"Derivative Work" for Software Defined

[Andre Hedrick]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, John Cowan wrote:

> Because G+H is not merely G concatenated with H,

Anybody who concatenates any source files specifically ".c" well go get
them, they are do something bad.  My points have always been and shall
remain "associated interface definition files" aka "header files", ".h",
and the unprotected API.

>                                                  but the result of combining
> compiled-G and compiled-H into an executable form.

This is a bogus statement, and excessively broad.
What do you thing #include <__insert_api_header_dot_h> does?

The operation of #include is nothing but a simple concatenation.
Now given the contents of a 'dot h' file, please tell me what you are
going to run as an executable program?  Given the contents general are a
list of define's, typedef's, struct's, extern's, const's, classes'

G is nothing but a header file. (api descriptions)
H is nothing but a c-code file. (original work)

cc -O2 -c -o G.o G.h
cc[error] no G.c found to generate G.o

cc -O2 -c -o H.o H.c
cc[error] unknown struct or variable in line XXX of H.c

ld -r -o G+H.exe G.o H.o
ld[error] no objects found to link.

However ----- the issue is not talking about .exe or .com files, but
pluggin objects using the well known and publish API of the Linux Kernel.

Now lets move off to the land of Commerial OS's, specifically MicroSoft.
If any of you think a single judge would allow Bill Gates and company
to claim ownership of a third parties "ORIGINAL WORK" which is designed to
operate and expand the uses of the MicroSoft Operating System, please pass
around whatever you guys are smoking.

GPL states you can change and do whatever you want, provide you return the
changes.  These changes generally mean, alterations of existing works.
No where does it state, a new work has to be lost to this tarbaby of a
license.  Please try to use simple logic, and quit confusing horses and
wishes.  What is my position of authority, one of the authors who has
created lots of files.

Now let me really screws in the thumbs.

GPL version 2 Linux Kernel + New Original Work w/ Export CLAPI

I am about ready to dig out an old project of mine and then bait everyone
of you to come after me with your silly GPL drum "Derivative Work".

Commerial Linux API, pronounced CLA(y) PI(e).
	-- CLA(y) is a moldable media capable of taking any form
	-- PI(e)  1) for the irrational zealots who hurt growth.
		  2) calm the irrational vendors have about "1".

This was designed to allow commerial binary only module vendor to use a
full abstracted interface to run anything they want.  If you tell me I can
not create this work, I will cite GPL against you for restricting and
impose policies that limit my use.  Clearly you will be in the wrong, but
I am dying hear one of you prove me wrong here.  I believe it is section
six (6).

----------
  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
----------

If you tell me I can not do this, then you have to explain away the above.
I will be back with some popcorn, to enjoy the show.

Now that I can do whatever and create whatever, and in this model I will
copy verbatium every operational function regardless of any associated
flag tatoo'd to the API symbols list.  This secondary abstraction object
layer will be dual licensed as OSL/LGPL.  Therefore it is permitted to use
any and all exported sysmbols regardless of games played.

Since the associated headers for CLAPI are no needed to created the new
module+its exported api, I do not have to redistribute 'it' or the 'set'.
This is supported by the paragraph under section two (2).

----------
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
----------

Now my set of header(s) will grant me access regardless, and you have
nothing to say and not a thing you can do about it.  Try and prevent me
from creating such a work, you will beaten silly with section six (6) of
GPL license.  Now try to force me to release my headers, we goto court.
Below is your bases to think you can force the releasing the header(s) or
"associated interface definition files".

----------
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
----------

Now since the "source code" to create the new work does not need the
header(s) in question, well you can not have it.  However, I will use
paragraph under section two (2) and freely enter the headers as
evidence in court to prove you are wrong and ask for excessive damages
awards against the other party and request the summited evidence be sealed
by the court.

Now, why am I being so hostile in the example, to prove that one can use
the license to undo anything and strip away any artifical law generated to
fill the MAC TRUCK holes in the document.

So back to MicroSoft's inability to force third parties to give up their
original works to function in under their environment, a judge.  So why
would a judge permit the FSF/GPL/FOSS/etc ... commit the same violations
prohibited in the other environment?  If he does, I would hope they would
appeal and receive a rightful overturned ruling.  Why, there are no
exceptions to rules of law (excluding Kennedy's).

Sheesh, and the point of the long winded waste of electrons ...

It is just an API described in "header files" or "associated interface
definition files".

On Mon, 06 Jan 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:

>  ... the courts held that it was fair use to reverse engineer software
> to determine how it works ("in order to gain an understanding of the
> unprotected functional elements of the program").
>       Sega v. Accolade (9th Cir. 1992) 997 F.2d 1510.

I do not know what this truly means in the above ruling, but the words in
simple terms state, 'I am free to discover your api and use it'

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:

>    "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
> your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
> exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective
> works based on the Program."
> 
> So, the question I've been trying to ask is how one can interpret that
> language in a way that is consistent with the view that all that matters
> is whether A is a derivative work of B.

So one sells the work or program on a single media, and make them download
or purchase the associated GPL programs to use and execute the non-GPL
product.  This bypasses the distribution controls and hooks of the
tarbaby-license.  Also this makes the final destination, the enduser.
Distribution is over and ability to dictate the usage is gone, section
six (6).  Now argue out of this box.

Lastly I do not create closed derivatives, thieves have no honor.
I freely publish a derivative, and add to general collection of free
software.

42,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

referenced file /usr/src/linux-2.4.19-pre7/COPYING

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3