🚀 go-pugleaf

Nick Kew wrote:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
> 
> Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
> 
> The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
> Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror.  Which is KDE,
> which is GPL.  So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
> under a BSD license, or so it would appear.
> 
> Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks
> for their use of the code in Safari.  Did those terms include
> permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms?
> If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on
> this particular software.

<chuckles> 

Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your 
GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Nick Kew wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
>> 
>> Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
>> 
>> The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
>> Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror.  Which is KDE,
>> which is GPL.  So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>> under a BSD license, or so it would appear.
>> 
>> Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks
>> for their use of the code in Safari.  Did those terms include
>> permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms?
>> If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on
>> this particular software.
>
> <chuckles> 
>
> Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your 
> GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.

Well, this is _gnu_.misc.discuss as well as uk.comp.os.linux, and
actual inclusion of lines of code is not a "derivative theory"
particular to the GNU project.  It's the standard for copyright pretty
much worldwide.

Now SCO is a different matter: they try pulling some sort of
contractual violation theory based on lines they don't even specify.
Now that's walking on thin air.

What code lines Nokia's browser is actually using will remain to be
seen.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

You too, dak, please kindly piss off. With your idiotic "communication 
through non-standardized interface" derivative theory, to begin with.

And read up something on software compilations (see 17 USC 101; 
software is protected as literary works) vs software derivatives 
(modified protected expression per AFC test), which has really
nothing to do with linking/communicating. Except in the GNU Republic,
that is.

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> You too, dak, please kindly piss off.

Why should a GNU maintainer not discuss miscellaneous things on
gnu.misc.discuss?  Just because you are a spoilt brat craving
undivided attention for your wild theories ("isn't he adorable when he
mimics a lawyer?"), does not mean that one needs to accommodate your
desires in a forum intended for discussion among adults.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>Nick Kew wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/nokia_goes_open_source/
>> 
>> Nokia is to open its browser engine under a BSD license.
>> 
>> The browser engine is developed with apple and based on Safari.
>> Which is in turn based on khtml/konqueror.  Which is KDE,
>> which is GPL.  So that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>> under a BSD license, or so it would appear.
>> 
>> Now, presumably Apple negotiated non-GPL terms with the KDE folks
>> for their use of the code in Safari.  Did those terms include
>> permission to open-source a derived product under non-GPL terms?
>> If so, it would appear to have effectively killed copyleft on
>> this particular software.

><chuckles> 

>Read up something on the AFC test. And kindly piss off with your 

And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
Comparison test) apply here?

>GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.

You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws?
"Derived work" is a term used there.

Whether or not Nokia's browser is a derived work of Konqueror is of course
something that would have to be determined, but the causal relationship at
least makes a prima facia case for the possibility. 

Note that if the claims are correct, then the GPL suffered way back when
when Apple made the closed source. And note that GPL is a license from teh
originator, and the originator has the right to license under whatever
terms he/she/they desires. That K licenses to A and then to N has no impact
whatsoever on K licensing to G under different terms. N's actions with
respect to G's license are irrelevant. 
The owner of the copyright is allowed to make any end runs they desire
around the GPL.

Unruh wrote:
[...]
> And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
> Comparison test) 

Yes.

>                  apply here?

It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged 
"derivative" computer program work.

> 
> >GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.
> 
> You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws?
> "Derived work" is a term used there.

"Derived work"? Where? Chapter and verse, please.

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>Unruh wrote:
>[...]
>> And exactly how does the AFC (I assume you mean Abstraction, Filtration,
>> Comparison test) 

>Yes.

>>                  apply here?

>It used to determine if there is copyright infringement in alleged 
>"derivative" computer program work.

Yes, and you have made the comparison? If not, why is it relevant here?


>> 
>> >GNUish/SCOish "based on" derivative theories in the meantime.
>> 
>> You mean the ones listed in the copyright laws?
>> "Derived work" is a term used there.

>"Derived work"? Where? Chapter and verse, please.

Unruh wrote:
[...]
> Yes, and you have made the comparison? 

Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
(SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us)

<quote>

GPL

"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to 
Sontag... 

</quote>

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>Unruh wrote:
>[...]
>> Yes, and you have made the comparison? 

>Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.

??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright
protected material contained withing the package. Have you made the
comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC?
  I have no idea what syndrome you think I am suffering from.


>http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
>(SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us)

><quote>

>GPL

>"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to 
>Sontag... 

></quote>

And this quote is supposed to say what? What is its relevance to the
discussion. The question was, is Nokia allowed to release its version with
BSD license given that the original was released under the GPL. 
So two questions-- does the Nokia version contain protected parts of the
original, and did the Nokia version derive from that GPL original. 
(Eg, as the OP said, Nokia's version could contain code which is copyright
protected from the original, but the original authors could have licensed
the code to Nokia under a separate license from the GPL. Thus even if the
code contains protected code from the GPL release, that is irrelevant,
since it did not derive from that GPL licensed version but from another
licensed version.)


>regards,
>alexander.

Unruh wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> >Unruh wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Yes, and you have made the comparison?
> 
> >Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
> >under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.
> 
> ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright
> protected material contained withing the package. 

No. It's about infringing the right on making a derivative work. IOW, 
RMS' own typical "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire 
[blah blah] are permitted provided this notice is preserved" covers 
compilations (packages), but not derivatives of his (kinda literary) 
idiotic work(s). My, what a proprietor! (It's akin to GNUish "mere 
aggregation" vs GNUish "derived" ("derived" falls under the GPL... or 
else... GNUish "mere aggregation" of GNUish "derived" stuff with 
something else aside for a moment).

>                                                   Have you made the
> comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC?

Because *you* have to make a (an initial) "comparixon", not me.

regards,
alexander.

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>Unruh wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> >Unruh wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> Yes, and you have made the comparison?
>> 
>> >Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>> >under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.
>> 
>> ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright
>> protected material contained withing the package. 

>No. It's about infringing the right on making a derivative work. IOW, 

??? Is there some gramatical problem with that sentence.

>RMS' own typical "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire 
>[blah blah] are permitted provided this notice is preserved" covers 
>compilations (packages), but not derivatives of his (kinda literary) 
>idiotic work(s). My, what a proprietor! (It's akin to GNUish "mere 
>aggregation" vs GNUish "derived" ("derived" falls under the GPL... or 
>else... GNUish "mere aggregation" of GNUish "derived" stuff with 
>something else aside for a moment).

Your passions are overriding your English.


>>                                                   Have you made the
>> comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC?

>Because *you* have to make a (an initial) "comparixon", not me.

Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of
influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright
code could be in the Nokia software. 

Unruh wrote:
[...]
> Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of
> influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright

ROFL. 

Uh. 

A path of influence? A possibly suggestive link suggesting something?

ROFL.

regards,
alexander.

["Followup-To:" header set to gnu.misc.discuss.]
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de>:
> 
>  Unruh wrote:
>  [...]
> > Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of
> 
>  ROFL. 

Wow.  You're still here.  It's been weeks since I noticed this madness
goin on.  I'm astonished!  Why are you still here?  If I just didn't
like something, I'd leave and have nothing further to do with it.
You, ...  :-O


-- 
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*)    http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling           Linux Counter #80292
    - -    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
           Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html