>>3780 >(((American Business Law)))

>>3781 It's grsecurity and all programmers argument "We don't have to abide by your copyright on your code because we have customers: that overrides copyright law"

TreviTyger > Take a copyrighted literary work off the shelf. Read said literary work. Add various paragraphs to various pages of the work, change words within the work, add sentances to various areas of the work. Then, make a catalogue of their changes: the difference between the original work and "their version" their now-modified version of the original work. > They can then distribute this catalogue of changes without any regard to the copyright of the original work. This might seem intuitive enough but as I mentioned, this is 'cognitive bias' rather than actual copyright law. In reality, to do what you mention in such an example is illegal. Derivative works can indeed be separate works with their own separate copyright but only if the original author "specifically" allows it. [Emphasis added] In terms of "specifics" this relates to an aspect of law sometimes called the principle of specification. What this means in practice is that a "specific agreement" is required and due to the fact it requires "specific permissions" then vague licensing agreements (such as open source) are simply not specific enough to be considered valid by a copyright law judge. Instead, what would be better is a specific license written up by competent lawyers that outlines in very specific language exactly what derivative works can be created and for what uses. So here is a simplified example of how specific licensing might work, A novelist can authorize their book to be translated in to one language to be sold in specific territories by one publisher as a hard back book, and then make another license agreement with another publisher for a soft back edition to be sold in airports. Then the first publisher would need a separate license from the author to make a softback edition themselves even though they already have a license to make a hard back copy. That's how specific things need to be! Therefore, one can easily see how open source licensing, when it comes to derivative works, simply lacks the 'specific' language required for a judge to determine how to address such things in terms of actual copyright law. To put it another way, if vague licensing agreements were adequate rather than 'specific agreements' then you could end up with massive amounts of copyright overreach from all sectors that rely on copyright law to keep things from getting chaotic. Thus the whole system would break down.

armenianapple > In reality, to do what you mention in such an example is illegal. Bullshit. Grsecurity has been doing exactly that for 5 years. Not a peep from Linus Torvalds, Richard Matthew Stallman, nor Eric S. Raymond, and not a peep from the thousands of linux kernel copyright holders. All programmers agree: Aslong as you distribute your changes to the source code as a PATCH file: you do not have to give a damn about the copyright. You can do whatever you want. You haven't proven them wrong. > Instead, what would be better is a specific license written up by competent lawyers that outlines in very specific language exactly what derivative works can be created and for what uses. The GPLv2, which is the linux kernel license, says you can only make derivative works and distribute them if you distribute those derivative works under the terms of the GPLv2, and not any additional terms not already existing in the text of the GPLv2 license. The license also states that you may nor add any restrictions on the "rights" granted in the license, and you may not restrict redistribution. Grsecurity has added additional terms (their "Access Agreement") which adds a promise not to redistribute their changes to the linux kernel, under a penalty of loss of "access" and a forfeit of whatever monies were paid for future "access". Their additional terms they are distributing their source code changes to the linux kernel also include a disclaimer of liability if the revocation of "access" harms the distributee. Additionally the distributee must agree to a forum selection clause and a choice of law clause. So that shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Grsecurity is distributing their modifications to the Linux Kernel and the GCC compiler as PATCHES (they are not distributing them WITH the linux kernel: you have to download the linux kernel source, and then you use a program to "inject" their changes into that code, then you recompile and you have /their/ version of the linux kernel just like it is on their executive development machines at their enterprise), and ARE indeed adding additional terms including a term that forbids redistribution of the changes they have made under a penalty and forfieture. And they can do this. They haven't been sued in the 5 years they've been doing it. So you are obviously WRONG. The programmers are right. That bullshit about "derivative works" and "collective works" is just that: lawyer fucking bullshit. Programmers have decided that aslong as that crap is in a SEPERATE patch it can't be touched by your bullshit lawyer bullshit. Understand? So basically you admit that Grsecurity is NOT violating the linux kernel license. Since you can't say it. You just go on and on about other crap. Bet you won't even respond. Shut down. Boom.

TreviTyger >"All programmers agree: Aslong as you distribute your changes to the source code as a PATCH file: you do not have to give a damn about the copyright. You can do whatever you want." This is BS #Cognitive bias #NotActualCopyrightLaw "[Rant] When it comes to open source licensing then such cognitive bias can go off the scale in to absurdity. In my view open source licensing is just dumb, and it is obvious to me at least that problems, arguments and misunderstands are going to prevail. Also it can be a pointless endeavor to try to explain the complexities of licensing to people who are trapped by their own cognitive bias. #Dunning Kruger effect. [End of rant]" Open source is dumb when it comes to copyright. Also, Open source licensing is particularly moronic when it comes to derivative works. Really really moronic. This is because whoever came up with it simply didn't understand what they were doing and how complex things would get when you start making derivative works of 'derivative works' and then someone else makes another 'derivative work' and then another 'derivative work' etc. etc. etc. #DunningKrugerEffect

>>3786 ># Instantly wrong.

All copyright is a meme regardless of the license. If one license isn't valid none of them are. You download my car and I'll download yours.

>>3796 Copyright is a meme if you never enforce it.