Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[sk]

Hi,

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
>sk wrote:
>> 1) That I do not "offend" the original author
>
>This is nice, but strictly unnecessary under the GPL.

Understood, but I still would prefer not to "offend"
(not really the correct word, but cannot think of a 
better one).

Both "Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>" and 
"dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)" indicate that
I probably do have a copyright interest.

OK, but a large part of me says, this is not
my work.

>"dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)"
>> 2) That I do not infringe upon the original copyright and
>>    licensing.
>Well of course that is a legal issue, and I cannot offer
>any legal advice here, especially since I have not seen
>what you have done, but certainly a good step is to make
>sure that you do have definitive knowledge of who holds
>the copyright and what license they provide.

Interesting point. I had of course overlooked the 
possibility that the original author might not have 
been in a position to copyright or license in the first
place.

Re-persuing the license again and FAQ's and looking
for nuances etc. (every time I read an obviously 
carefully phrased legal document/contract, my brains 
start going to mush and I start wondering  what the 
word "it" might mean under the circumstances :-)

-- 
-------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
-------------------------------------
s n p @ t . o
 k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[Hyman Rosen]

sk wrote:
> OK, but a large part of me says, this is not my work.

Well, it's not up to you to decide, it's up to the law.
But in any case, if it's "GPLs all the way down" you have
nothing to worry about.

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[Adrian Hoe]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<3C963902.8050600@mail.com>...
> sk wrote:
> > OK, but a large part of me says, this is not my work.
> 
> Well, it's not up to you to decide, it's up to the law.
> But in any case, if it's "GPLs all the way down" you have
> nothing to worry about.



What if the original work is GPL and subsequently, (the
port/translation) it is GMGPL and then Artistic License or vice versa?

                                       -- Adrian Hoe
                                       -- http://adrianhoe.com

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[David Starner]

On 18 Mar 2002 16:49:36 -0800, Adrian Hoe <byhoe@greenlime.com> wrote:
> What if the original work is GPL and subsequently, (the
> port/translation) it is GMGPL and then Artistic License or vice versa?

You can't take their work and release it under another license without
permission.

-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably refering to the Internet)

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[Adrian Hoe]

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<a76l12$8i41@news.cis.okstate.edu>...
> On 18 Mar 2002 16:49:36 -0800, Adrian Hoe <byhoe@greenlime.com> wrote:
> > What if the original work is GPL and subsequently, (the
> > port/translation) it is GMGPL and then Artistic License or vice versa?
> 
> You can't take their work and release it under another license without
> permission.


Ok. What if I already have the permission to release it under another
license (2nd generation) and then subsequently I release another work
under another license (3rd generation)? The original author holds the
license of his work (1st generation).


                                       -- Adrian Hoe
                                       -- http://adrianhoe.com

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[David Starner]

On 19 Mar 2002 17:30:47 -0800, Adrian Hoe <byhoe@greenlime.com> wrote:
> Ok. What if I already have the permission to release it under another
> license (2nd generation) and then subsequently I release another work
> under another license (3rd generation)? The original author holds the
> license of his work (1st generation).

Huh? It's quite simple; he's part owner of the work, and he has to
approve any license you release the code under. 

-- 
David Starner - starner@okstate.edu
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[Ted Dennison]

sk <noname@myob.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.1016455502.7622.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> Both "Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>" and 
> "dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)" indicate that
> I probably do have a copyright interest.
> 
> OK, but a large part of me says, this is not
> my work.

Its not; its your work *and* his. 

This difference does have very real implications. For instance, if it
was your work alone, you'd be free to relicense it any way you want
(eg: a non-free license, with you alone pocketting the fees). If it
were his work alone, he'd be free to download a copy and then
relicense it to someone else with a non-free license. Doing so with a
joint work requires agreement of *all* copyright holders.


-- 
T.E.D.
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

Copyright, Licensing etc.

[sk]

Hi,

I have translated a GPL "C" application to Ada and Gnat and I 
would like to release it under the same license.

--
-- License being
--
--   "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991"
--

However, I want to ensure 3 things :

1) That I do not "offend" the original author 
2) That I do not infringe upon the original copyright and
   licensing.
3) That I properly cover any loop-holes and keep the
   derivation within the same GPL license.

For item 1, I need to initiate communications with the
original author, I have done so and I am awaiting a 
reply.

However, for items 2) and 3) does the following both
fully honor the original work and stop my derivation
from escaping the GPL ?

--------------------------------------------------------------
--
-- This file : My_File_Name is part of My_Project_Name
--
-- My_Project_Name is a a derivation of Original_Project_Name
--
-- Original_Project_Name Original_Project_Copyright
--
-- My_Project_Name  My_Copyright_Notice.
--
-- <THE REMAINING GPL LICENSE FILE HEADER>
--

Do I in fact have any copyrights to the derivation ?

I have read the original license, but I am having trouble
distinguishing between the domain of the original material
and the domain of my translation.

I would appreciate any pointers from people who have 
experience in C to Ada translations and the subsequent
release of their derivations.

-- 
-------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
-------------------------------------
s n p @ t . o
 k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[Hyman Rosen]

sk wrote:
> 1) That I do not "offend" the original author

This is nice, but strictly unnecessary under the GPL.

> 2) That I do not infringe upon the original copyright and
>    licensing.
> 3) That I properly cover any loop-holes and keep the
>    derivation within the same GPL license.

Simple enough - just distribute under the GPL!

> Do I in fact have any copyrights to the derivation ?

Under US law, yes. As a translator, you have copyright to
the translated work. The original author *also* has copyright
to the translated work, so in order to distribute it, you
would need permission from him. The GPL gives you this
permission.

You are doing exactly what the GPL was designed to permit,
and by releasing the work under the GPL, the original author
has given you permission to do this. Go forth bravely!

Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.

[Robert Dewar]

sk <noname@myob.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.1016248082.31806.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> However, I want to ensure 3 things :
> 
> 1) That I do not "offend" the original author 

The issue is not "offending" the original author (though
of course it is a courtesy to ask), but rather to ensure
that you have a valid license. The fact that a file has
a GPL header on it has no legal significance. Only the
copyright holder has the power to license, and the mere
fact that there is some wording on a file does not ensure
that this is the case (imagine for example if someone 
posted Microsoft proprietary code, adding a GPL header,
this would NOT mean that this code was licensed under
the GPL).

> 2) That I do not infringe upon the original copyright and
>    licensing.

Well of course that is a legal issue, and I cannot offer
any legal advice here, especially since I have not seen
what you have done, but certainly a good step is to make
sure that you do have definitive knowledge of who holds
the copyright and what license they provide.

> 3) That I properly cover any loop-holes and keep the
>    derivation within the same GPL license.

Again, that is a legal issue. The GPL is a legal contract,
and you have to make sure you adhere to all its conditions.

> However, for items 2) and 3) does the following both
> fully honor the original work and stop my derivation
> from escaping the GPL ?

What you put in the header is irrelevant, it has no legal
significance.

> Do I in fact have any copyrights to the derivation ?

Probably, assuming the original was licensed under the
GPL, the result is a permissible deriviative work in which
you share a copyright interest.

> I have read the original license, but I am having trouble
> distinguishing between the domain of the original 
> material and the domain of my translation.

Clearly only an attorney can offer a professional opinion
here, and only a court can finally adjudicate, but you may
find useful information in the GPL FAQ if you have not already read it.