Re: containers license issue
Amit Levy <amit <at> amitlevy.com>
2012-12-19 18:06:28 GMT
On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Mike Meyer <mwm <at> mired.org> wrote:
> Ketil Malde <ketil <at> malde.org> wrote:
>> Mike Meyer <mwm <at> mired.org> writes:
>>> Niklas Larsson <metaniklas <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2012/12/15 Mike Meyer <mwm <at> mired.org>:
>>>>> Only if Tanenbaum documented the internal behavior of Linux before
>>>>> it was written.
>>>> Tannenbaum wrote Minix, the operating system that Linus used (and
>>>> hacked on) before he did Linux. Minix contained lots of features that
>>>> was reimplemented in Linux.
>>> Ah, Minix isn't documentation. And it has a radically different
>>> architecture
>> The point is that Linux read the source code to Minix before
>> implementing similar things - quite likely using the same algorithms,
>> for instance. So if containers is a "translation" of FXT, then surely
>> Linux is a "translation" of Minix.
>
> Since they are both C, the concept of "translation" doesn't enter into that case at all.
>
> I never said that containers was a translation of FXT. I said that translations are considered to be
derived work requiring permission to copy. This is deeply embedded in copyright law, and the GPL
*depends* on it working for software. Otherwise, a distribution of GPL' d software translated to another
language (say as asm from the compiler, or a linkable object, or even an executable) wouldn't be a
derivative work and could be distributed without having to obey the license.
>
> The point is that containers being in haskell isn't a defense against copyright violation. It doesn't
mean that it *is* a translation, merely that it might be. That the author of containers said it was
"derived" from FXT opens the possibility that his version is actually GPL'ed, so using it opens up the
possibility of a lawsuit. It may not stand up in court, but the lawyer objecting is trying to avoid just that possibility.
>
>>> That makes a successful lawsuit unlikely
>> The point of the point is that neither of these are translations of
>> literary works, there is no precedence for considering them as such,
>
> Actually, there *is* a precedent for considering them such. The clean-room implementations of the IBM PC
bios were done because a judge ruled that translating from asm to binary was an infringing copy.
>
> If you have a precedent that translating from one programming language to another is *not* the creation of
a derived work, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Without such a precedent, then a case can be made that
such a translation is a derived work (and you're the only person I've ever heard claim otherwise) which
opens up the possibility of a lawsuit, which is what the problem is.
>
>> and
>> that reading somebody's work (whether literary or source code) before
>> writing one's own does not imply that the 'somebody' will hold any
>> rights to the subsequent work.
>
> This is correct. Reading a copyrighted work does not prove that some subsequent creation is a copy of that
work. It does, however, make it *possible* that such a work is a copy and needs the appropriate permissions.
>
>> "Translations" in software is what compilers do, not reimplementing
>> specific algorithms.
>
> "Translation" in a copyright case is a term of law, and has *nothing* to do with the behavior of compilers
(other than the precedent that what a compiler does is considered a translation for copyright purposes).
>
> Reimplementing an algorithm may or may not be a copyright violation. Depends on whether or not the
reimplementation involved creation of a work derived (in the legal sense) from the original. Access to
the original is required for that to happen. The two being in the same language is *not* required for that to
happen. Access to the original and working in the same language is *not* sufficient for that to happen.
>
>>> it'll never go to court, so there isn't an infringement.
>
> Tannenbaum isn't going to sue Linus. So either he doesn't believe there is an infringement (I suspect this
is likely, as he has had access the source and would probably have at least said something if he thought
there was an infringement) or doesn't care enough to go to court. Until a judge tells Linus he's
infringing, he isn't.
This is quite a digression from the topic of the thread, but it turns out Tennenbaum has actually stated
publicly that he does not consider Linux to be copied from Minix at all:
(from http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/)
"MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names
in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code. Linus also used MINIX as his development
platform initially, but there was nothing wrong with that. He asked if I objected to that and I said no, I
didn't, people were free to use it as they wished for noncommercial purposes. Later MINIX was released
under the Berkeley license, which freed it up for all purposes."
> --
> Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe <at> haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
RSS Feed