has little "philosophy" in it, it's mostly practical work.
I thought the GNU documentation licence was intended for manuals?
It's intented for documentation. That documentation can have a section about the philosophy related of the thing documented, e.g. the GNU manifesto could be included to say why a specific GNU program was created.
[...] There is little damage to the original author if the modified program doesn't work.
If it works in an "incorrect manner", does it damage the original author? Is the author harmed if their software is modified to help run and promote a detestable organisation?
You fail to see that a program is somethings functional and documentation is not and you have to treat is like that.
[...] Such a document can be printed on paper, so the reader can't readily get to the original document.
Programs may be run disconnected from a network.
Documentation can also be read on the moon using software which runs disconnected from earth's network. What's your point?
[...] And even if there is "prominent notice" of every file that has been changed, it's rarely read.
I think people normally read the author's names on the "cover".
But you say that the requirements to put the right things on the cover are bad, don't you?
[...] I also think that "verbatim copying is permitted" is the best license for non-documentation writings.
That may be the case, if you purely want to spread your opinion. It's not a Free licence, though, is it? It doesn't help people to build upon your work, unless you allow "verbatim copying in whole or part with attribution".
Despite its name, the GFDL appears not to give the full freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute.
It the a free *documentation*, not a *free* software license. You are naming things which are in the definition of free software.
After thinking about this some more, I think Debian are probably correct to classify it as non-free and FSFE may wish to consider asking GNU to fix their licence, even only the name.
Debian doesn't classify the license as a non-free documentation license, all documentation licensed under the FDL are in main and there are no plans to move it to non-free. There is no reason the FSFE should ask GNU to reconsider.
Jeroen Dekkers
Jeroen Dekkers jeroen@dekkers.cx wrote:
It's intented for documentation. That documentation can have a section about the philosophy related of the thing documented, e.g. the GNU manifesto could be included to say why a specific GNU program was created.
If so, that should be licensed on its own under a different licence.
You fail to see that a program is somethings functional and documentation is not and you have to treat is like that.
Why do you think the meaning of freedom changes depending on the authored work being described? I don't think it should.
Documentation can also be read on the moon using software which runs disconnected from earth's network. What's your point?
There is no reason to change our beliefs if it is more difficult to obtain the original in some cases than in others.
But you say that the requirements to put the right things on the cover are bad, don't you?
I did not say that. Do you say that you want to decide whether the author's name appears on the cover?
It the a free *documentation*, not a *free* software license. You are naming things which are in the definition of free software.
Why are they not valid for free software documentation?
Debian doesn't classify the license as a non-free documentation license, all documentation licensed under the FDL are in main and there are no plans to move it to non-free. There is no reason the FSFE should ask GNU to reconsider.
Debian only calls it free if none of the restrictive sections are used. That is my understanding, at least, eg from Branden Robinson's message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg00522.html
Feel free to point out any flaws in my logic. I'm sure you will. The belief that the type of authored work is irrelevant is not one.
On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 15:53, MJ Ray wrote:
Debian doesn't classify the license as a non-free documentation license, all documentation licensed under the FDL are in main and there are no plans to move it to non-free. There is no reason the FSFE should ask GNU to reconsider.
Debian only calls it free if none of the restrictive sections are used. That is my understanding, at least, eg from Branden Robinson's message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200204/msg00522.html
I was of the understanding that this was just another 'bug' in the guidelines, which were written with software in mind rather than software + documentation + (etc.). I don't believe Debian, as an organisation, actually has policy about this at the moment -
Feel free to point out any flaws in my logic. I'm sure you will. The belief that the type of authored work is irrelevant is not one.
I think what you're missing is that invariance in technical works (those areas the GFDL protects) are actually more related to licensing than the work itself.
With the GPL, you have several invariant sections in the software. You have the copyright notice (although, this invariance is caused by the law, not the GPL). You have the licence, which in this case is semi-invarient. However, everything else constitutes the 'technical' work and as such is variant (what is not code is surely documentation, after all :).
With the GFDL, invariant sections - while wider - are meant to cover the same thing. Written work is legally quite different from software, so you need to say how the work can be used. You need to say who can publish it. We're talking about licensing, copyright, redistribution; not the technical content of the work.
If a document has large areas the contribute to the technical work but are marked invariant under the GFDL (which is what is at issue here?), then it's simple - the GFDL has been incorrectly applied. That's like me licensing a program as GPL but not giving people the source.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
With the GFDL, invariant sections - while wider - are meant to cover the same thing. Written work is legally quite different from software, so you need to say how the work can be used. You need to say who can publish it. We're talking about licensing, copyright, redistribution; not the technical content of the work.
I think "while wider" is the key phrase. For GPL'd software, you have the bare legal minimum invariance to achieve the intended effect, but the GFDL goes far beyond that. Why? To copyright law, isn't software just another written work? We still need to say how software can be used and who can republish it.
The GFDL extends the invariance to include any advertisements (be they political, commercial or other) supplied with the documentation and each new author or publisher may add their own. It doesn't require much imagination to see that this isn't really a good idea and has little to do with preserving freedom. Aren't these restrictions on our freedom to modify just a sop to current commercial publishers? If we can't work with the present system on our terms, let's change the system, not our terms.
If a document has large areas the contribute to the technical work but are marked invariant under the GFDL (which is what is at issue here?), then it's simple - the GFDL has been incorrectly applied. That's like me licensing a program as GPL but not giving people the source.=20
The GFDL also drops the requirement to make the source material available in some cases, doesn't it? I still don't see why GFDL warrants a "Free" in its name, nor why this licence is preferred to GPL'ing manuals, possibly with an alternative licence for some parts which we don't want to be updated.
On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 18:22, MJ Ray wrote:
I think "while wider" is the key phrase. For GPL'd software, you have the bare legal minimum invariance to achieve the intended effect, but the GFDL goes far beyond that.
You're begging the question now ;) Yes, the GFDL does go further. You've not established that it goes beyond the minimum necessary to function as intended... if you assume that it does go beyond the minimum, then of course you can argue it's a non-free licence. I think it's clear that a number of key functions are intended, though, and that the GFDL is the minimum required to meet them.
The GFDL extends the invariance to include any advertisements (be they political, commercial or other) supplied with the documentation and each new author or publisher may add their own.
Which section are you referring to here? I have read the GFDL over twice now, and I can't even see the word 'advertisement', and neither can my find. Are you talking about the 'Endorsements' section?
The GFDL also drops the requirement to make the source material available in some cases, doesn't it?
Again, where? The only case I can think of is when you are distributing less than 100 opaque verbatim non-printed copies - is this what you find problematic? The verbatim copy still refers to the original source, and no modifications have been made. The verbatim copy is also under the GFDL, so you can still make verbatim copies of that copy.
The GFDL is aimed at reference and technical works, and there are well-established rules about authorship, citation, endorsement, etc. I think this is why it is more complex than the GPL in this regard. However, I don't buy that it's non-free - the technical information, the whole value of the document, is freely modifyable and distributable. That's all that matters to me, really, the rest is etiquette.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
[...] I think it's clear that a number of key functions are intended, though, and that the GFDL is the minimum required to meet them.=20
Do these "functions" include restricting the freedom to modify beyond what is absolutely required?
Which section are you referring to here? I have read the GFDL over twice now, and I can't even see the word 'advertisement', and neither can my find. Are you talking about the 'Endorsements' section?
No, I am speaking of invariant sections, which (because they may not be technical content) are pretty much advertisements under another name, as far as I can see.
The GFDL is aimed at reference and technical works, and there are well-established rules about authorship, citation, endorsement, etc. I think this is why it is more complex than the GPL in this regard.
Yes, that may be the problem. The GFDL is trying to play in the established book market, which tries to restrict the freedom of authors and readers. I think it hands too much power to publishers.
However, I don't buy that it's non-free - the technical information, the whole value of the document, is freely modifyable and distributable. That's all that matters to me, really, the rest is etiquette.
How can you say that it is "non-free"? Far too much of it may be unmodifiable and have to be passed on with every copy.
Leave the etiquette as etiquette instead of trying to encode it in a licence which makes the documentation unusable in certain situations that you didn't consider. The technical value can be made copyleft better under other licences instead of this one.
On Seg, 2002-05-06 at 18:22, MJ Ray wrote:
goes far beyond that. Why? To copyright law, isn't software just another written work? We still need to say how software can be used and who can republish it.
No, to copyright law software is not just another written work. There are specific restrictions that only apply to software, like the prohibition of decompiling and the protection given to databases. Some countries even go further than that, by not allowing circumvention of some technical protection measurements. So no, software is not just another written work, nor in copyright law, nor in its own nature.
Sorry for I am so late, but I see there was no follow up to this message. I change the subject, it is more appropriate to me :-)
Il lun, 2002-05-06 alle 22:50, João Miguel Neves ha scritto:
On Seg, 2002-05-06 at 18:22, MJ Ray wrote:
goes far beyond that. Why? To copyright law, isn't software just another written work? We still need to say how software can be used and who can republish it.
No, to copyright law software is not just another written work.
In Europe, the Council Directive 91/250/EC on the legal protection of comuputer programs states (art. 1) that computer programs are protected al literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention.
There are specific restrictions that only apply to software,
Absolutely true, but they are additional provisions, not *different* provisions.
like the prohibition of decompiling
Absolutely *wrong*. It's a whide spread mistake (what a pity). The same directive states: ------------------------- Art. 6. Decompilation. 1. the authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where the reproduction of the code and translation of its form [...] are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability [...] ------------------------
In EU Community, Decompiling is under restrictions, not prohibited. I hope the same applies to the rest of the world :-).
and the protection given to databases.
Databases are not software and are not "protected" by the same laws.
Some countries even go further than that, by not allowing circumvention of some technical protection measurements.
This are the very new development of copyright. :-(
Anyway, EUCD clearly states that the whole directive (2001/29/EC) does in no way affect the legal protection of *computer programs* (art. 1: scope). Furthermore, "whereas # 50" states that the legal protection of tech measures (provided in EUCD) should not apply to the protection of tech measures used in connection with computer programs, which is exclusively addressed in that Directive (91/250/EC). Also EUCD should neither inhibit nor prevent the development or use of any means of circumventing a tech measure that is necessary to enable acts to be undertaken in accordance with Art. 5 (exceptions to restricted acts) or Art. 6 (decompiling). [1]
It seems that in USA, with DMCA, the situation is a little bit different.
So no, software is not just another written work, nor in copyright law, nor in its own nature. -- João Miguel Neves
[1] I argue that, for example, DeCCs (please forget upper/lowercase) should be legal in Europe even with EUCD enacted. Where I am wrong!?!?
On 20 May 2002, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Anyway, EUCD clearly states that the whole directive (2001/29/EC) does in no way affect the legal protection of *computer programs* (art. 1: scope). Furthermore, "whereas # 50" states that the legal protection of tech measures (provided in EUCD) should not apply to the protection of tech measures used in connection with computer programs, which is exclusively addressed in that Directive (91/250/EC). Also EUCD should neither inhibit nor prevent the development or use of any means of circumventing a tech measure that is necessary to enable acts to be undertaken in accordance with Art. 5 (exceptions to restricted acts) or Art. 6 (decompiling). [1]
It seems that in USA, with DMCA, the situation is a little bit different.
It's not so easy. As a directive, the national law implementation of EUCD (for example the belgium project law (update of the author right law)) is on all author right production. (including software)
Yes for the objective of the Directive you are right. But it's quite dangerous and ambiguous because they say :
"This Directive concerns the legal protection of copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, with particular emphasis on the information society."
and as you say :
"2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 11, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing Community provisions relating to: (a) the legal protection of computer programs; (b) rental right, lending right and certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property; (c) copyright and related rights applicable to broadcasting of programmes by satellite and cable retransmission; (d) the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights; (e) the legal protection of databases."
Where is the ambiguous part ? Information society versus all the point.
information society MINUS (a)(b)(c)(d)(e).
What is the rest ?
I think the directive is creating a legal space for limiting freedom.
adulau "We don't need such type of Directive".
So no, software is not just another written work, nor in copyright law, nor in its own nature. -- João Miguel Neves
[1] I argue that, for example, DeCCs (please forget upper/lowercase) should be legal in Europe even with EUCD enacted. Where I am wrong!?!?
Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Il lun, 2002-05-06 alle 22:50, João Miguel Neves ha scritto:
On Seg, 2002-05-06 at 18:22, MJ Ray wrote:
goes far beyond that. Why? To copyright law, isn't software just another written work? We still need to say how software can be used and who can republish it.
No, to copyright law software is not just another written work.
In Europe, the Council Directive 91/250/EC on the legal protection of comuputer programs states (art. 1) that computer programs are protected al literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention.
Right, but it doesn't categorize computer programs as "written works". The Berne Convention gives different rights for certain types of rights. For example, the scope of copyright protection on designs and models may vary from country to country (art. 2(7) BC).
Databases are not software and are not "protected" by the same laws.
The database Directive (96/9/EC) declares original databases to be protected by copyright.
Article 3
1. In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for that protection. http://www.iusmentis.com/databases/crashcourse/requirements/
Regards,
Arnoud
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:01:36AM +0200, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > Anyway, EUCD clearly states that the whole directive > (2001/29/EC) does in no way affect the legal protection of > *computer programs* (art. 1: scope). > > Furthermore, "whereas # 50" states that the legal protection > of tech measures (provided in EUCD) should not apply to the > protection of tech measures used in connection with computer > programs, which is exclusively addressed in that Directive > (91/250/EC). Also EUCD should neither inhibit nor prevent the > development or use of any means of circumventing a tech > measure that is necessary to enable acts to be undertaken in > accordance with Art. 5 (exceptions to restricted acts) or > Art. 6 (decompiling). [1]
I love to quote myself :-)
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:00:32PM +0200, Alceste Scalas wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 04:09:05PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus > Engelfriet wrote: > > Do you think there is a conflict between the 1991 > > Directive and the current EUCD? > > Well, the 91/250/EEC directive gives users the right to > reverse-engineer a computer program for interoperability > (article 5 and 6). This should make it legal to > reverse-engineer _every_ kind of software --- for example, > a piece of code that "protects" a copyrighted work, just > like an e-book. > > The EUCD was written to make the latter kind of activity > illegal --- and, of course, it contains a bit of trickery > to forbid the reverse-engineering of "effective > technological measures," without formally conflicting with > the 91/250/EEC directive. More in detail: > > * at the beginning (paragraph 50) it is said that the > 91/250/EEC directive still applies to computer > programs: you can circumvent a "technological measure" > if it protects a program that you want to > reverse-engineer; > > * but what happens when a "technological measure" is > not applied to programs, but to other copyrighted > works? Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 say that it is illegal > to circumvent it and/or help other people to do the > same; > > * finally, paragraph 6.3 defines these "technological > measures" in a way that is not strictly related to > software. It makes the 91/250/EEC directive > irrelevant, and you are forbidden to reverse-engineer > a "technological measure" when it is used to protect, > for example, a DVD, or an e-book.
However, please note that I'm not a lawyer...
> It seems that in USA, with DMCA, the situation is a little bit > different.
The "technological protection measures" (TPM) issue seem to be quite the same both in EUCD and DMCA... The DMCA contains a more detailed list of exemptions to the prohibition to circumvent TPMs, but none of these really gives any right to users, researchers, or developers. I'm still reading the DMCA carefully though...
> [1] I argue that, for example, DeCCs (please forget > upper/lowercase) should be legal in Europe even with EUCD > enacted. Where I am wrong!?!?
The DVD encryption is used to make only the "authorized" DVD players capable of reading the contents. In order to be "authorized" (i. e. obtain a decryption key) to create a DVD player, a software/hardware producer must assure that its product won't make copies of the DVD content, and will respect the DVD "zoning" code.
So, the DVD encryption is a technical copyright protection measure as defined by 6.3 of EUCD. The DeCSS (or any other circumvention tool) will be illegal if the EUCD is ratified by the EU member States.
Regards,
Alceste