RMS On Header Files and Derivative Works 247
tomhudson writes "In this email from 2003, Richard Stallman says 'I've talked with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of
using simple material from header files. Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always
makes a derivative work. That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
with substantial bodies) to do that.' This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.'"
Copyrights on facts (Score:5, Informative)
I've hear it suggested by a number of lawyers that the _specification_ a binary interface of a library is a statement of fact, rather than a creative work. Since copyright does not apply to statements of fact this would suggest that structure definitions and the like would not be subject to copyright, and by extension the is no issue regarding derivative works. Of course you could probably as the same lawyers on a different day (or with a different person paying the bills) and get a different answer, but the concept seems to make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This copy of Photoshop CS I've got installed is also a statement of fact, by the way.
Simply asserting that doesn't mean a court would agree with you. Given that the current discussion about "statement of fact" was specifically about *header files* only, what basis do you have for this statement?
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is a lawyer will agree with any opinion the client has to make as long as there is a pay check in it. Of course that agreement will be in politispeak that can be interpreted six ways from Sunday afterwards.
When it comes to Open Source software it most often will be only subject to community discussion, with only blatant egregious examples of copyright infringement being subject to legal review.
The community surrounding any open source project is going to be far more interested in keeping th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is a lawyer will agree with any opinion the client has to make as long as there is a pay check in it. Of course that agreement will be in politispeak that can be interpreted six ways from Sunday afterwards.
Only if you have a shitty lawyer. Good ones actually add value, help strategize and avoid risk. It helps to remember that of any cohort, half are below average.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Half are below average? 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11 What is the average of these numbers? What percentage of them is below that average? (Answers: 2, and 90%)
On average, people have less than 2 feet :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it odd that you have a signature proclaiming your hate of grammar nazis, then you post something like the above. Grammar nazis are people who are overly pedantic about the structure and syntax of language, while you are being overly pedantic about the use of a fairly common word, which happens to have many related meanings in colloquial usage. In colloquial English, an "average" is any measure of central tendency. Even in mathematics, "average" is a somewhat ambiguous term, and can refer to the ar
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fair point. However, the argument that mean ~ median puts the cart in front of the horse. Why not just calculate a median in the first place? Then at least you don't
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement correctly applies to the median.
Not so! Consider the set of integers {1, 1, 1, 37}. How many of these are below the median? Sorry for nitpicking.
And sorry for quote-fucking, it was just too tempting.
Re: (Score:2)
clearly these are different cases, but can you draw a bright clear line between them?
I didn't say you could. However, the current discussion related to header files, which RMS's lawyers say are not affected. Anything beyond that is moving into the gray area, but regardless of which category it actually falls under, you can't use the information in this story or thread- which only relates to header files- to determine that.
(This of course assumes that we accept RMS's lawyers advice is correct).
Re:Copyrights on facts (Score:5, Informative)
Express Logic have already been through this when Green Hills released their RTOS using the ThreadX API from Express Logic. In this case the arbitrators ruled in favour of Green Hills even though the header files were copied.
Re:Copyrights on facts (Score:5, Informative)
It established the abstraction-filtration-comparison test in whether copyright code is infringing. Abstraction is the first step and gets the relevant source code. In filtration, any part of the code that cannot be copyrighted must be eliminated for consideration. One thing that must be excluded are facts. For example, many programs that draw circles rely on using Pi. A company cannot copyright PI =3.14159 as this is a fact. Anything in the public domain are excluded. This is where SCO would have had lots of problems because even if the code was legally owned by them (it was owned by Novell), some of what they claimed to be theirs had been put into the public domain by AT&T, USL, BSD, and others over the years. Header files (especially the simple ones that are merely #include statements) can fall under scenes a faire. Standards also fall under this category. Scenes a faire are all the elements that are required for any program of the same type to run. Variable declarations for example. If a program works with files, the owner can't really claim "File file = null" is copyrightable as a variable declaration.
Only after filtering out non-protected elements, can any comparison begin. That was one of the arguments IBM had against SCO: IBM's expert claimed that SCO's expert, SCO VP Gupta, had failed to filter out unprotected elements of code [groklaw.net]. Two examples of the alleged violating code were the IPC and ELF header files. The IPC header had been put into public domain without copyright since 1989. The ELF header was published as part of the ELF specification whose membership included SCO's predecessor, Santa Cruz. By the way, IBM's expert was Brian Kernighan who worked with Ritchie and Thompson on Unix, wrote the first book on C with Ritchie, and wrote some Unix programs like cron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AFC test was developed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 in its opinion for Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. It has been widely adopted by United States courts and recognized by courts outside the United States as well.
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guesstimate that the actual prototype definitions are at most 20% of the total line count on average. The rest is pretty much unique
Re: (Score:2)
I think a reasonable argument is that the function/enum/union/struct definitions are themselves fact (and therefore not subject to copyright), whereas the mechanism used to express them on a given platform (compiler+os+extra) is another issue entirely. Similar to the pho
Re: (Score:2)
typedef struct _IO_FILE FILE;
This says that the (published C standard mandated) FILE is an (unpublished, nonstandard) _IO_FILE defined in some (nonstandard) header file called libio.h. Now _IO_FILE is just there for the c
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but. My reading of Google's process for the Linux headers is that they specifically strip out all the comments and complex macros such as what you describe. Their readme even describes how they optimize some macros to make them simple (by short circuiting or otherwise). Presumably they do this to optimize but also to make them trivial and therefore free to distribute in a non-gpl header.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's EU database rights, which aren't the same as copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Copyrights on facts (Score:5, Informative)
Second, facts cannot be copyrighted, any more than the rules of a game can be.
ONLY the presentation or layout of those facts can be copyrighted. And it is ONLY the presentation or layout, not the underlying facts, that are protected.
Unique definitions are also not sufficient of themselves for copyright in software, if that unique definition is either required for interoperability, or is the only way to do something.
For example:
is not copyrightable.
url:http://www.ivanhoffman.com/scenes.html
Re:Copyrights on facts (Score:5, Funny)
is not copyrightable.
What about:
Re: (Score:2)
You stated that you can copyright facts. You cannot.
The presentation is the only protected element in all your scenarios. The presentation could be applied to new sets of facts, and the presentation, but not the facts, would still be protected.
Compilation works are a different matter, in that the creativity is in the compilation, not the individual facts. Someone can still use the same facts to cre
Re: (Score:3)
this is wrong. facts are copyrightable because the layout and organization of the facts can be copyrighted
And this is wrong. ONLY the layout and organization of the facts, not the fact themselves, are copyrightable.
No matter how you spin it, you are wrong. Facts are not copyrightable. So when you try to spin it yet again by claiming:
no. the presentation AND the facts are the protected element in all scenarios. the presentation is not independent of the facts. the copyright to a work is the whole work. the presentation cannot be applied to a new set of facts and be protected. it would form a new work.
e.g. bob takes alices presentation from alices protected work. puts in a new set of facts. copyright belongs to bob not to alice.
e.g. alice takes bobs facts. puts em into a whole new presentation. copyright belongs to alice not bob.
... this is simply not true. The facts are not a protected element in ANY scenario. The copyright does not protect "the work as a whole", even if it is issued against the whole work. It only protects those elements that are copyrightable, the same as
Re:Copyrights on facts (Score:4, Insightful)
no. youre just ... wrong.
the presentation of the facts DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE FACTS. im not trying to spin anything.
go read : Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) and educate yourself.
besides, i'll probably send a copy of this thread around to my colleagues anyway. they should have a good laugh at your expense.
i work for jones day but you may not have heard of us.
Re Feist [slashdot.org]
The Supremes say you are full of it.
The Feist decision only extended copyright to the layout, not the underlying facts.
I've heard of Jones, Day - if you work for them, maybe in the mail room, but certainly not as a lawyer. Or are you now going to say that the Supremes got it wrong?
You're wrong, and you just keep giving me more ammunition to shoot you down with every time. You're as bad as Florian Mueller.
Re: (Score:3)
please just go read feist. and avoid reading excerpts. an author’s original compilation, arrangement or selection of facts can be protected by copyright wtf does this mean ? IT MEANS YOU ARE AN IDIOT. are they going to award damages based on only the infringing potions or the whole work ? YOU DUMB SHIT BAG. THE WHOLE WORK IS PROTECTED. read the fucking text and interpret it you moron.
The Supreme Court says otherwise.
The original court, and the appeals court, agreed with your stand. The Supreme Court reversed it - the "collections copyright" doctrine was overthrown. You could no longer claim a copyright on both the layout and the underlying facts, as the Supreme Court ruled that facts are not subject to copyright in Feist vs Rural.
Exerpts [findlaw.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court says otherwise.
You're quite clearly getting trolled, no lawyer in the world would go and present several non-realtime comments and fail so badly to convey his/her point that he/she would have to resort to name-calling.
Shhh - mustn't scare them off
Why do you think I keep saying "You're not a lawyer."
F.M. is too chicken to come out and defend his lies any more (except anonymously) because I keep shellacking him and calling him a liar to his face, as do others, so I've got to make do with what's at hand.
It was obvious just from the initial sentence structure that this is just some punk. This is the type of person who now follows people like Florian Mueller. People clearly out of their depth. That doesn't mean I
Re: (Score:2)
The Copyright Act also denies protection to discoveries. 17 U.S.C. Section 102(b) . The Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of the protectability of facts in its recent opinion in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co., 111 S. Ct. 1282 [18 USPQ2d 1275] (1991). In Feist,the Court considered the copyrightability of a telephone directory comprised merely of names, addresses, and phone numbers organized in alphabetical order. The Court rejected the notion that copyright law was meant to reward authors for the “sweat of the brow,” and instead concluded that protection only extends to the original components of an author’s work. As to facts, the Court found that:
No one may claim originality as to facts. This is because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. . . . [O]ne who discovers a fact is not its maker or originator. The discoverer merely finds and records.
111 S. Ct. at 1288 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Like ideas and processes, facts themselves are not protectable;however, an author’s original compilation, arrangement or selection of facts can be protected by copyright. Feist, 111 S. Ct. at 1289 ; Applied Innovations, 876 F.2d at 636 . However, “the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves.” Feist, 111 S. Ct. at 1290 . In computer programs facts may be found at a number of levels of abstraction, but, will most often be found as part of data structures or literally expressed in the source or object codes.
The arrangement may be. The facts themselves are not.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe there is database copyright, so while the individual phone numbers are not copyrightable, the entire collection of them is. That doesn't apply to headers though.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but no. There are countries with legal systems fucked up enough, like Poland, where a mere timetable is subject to legal protections. In Poland you can't publish a frakking bus timetable without permission (haha) from the company that runs those buses. Same goes for any other timetable. Including TV programs methinks.
Re:Copyrights on facts (Score:4, Interesting)
So here's a real question: If the header files cannot be copyrighted, why did those linux people attempt to PUT copyright on it by including a copyright in the file? If it can't be copyrighted and the folks who maintain the GPL say it can't be copyrighted then why is that copyright in the file in the first place? Are the linux folks trying to use FUD here too?
1. Because some things, like comments, etc., ARE copyrightable.
2. Because we're only talking about a specific subset of headers here. Other headers may contain code that can be copyrighted. The kernel is a lot more than 27,000 lines.
HTH :-)
Re: (Score:3)
So by this explanation I can link my closed-sourced program to a GPL library(dynamically). I only use it's headers!
Depends on what's in the headers (is it *just* declarations you need for talking to the library, or is half of it macros and inline functions and such that end up in your binary), and whether you have enough spare cash/time to fend off a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
So by this explanation I can link my closed-sourced program to a GPL library(dynamically). I only use it's headers!
Yes, Stallman's position is somewhat inconsistent. He also claims that you must not reference to your pre-existing OpenSSL library install from GPLed software (without certain linking exceptions). This particular licensing conflict would not arise if mere reference did not create derivative works. I'm pretty sure that Stallman meant that only header files (or interface definitions) for well-published, standardized programming interfaces (such as POSIX, OpenGL, or the Java SE class library) are not subject t
Standing? (Score:2)
Can someone explain something to me... how does anyone but Linus Torvalds have the standing to file an action or even complain about this? He owns the copyright, shouldn't he be the one that decides that something is in violation.
I know that FSF has brought actions in some rare cases, but isn't that on behalf of the real owner of the copyright?
Anyway.. it does seem like if FSF and Linus don't have a problem with what was done there is nothing to talk about. Am I oversimplifying this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok.. I am oversimplifying the situation. That explains it...
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the Linux kernel could be an exception with some statement like "by submitting this patch you agree to transfer copyright to Linus Torvalds".
I believe that something similar is the case with some programs that offer themselves on a GPL or a non-GPL license, e.g. MySQL, if you want to get your code accepted into the "official" distribution. However, AFAIK this has never been the case with Linux, and at this stage it's incredibly unlikely that they'd get all the kernel contributors to agree to retrospectively turn over their copyright to Linus (or whoever)- so short of a massive rewrite that rewrote/replaced all contributions not reassigned to Lin
Re: (Score:2)
by not asserting claims explicitly, it could be presumed that one waived any future claims.
I think the only thing you could presume is that the person agreed for their contribution to be licensed under the same terms as the project as a whole uses. (In this case, GPLv2). From what I understand, copyright can neither be abandoned nor transferred without some explicit act.
Yep, I've had the same chat (Score:2)
People think RMS is unreasonable and as grasping as some of the commercialists he decries. Not in my experience.
I've had the same sort of [slow] email chat with him, and he is far more technical (and reasonable). I wouldn't want to speak for him, but the closest I got was that if source produced executable binary, then it was derivative. If the included source only affected the production of executable generated by other source, it was not derivative.
My class defs are in .h, you insensitive clod! (Score:2)
So at least in C++, the header files could just specify interfaces or they could specify the entire program source code.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess people are talking C? I program C++ with the classes in the .h files, using the .cpp files only to determine which root classes get created. Criticize me for not following good practices, but I do this to simplify translation of programs between C++ and Java, where everything is done in terms of classes and there is only the one .java type source file.
So at least in C++, the header files could just specify interfaces or they could specify the entire program source code.
Right, consider templates... The "header files are often not copyrightable" refers to the kinds of header files that include only simple declarations, not implementations. It's not really "header files" that are not copyrightable, it's the kind of API description & definitions that are often (but not always) the sole content of header files.
Re: (Score:2)
This is my big gripe with C++ especially with templates. It just feels absurd to shove everything into a glorified macro, especially when compilers are no where good enough to collapse essentially identical instantiations to avoid bloat. And yet this is being promoted as the proper way to do things. I mean if you have both an STL list of integers and of unsigned integers almost every linker will leave two duplicates of the code in the executable. That's why this style only exists on PCs where the users
Re: (Score:2)
Have you *really* looked at what is output? Your examples should actually result in almost no functions at all, because a great deal of the code is simple enough to always inline--assuming you have a decent compiler and you're looking at optimized builds. You can indeed generate a huge amount of bloat with naive use of templates, and sophisticated use of templates is a black art. But one of the neat things about templates & C++ is how amazingly efficient the code generated by "high-level" abstractions c
Re: (Score:2)
I guess people are talking C? I program C++ with the classes in the .h files, using the .cpp files only to determine which root classes get created. Criticize me for not following good practices, but I do this to simplify translation of programs between C++ and Java, where everything is done in terms of classes and there is only the one .java type source file.
So at least in C++, the header files could just specify interfaces or they could specify the entire program source code.
Your project must then compile as only one object, and a change to just one line of code triggers a complete re-compile of the object. This prevents you from reusing your unmodified static or shared libraries in a new compilation -- No boundaries exist such as threading library, network library, etc... If so, when the executable binary application is built it must compile all that other code too (single translation unit), each time, even if the none of the classes change. Your everything in the .h metho
Re: (Score:3)
You can't put method bodies in a separate .cpp file if you use templates. When your library is mostly templates (like Boost), then all its code must necessarily be in the header files.
This does not mean that the code in the headers can "still be reduced to just the interface facts".
Re: (Score:2)
You can't put method bodies in a separate .cpp file if you use templates. When your library is mostly templates (like Boost), then all its code must necessarily be in the header files.
This does not mean that the code in the headers can "still be reduced to just the interface facts".
You are misinfromed. Yes you can, see this example [parashift.com]. You can separate the template interface and implementation; However, in order to instantiate a template you must have access to the implementation. Libraries can provide just the template interface and a .so with commonly used instantiations to link against, and as long as you only use the explicit instantiated template forms you will not need the template implementations.
Lets say you have some LGPL function template that has its implementation in th
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so theoretically this can work. Pragmatically, especially with something like Boost lambda or Spirit libraries, where there are dozens of implicitly instantiated templates, this would be very complicated to implement. You'd probably have to compile with original headers first, and then read symbols from object files and parse them to figure out what got instantiated.
Of course, Boost is not LGPL anyway (thankfully; I wouldn't want to debate this in court!), so this all is purely hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, sometimes putting the entire definition in a header file is the right thing to do. Template classes, for example.
It is never the right thing to do. You should always separate the template implementation from the template interface. This allows you to create a pre-compiled shared library that includes commonly used template instantiations.
Lets say you have a template class that has a non-trivial amount of implementation code. If all the implementation is in the header files then every program that uses the template must instantiate each template form, even for commonly used forms such as int, float, long, double, c
There's a slight problem though (Score:2)
The FSF is NOT the copyright holder of the Linux _kernel_ (or most of it).
Re: (Score:3)
No, but they wrote the license under which the kernel is distributed. Seems to me that their opinion on how that license is meant to apply is pretty authoritative.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. That's why we have a license. When I choose to apply GPL to my code, I am not licensing my code under "anything the FSF ever says on the matter in the future", I am applying the license as it is worded. Otherwise, I could write a license which says "You may not use this work commercially," get a bunch of people to apply that license to their works, and then a few years later clarify "Oh, when I said commercially, I meant selling it for over $1000. Anything under that is fine." Which would probab
Re: (Score:2)
The article summary ends with the nonsense that "This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.'"
The FSF is nothing but a *biased* bystander. So their opinion is irrelevant at best (and misleading at worst). And it follows that their opinion therefore can't "help end the recent FUD".
How about a mathematical attempt at defining... (Score:2)
... a derivative work?
Re: (Score:3)
d(work)/dx ?
Thank you (Score:2)
... for providing a reference. This is a pretty conclusive statement, and definitely clears things up for me. I apologize if my comments in the previous discussion on the use of kernel headers by Android mislead someone (IANAL and all that).
What's the legal definition of substantial? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When it runs, the entire program is arguably a derivative work. When your software alone is just sitting there, no, it's not.
Otherwise, you might as well argue that a single GPLed plugin will force Microsoft to opensource IE.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true the FSF claims this (Score:2)
Note that they've never sued anybody about this. It's just posturing.
The claim that the GPL has now been tested in court, while true, doesn't address this issue, and IMHO probably never will.
More reasoning on this issue (Score:2)
Text of the GPL (Score:2)
Sure, but nowhere in the GPL is this batshit-insane definition of derivative work ever written. I will give RMS this -- unlike a lot of shrinkwrapped licenses, the GPL itself, as written, is mostly quite reasonable, and it would be hard to claim that people using it are engaging in copyright misuse. From GPL v3:
Re: (Score:2)
So be sure you strip out all inline functions and macros from GPL header files and just use the structures, typedefs, and enums.
Inline functions and macros that are trivial or which constitute scènes à faire are not going to be protectable either. Thus "substantial" is the correct term (although it may not take a whole lot to reach something approaching substantial).
Importing is not copying (Score:3)
Thing is, Stallman is saying that just including a header file. eg. #include "stdio.h" does not make the program a derivative of stdio.h.
It doesn't however mean you can get stdio.h, remove all the comments and copyrights then pass that off as your own file, which is what Google have allegedly done.
I've asked RMS about Android (Score:2)
He kindly told me that he thought about it, and this is not a case of violation.
However, he did not tell me anything about header files, so I suppose
we must assume he still thinks the same on this since 2003.
From what I gather in his 2003 e-mail, I believe their lawyer must have
thought of the "fair use" exceptions in copyright law, and indeed
simply quoting a few typedefs would fall under fair use (since it is not a
substantial portion). On the other hand, I have a hard time believing
that this goes for anythi
Re: (Score:3)
"He explicitly says that for there to be a derivative work, it would take a substantial amount of code. So, you can't just take a substantial portion of a GPL'd program's (either an application of a library) *interface* and release it under an arbitrary license."
No, he says it would take a substantial amount of CODE. Meaning actual bodies of functions (he says so in the same line).
A header file, by convention, contains no code. It has interface definitions (X expects an integer), it has data structures (A
Re:f u (Score:4, Informative)
You can say fuck on slashdot dude. Hell, you can type anything you want at zombocom er slashdot.
yeeees (Score:2)
please. the regulars of this place are not your ordinary morons like in american public who would immediately fall for a character assassination and just forget what's what and what's not, even if accusations are true.
software, is software. pedophilia is pedophilia. opinions about pedophilia, are opinions about pedophilia.
one needs cognitive power as much to be able to differentiate in between this 3 set of concepts in order to be abl
Re: (Score:2)
RMS commits a logic error here. He's much more lucid on other issues.
The curiosity of a child towards sex is voluntary only in a desert island, here a child is subjected to all explicit and implicit stimulation of sexual urges which is standard practice in marketing. There is also no doubt that a child can be easily convinced to do stuff by clever and determined people. Finally, proving something "comes from his will" is not feasible today and a legal nightmare. So while his statement is true in theory it i
Re: (Score:2)
> Pedophilia wasn't always a taboo.
Nor human sacrifices. Nor slavery (oh wait we are slaves today nvm)
And anyway the correct term shoud be pederasty.
I agree with RMS on headers, those are interfaces.
Re:How the fuck do we define a "substantial amount (Score:5, Funny)
How the fuck do we decide what a "substantial amount of code" actually is? Where exactly is the boundary?
Free Software zealot: "substantial amount of code" == one line
Corporate America: "substantial amount of code" == entire program.
IP Lawyers: "substantial amount of code" == new Porsche.
Re: (Score:2)
Taken from Corporate America: "substantial amount of code" == one line
Taken by Corporate America: "substantial amount of code" == entire program.
First of all, what the FSFs opinion is on the matter is mostly irrelevant as this is about the meaning of "derived work" in copyright law. The FSF doesn't have the power to define what that is and should a court find the kernel headers are derived then the FSF has no power to grant exceptions on behalf of all the people that have used their license text.
As for the
Re:end FUD ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.
you must be new here..
No, I just believe that the FUD-packers will now try something else.
They don't seem to get it - that there are now a critical mass of people who not only don't buy into the FUD, but have an ideological interest in exposing the FUD for what it is.
Now that we've got the numbers, FUD not only becomes less effective for the other side, but draws attention to just how much of a threat open source is to them, and how hollow their arguments really are.
Think of it. This was an attack on Android specifically designed to get hand-set vendors worried that they would have to share their source, not just the usual "linux may have copyright problems blah blah blah". It failed, and in doing so discredits all the other similar FUD. People like Florian Mueller are the internet version of the boy who cried wolf - at this point, even if he did find something, who'd believe him?
Re:end FUD ? (Score:5, Informative)
In the more specific case of linux, you might also want to see the COPYING file, which is a modified version of the GPL v2 that explicitly states that using the header files to access kernel services doesn't create a derivative work, which was the whole point of the FUD-packers campaign, to convince handset manufacturers that there was a risk that their Android code was a derivative work and they'd have to share their source.
Hope this clears it up a bit :-
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> unless you know of a higher court than the Supreme Court of the USofA
Yes, I wonder what God thinks about this whole issue.
Re:end FUD ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:end FUD ? (Score:5, Funny)
"Clearly this evolution thing needs more bug testing. I've created a race largely composed of idiots."
Re: (Score:3)
The International Court of Justice?
I lol'd. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Any facts in header files are simply not eligible for copyright protection, even when embedded in a copyrighted header file.
Facts are such things as POSIX identifiers, various data structures, etc. Bionic strips out the stuff eligible for protection, and l
Re: (Score:2)
Follow this thread further down [slashdot.org] if you want to laugh.
Quoting a court case that says the exact opposite of what he claims (maybe he didn't get the memo that the Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court 20 years ago when he did a quick Internet search to try to troll)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, what relevance does the original copyright license hold if the modified headers are no longer considered to be under copyright?
Re: (Score:2)
And to further support the parent's point, just look at the first section of the GPL, which original poster left out:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Thus if using headers does not constitute a derivative work with regards to copyright law, then the GPL does not apply to works that use (only) those headers. The next two sections of the GPL which were quoted contain language that supports this:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
WARNING - that is NOT the GPL that linux uses. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, using the headers to access kernel services does not create a derivative work.
This is over and above that the files in question have been stripped of copyrightable content.
Re: (Score:3)
That quote mentions programs that "use kernel services by normal system calls". Nothing is said about actually including kernel headers.
Re: (Score:2)
That quote mentions programs that "use kernel services by normal system calls". Nothing is said about actually including kernel headers.
The code for that is in the headers :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A car is merely a unique combination of universal subatomic particles which are abundantly available to anyone and have existed for billions of years. But good luck explaining that to the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Creating copies of desirable cars has a long history. If you only do it for yourself you are unlikely to be sued, and in some cases it may even be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
A car is one particular way of setting up those particles, and it is not the only way to do it. So the rules are satisfied.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright works in theory, it's not insane per se. It is abused, ok, and patents on obvious things are even worse, ok. But abolition of copyright is the removal of a rule: maybe it works, maybe when you remove too many rules you make room for the only rule that can't be touched: the stronger wins.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the initial news was that copyrights were removed from the Android glib files and replaced by a mention it's public domain. If they are not removed there is no reason indeed to talk about this (except the news was false). If they are removed most of the comments about "including headers creates derived work or not" is not related to the subject IMO, then the main subject is that Google tried to removed the copyrights.
That is the main subject, but the question of whether or not the copyright notices were legitimate to begin with is certainly relevant to google's removal of them... You can slap a copyright notice on anything, but if it's material not subject to copyright to begin with, your notice will not bend copyright law to cover it, no matter how much you may desire it to do so.
Re:Stallman has changed his mind (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stallman has changed his mind (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't because of header files. It was because the code generated by Bison (actual .c files) would be licensed under GPL, because it was a derived work of a GPL-licensed template, and included the GPL copyright comment.
Due to problems with this arrangement, they have added this bit to the output:
but this was after 1990.
In any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with header files.
Re:Smackdown, on Florian (Score:4, Funny)
Who else is fed up by Florian Mueller's antics?
I sense a new slashdot poll
What do you think of Florian Mueller's antics?
[_] Florian Mueller's blog is the new goatse link. "Oww! My MIND! Quick, get the brain bleach!"
[X] I just want to know who's paying for it.
[_] "I'm an anonymous coward and I approve" -- Florian Mueller
[_] "Damn, forgot to check 'Post Anonymously' -- Florian Mueller
[_] Hey, it generates page hits and sells ads -- editors
[_] I am Steve Ballmer and I approve of Florian Mueller's antics
[_] In Soviet Russia, everyone trolls Florian Mueller.
[_] Florian Mueller had an original idea that wasn't a troll. It died of loneliness.
[_] A grue ate him. Nothing of consequence was lost.
[_] 104% of 42 respondents preferred CowboyNeal.
This latest attempt to generate FUD pretty much seals the deal - his 15 minutes are SO over.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you trying to be incorrect on every level? The issue at hand is not Dalvik, the issue at had IS the native C API in Android. which you claim does not exist.