scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?
> >
> >  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
> > a project where an LGPL library is required.

> But the fact you mentioned you worked for a software development company 
> looks a bit dodgy (I had assumed it was questions you wanted answered for 
> your job too).

  I suppose I should have kept that information secret rather than
carelessly mention it (as a kind of intro of why I talk about the iPhone
later in the email), but how should I had known? It's not like the FSF
prominently advertises in their webpages that if you say you are working
for a company they won't answer your questions for free.

  For the record, I replied to them with a completely honest and truthful
description of my situation (in other words, I did not ask on behalf of my
company nor because of any current work project, and I myself have published
a significant library under the LGPL (which is why the details of the license
interest me), but it's a real possibility that some time in the future there
might be a need to use some LGPL library for some commercial project as well),
but they haven't replied anything.

  I suppose the implied answer is "tough luck; you work for the enemy and
thus we aren't going to help you".

> Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without 
> mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You might 
> want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from 
> different people.

  Yeah, that wouldn't sound suspicious at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without
>> mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You 
>> might
>> want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from
>> different people.
>
>  Yeah, that wouldn't sound suspicious at all.

I guess it depends how often they get emails about similar questions.  If 
you're the only one they've had for a few weeks on those subjects, then yes, 
it's going to be quite suspicious...

Post a reply to this message

I think the guys at the FSF should realize that if you actually have to ask 
 >them< for counsel instead of using the services of a lawyer that you are 
not doing particulary well and thus don't have much money. And that you are 
dependent on the few bucks you >may< make with your program. Besides - 
people with money usually don't care about laws, they have lawers to 
deceive, bend and pervert the laws as they like. I bet the guys at the FSF 
are not all volunteers but get paid for their work, one way or another.

This reminds me of an internet company here in Germany. I asked them what a 
certain paragraph in their terms and conditions actually meant, giving an 
example and asking if this would be allowed or not. They just answered: we 
do not comment our own contracts - we refuse to tell you what we actually 
mean. But why don't you just sign the contract? No joke!

Post a reply to this message

TC wrote:
> This reminds me of an internet company here in Germany. I asked them what a 
> certain paragraph in their terms and conditions actually meant, giving an 
> example and asking if this would be allowed or not. They just answered: we 
> do not comment our own contracts - we refuse to tell you what we actually 
> mean. But why don't you just sign the contract? No joke! 

Yep. That's very american, too. If they told you, they'd be at risk for 
being sued for giving legal advice without a license. That's exactly why you 
see IANAL all over posts like these.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

This is completely unrelated to the FSF, but it's even more jaw-dropping:

  The SQLite library (one of the most popular SQL database libraries) is
distributed under "public domain". In other words, it's "freer than free".

  Of course not all jurisdictions in the world recognize "public domain"
as a valid usage license nor the right of an author to publish something
with no copyright. For these cases the SQLite project offers an actual
usage license.

  The catch? If you want it, you'll have to pay the modest price of 1000
US dollars.

  I can't even begin to comprehend the logic behind this. Basically they
are saying: "If your country does not recognize public domain as a valid
software license, then you'll have to pay us $1000 if you want to use our
software. If your country does recognize it, then you can use it in any
way you want for whatever purpose you want at no cost whatsoever."

  I just can't understand the logic. If they want to offer an actual
copyright license for those who live in a country which doesn't recognize
PD as a valid one, then why not just offer something like the MIT license
or whatever, which is almost equivalent to PD? Instead, you have to pay
them 1000 dollars for a license.

  I'm speechless, really. Is this some kind of war against countries which
don't recognize PD?

http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm speechless, really. Is this some kind of war against countries which
> don't recognize PD?
> 
> http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1
> 

As is listed, half the reasons this occurs for them is that the user
wants a legal contract and not public domain code. Contracts carry, in
most countries, an extra weight in law that a license is not yet
recognized to have. Because of this, a contract has to be a fair
exchange of value.

If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
the MIT terms.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
> the MIT terms.

  Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
>> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
>> the MIT terms.
> 
>   Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?

Sort of.  You can take Shakespeare and publish it and claim a copyright on 
that particular arrangement of words on the page (e.g., correspondence to 
words with page numbers, illustrations, etc) but you can't re-copyright the 
actual text, so I could publish new Shakespeare.  You can take a photograph 
of some public-domain painting and copyright the photograph, for example.

But you can't copyright the public domain item. Why?  Because I can make 
copies of the public domain version without looking at your copy. You might 
copyright your photo of the statue, but I can make an identical photo of the 
statue without ever having seen your photo.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
>> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
>> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
>> the MIT terms.
> 
>   Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?
> 

It isn't re-copyrighting the work. It is relicensing the work, which is
usually allowable under public domain laws. Otherwise, how could you
incorporate some public domain code into work and then distribute under
a commercial license?

In doing this, you are not asserting some rights over the item in the
public domain. The MIT license might need a few words changed, making it
say less about 'I hold copyright on this and authorize' and more 'I am
allowed to authorize this work to be licensed'.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> >> If all you want is SQLite under an MIT license, have someone who lives
> >> in a country that recognizes public domain just copy and relicense under
> >> the MIT terms.
> > 
> >   Can works in the public domain be re-copyrighted?
> > 

> It isn't re-copyrighting the work. It is relicensing the work, which is
> usually allowable under public domain laws.

  Licensing (including eg. the MIT license) is based on copyright. Thus
if you want to license something, you have to own its copyright.

> Otherwise, how could you
> incorporate some public domain code into work and then distribute under
> a commercial license?

  Your *changes* have copyright, not the original material.

  If one could re-copyright PD works, then anyone could take such a work
and hijack its copyrights for himself, stopping anyone from using it.

  However, if someone takes a PD work and changes it somehow, the changes
have copyright and nobody can use those changes unless given permission.

  Of course in the case of the SQLite library you could go and change
everything and claim copyright on it. How much you have to change in order
for the copyright claim to be enforceable, I don't know.

  But AFAIK it's rather clear that if you don't have copyright, you can't
license it either, because licenses are based on copyright.

> 'I am allowed to authorize this work to be licensed'.

  But are you? And doesn't this depend on the jurisdiction? (Remember, we
are talking, after all, about jurisdictions which don't recognize PD as a
valid software license. This making assumptions about what you can and
cannot do with PD software is kind of moot.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message