For me, the license choice makes this project "interesting, but no way this is gonna fly!!", and I immediately think that this is a "try-before-you-buy"-usage of the GPL, to which there are many.
Free Lossless Image Format
351–360 of 374 posts
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but the only complete documentation of the file format I found was the source code of the reference implementation. So the only way to write a new implementation is to study the reference implementation, which will make your new implementation "tainted".
Guess how many court cases has been about developers tainted from reading code. 1000? 1? 0? Zero. You are about as likely to be tainted from reading GPL code as to be tainted by reading HN, the news paper, or driving around in silicon valley and looking at building with programmers in them.
You, I and common sense may believe that. However highly paid lawyers at very big companies has told me otherwise in no uncertain terms.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that the lawyers for some companies will not sign off on employees even looking at GPLv3 sources. Rightly or wrongly, this really does make a clean-room implementation impossible. One can reasonably argue that this is stupid and not the fault of the GPL. However, it's also reality, and a real block to adoption of technologies like image formats.
Get better lawyers. Clean-room implementation has been around for ages, I've done it professionally myself, both from source code and disassembly. Also not every company has clueless lawyers, nor does a clean-room re-implementation of this format need to come from a company, I'd say it's more likely not. Seriously this sounds more like GPLv3 scaremongering than anything else, I've never seen anything like this in my…
+1 for the "full app/solution" vs. library/framework applicability for GPL vs. permissive: That is exactly my opinion too. When I see GPL'ed libraries, I think "try before you buy"-style open source code, and these invariably also comes with an option to buy a commercial license.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also believe this, but it is not an established fact. The GPL does prohibit it, and so whether that is actually enforceable has to be tested in a court of law. So you are in fact not free to do this, if you have a boss above you who cares dearly about the company steering clear of hot water. I'd be willing to testify as a technical expert in a court of law that the GPL cannot reasonably rule out dynamic linking; th…
The problem with that line of thought is that the courts don't care if its use or integration , but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. The word used in copyright law is transform, adapt, recast, and such changes requires additional copyright permission. For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing t…
> but if the resulting work depends on someone else work.
Yes, so obviously your argument cannot be that "in theory, we could replace this with a workalike".
You better have the workalike, and that's what you should be shipping.
A powerful argument that you aren't infringing is that your shipping media are completely devoid of the work.
> don't care if its use or integration
For the sake of the GPL, they must care in this case, because the GPL specifically abstains from dictating use; it governs redistribution!
The only parts of the license relevant to use are the disclaimers; the only reason a pure user of a GPL-ed program might want to read the license at all is to be informed that if the program causes loss of data (or whatever), the authors are not liable.
GPLed programs get used all the time. A proprietary app on a GNU/Linux system can use the C library function system() which might invoke /bin/sh that is GNU Bash, and even depend on that functionality.
> For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing the copy.
But what if that cut-up never leaves my house?
Or what if I only distribute instructions which describe the geometry of some cuts which can be made to a painting, and the relocation of the pieces?
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with that line of thought is that the courts don't care if its use or integration , but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. The word used in copyright law is transform, adapt, recast, and such changes requires additional copyright permission. For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing t…
> but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. Yes, so obviously your argument cannot be that "in theory, we could replace this with a workalike". You better have the workalike, and that's what you should be shipping. A powerful argument that you aren't infringing is that your shipping media are completely devoid of the work. > don't care if its use or integration For the sake of the GPL, they must care in…
> But what if that cut-up never leaves my house?
Maybe so, because the exclusive right is framed as a right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" (separate from reproduction, distribution, and other copyright rights).
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. Yes, so obviously your argument cannot be that "in theory, we could replace this with a workalike". You better have the workalike, and that's what you should be shipping. A powerful argument that you aren't infringing is that your shipping media are completely devoid of the work. > don't care if its use or integration For the sake of the GPL, they must care in…
> But what if that cut-up never leaves my house? Maybe so, because the exclusive right is framed as a right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work" (separate from reproduction, distribution, and other copyright rights). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106
Might it be that this separation between those rights exists so that the copyright holder can contract out manufacturing services, while controlling distribution? The copy house is given the right of preparing copies, without having distribution rights.
I don't think I was infringing back in kindergarten when I cut up newspapers to make strips for papier-mâché. In any case, my courtroom argument there could be bolstered by the remark that the resulting work was painted, entirely concealing the original content.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not a lawyer. Lawyers at big companies accept Apache's demands and reject categorically GPLv3's. Doesn't matter what you or I think of software patents (yes, they should be banned). Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says. The lawyers at big companies see it as a problem, so it's a problem. End of discussion. No drama required; it's just the fact that big companies avoid using anything cursed with GPLv3.
Unlike you, I have at least taken the time to read the relevant license parts before discussing them. Note that what you've argued before was very different from what you're saying now. You've narrowed the scope of the discussion (leaving out LGPL), but also its very nature (" legally impossible [1]", eh?). Anyway, companies do use software licensed under both licenses, and even incorporate them into their services -…
>Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says.
I have read the license. I'm like that.
And it still doesn't matter.
It's what the lawyers think. And they say it's verboten.
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#358I found what appears to be an early draft of the paper:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:z2rYA4Z...
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#359BMP is free isn't it????
I guess trollers/jokesters aren't appreciated here...
Re: Free Lossless Image Format
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike you, I have at least taken the time to read the relevant license parts before discussing them. Note that what you've argued before was very different from what you're saying now. You've narrowed the scope of the discussion (leaving out LGPL), but also its very nature (" legally impossible [1]", eh?). Anyway, companies do use software licensed under both licenses, and even incorporate them into their services -…
>Doesn't matter what you or I think GPLv3 says. I have read the license. I'm like that. And it still doesn't matter. It's what the lawyers think. And they say it's verboten.
There are only so many options here. Either:
* You are lying that you read the license.
* You were lying about what the license says.
* You really dont want to admit that you have misunderstood the license.
Either way, you were wrong then and you are wrong now about what the lawyers think. Speaking of which, there are only a few possibilities here as well, only these are not mutually exclusive:
* You are intentionally dishonest because you have an agenda
* You are dishonest just to cover your behind
* You are genuinely careless about what you say
Even if we change the word 'think' for 'say', it's still a gross overgeneralization.
So all things considered, in the best case scenario, you refuse to admit when you are wrong, and will continue overgeneralizing. Forgive me, but it's really not worth the effort arguing under these circumstances. If you wanted to continue, you would have to make some concessions, but I doubt you will, so in all probability: Goodbye.