30 Jun
2010
30 Jun
'10
1:12 p.m.
Hello list,
any opinion or experience for this case? The main question is: Who is responsible?
A free, copylefted work is taken to build a derived work. This is realistic for GPL but
much more realistic for a Creative Commons work, maybe a music piece.
The derived work is released properly and 100% according to the original license, so there
is no problem in that. (Imagine here a phase in which the derived works becomes popular,
but that is not strictly necessarry)
Later it turns out that the original work itself was a copyright break because music was
stolen or the code was taken from a closed program where the initial releaser had access
to (@ work or however).
Now what happens? Of course the intial release was wrong and there will be legal
consequences, no question. But what about the derived works and their derived works?
Greetings,
Nils
30 Jun
30 Jun
1:19 p.m.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils Hammerfest <nils(a)hammerfeste.com> wrote:
Now what happens? Of course the intial release was
wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived works
and their derived works?
there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws
(which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there
are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would
immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the
distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability. there
are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would.
--p
1:23 p.m.
Hello!
This is a good question and I believe Paul nailed it as far as modern law
goes, but the whole situation only shows that copyright law, patent law or
any other law are initially flawed as they are based on a false assumption
that it is possible to treat ideas as property. So a situation as you
described is possible and actually happens a lot in the patent system, which
seems more strict and where it is not granted by default but you have to
register stuff, yet they often end up with the same thing patented several
times by different people.
So yeah, it is a mess.
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
2 Jul
2 Jul
9:53 p.m.
New subject: A weak link in the license chain: Releasing on false assumptions?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:19:07AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils Hammerfest
<nils(a)hammerfeste.com> wrote:
This sounds similar to the Novell/SCO lawsuit against Linux some years ago.
Novell claimed that there were Unix headers in Linux, thus they owned Linux.
As I recall, Linus fought it and won the suit.
-ken
Now what happens? Of course the intial release
was wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived
works and their derived works?
there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws
(which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there
are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would
immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the
distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability. there
are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would.
10:33 p.m.
New subject: A weak link in the license chain: Releasing on false assumptions?
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:53:06 -0700
Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:19:07AM -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
You've got that arse about face. Novel has actually been the 'good guy'
here - see http://www.Groklaw.net and look for SCO in the side bar.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils Hammerfest
<nils(a)hammerfeste.com> wrote:
This sounds similar to the Novell/SCO lawsuit against Linux some years ago.
Novell claimed that there were Unix headers in Linux, thus they owned Linux.
As I recall, Linus fought it and won the suit.
-ken Now what happens? Of course the intial release
was wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived
works and their derived works?
there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws
(which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there
are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would
immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the
distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability. there
are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would.
10:54 p.m.
2010/7/2 Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org>rg>:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 12:53:06 -0700
Ken Restivo <ken(a)restivo.org> wrote:
And it wasn't Linus himself who fought back, but IBM.
-Giuseppe
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:19:07AM -0400, Paul
Davis wrote:
You've got that arse about face. Novel has actually been the 'good guy'
here - see http://www.Groklaw.net and look for SCO in the side bar.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils Hammerfest
<nils(a)hammerfeste.com> wrote:
This sounds similar to the Novell/SCO lawsuit against Linux some years ago.
Novell claimed that there were Unix headers in Linux, thus they owned Linux.
As I recall, Linus fought it and won the suit.
-ken Now what happens? Of course the intial release
was wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived
works and their derived works?
there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws
(which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there
are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would
immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the
distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability. there
are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would.
3 Jul
3 Jul
8:36 a.m.
Folderol wrote:
Yah, it was SCO vs Novell. GrokLaw has all the details, but basically
SCO bought nothing more than a license to use and sell UNIX, not the
copyright. (I think the court has also held that SCO's suit against
Novell broke the terms of the agreement with Novell, thereby losing
their right to use and sell UNIX.
The other "good guy" in the sordid tale is another giant corporation - IBM.
Apparently big corporations aren't all bad all the time.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
This sounds
similar to the Novell/SCO lawsuit against Linux some years ago.
Novell claimed that there were Unix headers in Linux, thus they owned Linux.
As I recall, Linus fought it and won the suit.
-ken
You've got that arse about face. Novel has actually been the 'good guy'
here - see http://www.Groklaw.net and look for SCO in the side bar. 
2:08 p.m.
New subject: A weak link in the license chain: Releasing on false assumptions?
Am 30.06.2010 13:19, schrieb Paul Davis:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Nils
Hammerfest<nils(a)hammerfeste.com> wrote:
In Germany the recent situation is: if you have made a derivative work
in "good faith" you have to stop to distribute your derivative as soon
as you learn, that the initial work is not made legally. There is a
thing called "Mitstörerhaftung" that could be translated to
"Responsibility for helping others to do illegal things without being
involved in such illegal activities directly and without having intended
to do so". As soon as you are informed about such activities on your
website or in any other thing you distribute you have to respond within
48h. If your response is to stop such distribution immediately and
inform the involved parties that you have done so, you have a very good
chance to be out of trouble. BUT! this is custom, NOT written law.
Especially you are not completely secured from costs that come with a
lawsuit.
Another much more delicate point is the *information* you may get by
reading code that a proprietor has not allowed to be distributed. Say,
it would be a media-player that can read a certain type of file-format.
If you know, how such a format can be decoded, you could write your own
code from scratch, that is capable to read such files as well.
And if such code is illegal or not, is not ultimatively decided yet.
best regs
HZN
Now what happens? Of course the intial release
was wrong and there will be legal consequences, no question. But what about the derived
works and their derived works?
there is no single answer to this. it would depend on national laws
(which vary) and it would depend on the particular case at hand. there
are examples i can imagine where in US law, the derived work would
immediately become as illegal as the initial work, but the
distributor(s) of the derived work would not have any liability.
there
are other examples i can imagine where they clearly would.
--p
5290
days inactive
5293
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
david -
Folderol -
Giuseppe Zompatori -
Hartmut Noack -
Ken Restivo -
Louigi Verona -
Nils Hammerfest -
Paul Davis