Eruby SAFE question

ruby-talk
21

Tobias Reif wrote

How exactly do you justify
taking the copyright

I will explain it once more:
A translator doesn’t take any copyrights.
A translation generates a copyright of its own. If you translate a book
you gain the copyright in this translation. The translator can’t do anything
against it, the copyright is bestowed on him/her by international copyright
laws. However, he/she might not have the rights to publish it. Normally
he/she
negotiates with the original’s publisher and gets the publishing rights
and gives some fee and some of his/her own copyrights in exchange.
If there is a free license, things are slightly different. The original’s
copyright holder may opt to restrict a translator’s copyright as by
the GFDL (“provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely
this License”), or he/she may opt not to restrict the translation’s
copyright
as by the OPL (provided he doesn’t declares license option VI.A).

and
changing the license

The license may be chosen by the copyright owner. The original’s license
never changed.

22

Did you install my ftplugin/ruby.vim yet?

http://vim.sourceforge.net/scripts/script.php?script_id=303

Out of the box, Matchit doesn’t work with Ruby. My script fixes that.

···

On Monday 01 July 2002 01:53 pm, Daniel wrote:

In an attempt to do bracket matching in Ruby, I added let
loaded_matchit = 1 in my .vimrc file. This didn’t seem to have the
desired effect. Any pointers on this are appriciated.

–
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE

23

Tobias Reif tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com writes:

This is why the FSF requires all official GNU project contributers
to assign the copyright of their work on said project to the FSF.

This is irrelevant, because it is not a requirement for getting support.

They will help, and it is not required that they are the copyright holders:

[…]

Well, yes. Of course they would help. I’m sure no one thought the
FSF would just ignore a violation if it wasn’t their own
code/documentation. I guess I was trying to express the fact that
they wouldn’t go after violations without the copyright holder’s
agreement.

Perhaps I was being a little strong – I didn’t mean to imply they
would do nothing for you. :slight_smile:

Have a nice day,

···

–
Josh Huber

24

Juergen Katins wrote:

[…]

I’m not sure about all this, and IANAL.

The fact that you seem to refuse to negotiate with the original authors
sure doesn’t place your translation in favourable light.
There are laws, but on the other hand, there’s PR, and a community.

Tobi

···

–
http://www.pinkjuice.com/

25

But the OPL does restrict you. It says that unmodified AND MODIFIED
versions (where “modified” explicitly includes translations) have to
include the paragraph I quoted before. You released a modified
version (as defined by the OPL), but omitted that paragraph. Nothing
you have posted to this list has included a single syllable of
explanation of this.

David

···

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Juergen Katins wrote:

If there is a free license, things are slightly different. The original’s
copyright holder may opt to restrict a translator’s copyright as by
the GFDL (“provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely
this License”), or he/she may opt not to restrict the translation’s
copyright
as by the OPL (provided he doesn’t declares license option VI.A).

–
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav

26

Azt irtad, hogy

In an attempt to do bracket matching in Ruby, I added let
loaded_matchit = 1 in my .vimrc file.

If you do so, this means, you don’t want to use matchit. (You tell to
vim, you have it already loaded!). Rather put matchit to your plugin
dir.

Gergo
±[Kontra, Gergely @ Budapest University of Technology and Economics]-+

    Email: kgergely@mcl.hu,  kgergely@turul.eet.bme.hu          |

URL: turul.eet.bme.hu/~kgergely Mobile: (+36 20) 356 9656 |
±------“Olyan langesz vagyok, hogy poroltoval kellene jarnom!”-------+
.
Magyar php mirror es magyar php dokumentacio: http://hu.php.net

···

On Monday 01 July 2002 01:53 pm, Daniel wrote:

27

Oh no, why did you have to say that? I was kind of enjoying the
thread, and it will end again now, as usual.

Massimiliano

···

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:27:15PM +0900, David Alan Black wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Juergen Katins wrote:

this License"), or he/she may opt not to restrict the
translation’s copyright as by the OPL (provided he doesn’t
declares license option VI.A).

You released a modified version (as defined by the OPL), but omitted
that paragraph. Nothing you have posted to this list has included a
single syllable of explanation of this.

28

From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]

But the OPL does restrict you. It says that unmodified AND MODIFIED
versions (where “modified” explicitly includes translations) have to
include the paragraph I quoted before. You released a modified
version (as defined by the OPL), but omitted that paragraph. Nothing
you have posted to this list has included a single syllable of
explanation of this.

If a modified work is restricted by the terms of the OPL, I don’t see how
simply asserting otherwise would make it any less true.

In other words, if I translate the pickaxe book into Swahili, publish it on
a website, and then claim that the work is now under a completely private
copyright, it wouldn’t be true simply because I said so. Wouldn’t people
be justified in mirroring the modified work, with the copyright and
licensing information changed to the correct version?

James

29

Hi –

From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack@candle.superlink.net]

But the OPL does restrict you. It says that unmodified AND MODIFIED
versions (where “modified” explicitly includes translations) have to
include the paragraph I quoted before. You released a modified
version (as defined by the OPL), but omitted that paragraph. Nothing
you have posted to this list has included a single syllable of
explanation of this.

If a modified work is restricted by the terms of the OPL, I don’t see how
simply asserting otherwise would make it any less true.

In other words, if I translate the pickaxe book into Swahili, publish it on
a website, and then claim that the work is now under a completely private
copyright, it wouldn’t be true simply because I said so. Wouldn’t people
be justified in mirroring the modified work, with the copyright and
licensing information changed to the correct version?

I certainly think so. My view of the Katins translation is that it
is, in reality, covered by the OPL – but is in violation of its
license because it excludes the required language (and further
confuses the matter by sticking in language from a different,
irrelevant license). If this view is right, then mirrors really
should go ahead and correct the error, rather than perpetuate it.

Care would have to be taken in the matter of copyright wording (as
distinct from license wording). I don’t know whether there’s any
legal merit in Katins’s claim to have some kind of copyright interest
in the translation – but that question is orthogonal to the question
of what’s required by the OPL, so the basic act of restoring the OPL
would, in my opinion, be appropriate.

David

···

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 james@rubyxml.com wrote:

–
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav

30

I will no more argue about any copyright or license problems.
“Programmierung in Ruby” will be available under OPL in the future.
I am sad and deeply disappointed by the reaction my publishing evoked.
I have got only one mail dealing with the content of the translation,
any other feedback muttered about some copyright or license formalism.
I got the impression that the community is only a bunch of nitpickers.
I will withdraw for the summer and I doubt that I will make any efforts
again
in free software or documentation. In any case I will no more maintain
the english version of “Programming Ruby”, you should download it if
you want it.

Some last words:
I have been advised, in particular by Tobias Reif, to regard and value
the work of the original’s authors. I will do so and compare it to my
humble contribution.
I have invested a lot of time and some money to translate a book.
They have persuaded a publisher to place a book owned by this publisher
under an open license.
I rebuilded some lost paragraphs, a lot of neglected pagelinks, and a
complete discarded index.
They have rectified some mistypings collected to benefit the printed book’s
second edition.

Subsuming I must say

What a loss of time and effort

31

Hi all,

My 2 cent:

Juergen is of course right insofar that the act of translation generates a
copyright on the translation.

If, however, the OPL is a copyleft license (which I don’t know, have to
read it first) in the sense that it restricts the licenses of derivative
works to be the OPL, then he has to license his translation under the OPL,
since the translated text is a derivative work.

Its the same as if you extend a GPL’d program – of course you own the
copyright to your extensions, but you have to license them under the GPL
since you have included GPL’d code.

In the case of translating a text, you just cannot separate your
extensions from the original work again as you could do with code.

I’m disappointed that this had to be debated in this form. Juergen has
actually done the community a service by translating the book into another
language. He may (or may not – i still have to read the OPL myself) have
just misunderstood the OPL.

If the OPL is not a copyleft license, then of course a license change
could be legal – like Microsoft’s license change when they incorporated
BSD code into windows NT.

Hope you can work this out

Tobias

32

Juergen is of course right insofar that the act of translation
generates a copyright on the translation.

This is correct.

If, however, the OPL is a copyleft license (which I don’t know,
have to read it first) in the sense that it restricts the licenses
of derivative works to be the OPL, then he has to license his
translation under the OPL, since the translated text is a
derivative work.

Copyleft actually doesn’t matter, here. A translation is a
derivative work, and cannot be published except as licensed. This
means that the translation could possibly be licensed under a
different licence, but that the original work – or the included
parts of the original work – still have to be available under the
original licence.

If the OPL is not a copyleft license, then of course a license
change could be legal – like Microsoft’s license change when they
incorporated BSD code into windows NT.

This is actually the main reason I responded. Note that Microsoft
didn’t change the licence on the BSD code. They used it in
accordance with the licence. They licensed their complete work under
their own licence, but the code permitted that. All-in-all, I prefer
licences like the MPL because they are very clear on the issue of
derivatives.

-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.07.02 at 13.32.36

···

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:31:59 +0900, Tobias Peters wrote:

33

Mr. Katins,

I’m still interested in your views regarding the (AFAICS) copied code.
How do you justify claiming coopyright for it?

Tobi

···

–
http://www.pinkjuice.com/

34

“Tobias Reif” wrote:

I’m still interested in your views regarding the (AFAICS) copied code.
How do you justify claiming coopyright for it?

Ehm, I really (AFUNDX) don’t know. I never thought of that but I am sure:
There are always some bean counters, pettifoggers, and quibblers worrying
about it.

Juergen Katins

35

didn’t change the licence on the BSD code. They used it in
accordance with the licence. They licensed their complete work under
their own licence, but the code permitted that.

Of course you’re right. Only the copyright holder can change the license.

All-in-all, I prefer
licences like the MPL because they are very clear on the issue of
derivatives.

I’ve just read the OPL, and although it is not written very clear, the OPL
is actually a copyleft license. It requires derived works to be put under
the OPL, although this requirement is somewhat hidden. In fact, from first
reading I got the impression that the license is BSD-ish, so I think, it
is easy to get that wrong without intention. Let me explain:

Paragraph I., labeled “requirements on both unmodified and modified
versions”, includes the permission for redistribution and the requirement
of including a copyright notice with credits for the original authors.

Paragraph IV., labeled “requirements on modified versions” lists:

1.The modified version must be labeled as such.
2.The person making the modifications must be identified and the
modifications dated.
3.Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must
be retained according to normal academic citation practices.
4.The location of the original unmodified document must be identified.
5.The original author’s (or authors’) name(s) may not be used to assert or
imply endorsement of the resulting document without the original
author’s (or authors’) permission.

=> No requirement on the license of derivative works in Paragraph IV.

This copyleft requirement is buried in Paragraph I., by demanding the
inclusion of the already mentioned copyright notice. Inside the demanded
form of the copyright notice, it says:

“This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License.”

So it forces modified works to be licensed under the OPL only by demanding
the inclusion of a copyright notice. I would say, this is easy to
overlook. It should state so explicitly right in the text of the license.

So could you please shake hands again?

And the usual disclaimer when dealing with this subject: IANAL, this is
not legal advice.

Tobias

···

On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Austin Ziegler wrote:

36

Juergen Katins wrote:

“Tobias Reif” wrote:

I’m still interested in your views regarding the (AFAICS) copied code.
How do you justify claiming coopyright for it?

Ehm, I really (AFUNDX) don’t know.

This is a severe failing and omission, resulting in an illegal breach of
copyright.

Do contact the copyright holders and authors and do work out an agreement.

I never thought of that but I am sure:
There are always some bean counters, pettifoggers, and quibblers
worrying about it.

Do you always resort to name-calling when you don’t have an explanation?

I would know some names that I’d like to call people who take
copyrighted and licensed code, place it under their copyright, then
offend people asking for an explanation.

I asked you in a very calm, unpersonal, and objective way, and you
replied with no explanation and three offenses.

I do not see you respecting the original authors and copyright holders
in any way.

Tobi

···

–
http://www.pinkjuice.com/

37

Tobias Peters wrote:

And the usual disclaimer when dealing with this subject: IANAL, this is
not legal advice.

Just for laughs, I had to post that IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer, I
presume), is the only phrase I can translate into Japanese:

Watashi wa bengoshi dewa arimasen

(or something like that)

I’ve never found a use for it, until now :slight_smile:

38

From: Tobias Reif [mailto:tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com]
…
I would know some names that I’d like to call people who take
copyrighted and licensed code, place it under their copyright, then
offend people asking for an explanation.

I asked you in a very calm, unpersonal, and objective way, and you
replied with no explanation and three offenses.

I do not see you respecting the original authors and copyright holders
in any way.

A come on. The huge amount of work he must have put into this
translation project without any monetary benefit by itself is an homage
to the efforts of the original authors and claiming copyright to a
translation comes perfectly natural to me. Anyway, Juergen is
apparently giving in on the licensing issue … so lets concentrate on
the quality of Juergen’s translation - you go first;-)

/Christoph

39

Very interesting thread, this one!

Christoph wrote:

A come on. The huge amount of work he must have put into this
translation project without any monetary benefit by itself is an homage
to the efforts of the original authors and claiming copyright to a
translation comes perfectly natural to me.

I do not at all question Mr Katins amount of work. I’m sure the work is
WORTH a copyright or two, but that’s not the point. The matter is about
neglecting licenses. It’s nothing “picky” or “bean-counter-ish” about
asking for answers. The whole open source community relies on people not
violating these licenses.

Regards,

Gabriel Paues