You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Santiago Gala <sg...@apache.org> on 2008/03/29 15:51:24 UTC
Re: Source tar ball != svn tag (was: Re: [VOTE] Approve release
CXF 2.0.5-incubator)
El jue, 27-03-2008 a las 21:42 -0700, Matthieu Riou escribió:
(...snip...)
> From what I understand of copyright law, it's not (of course IANAL,
> etc...).
> Distribution (or publication in copyright lingo) is defined as:
>
> "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a
> work
> to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
> rental,
> lease,
> or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a
> group
>
> of persons for purposes of further distribution, public
> performance, or
> public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or
> display
>
> of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
>
The way it is written I take performance/display in the sense of
"executing" the score (for music), playing the play (for theater),
showing the movie, reading the poetry, exhibiting (displaying, for
paintings)...
> A source repository is in the category of "public performance or
> display",
> there's no purpose of further distribution. It doesn't constitute
> publication.
>
I'd say that "performance" of software is executing it (like in music or
theater, software is a "dynamic art"). Now I'm not sure if the "public"
word stretches the meaning too much. But I'm pretty much sure that
giving public access to a SCM repository amounts to distribution. Just
notice how trac, git, mercurial and other UIs for SCM offer the download
of a tarball for arbitrary revisions, for instance.
Re: the purpose of further distribution, gentoo, just to give an
example, offers sometimes -svn/-git/-cvs versioned packages, and those
are built by accessing the SCM repository, checking out a HEAD copy,
building the binaries and installing. I've seen this kind of packages
(repackaged) in debian and rpm distributions too. and I've seen plenty
of XXX-patched-cvs-200XXXXX.tgz/jar files in our own distributions.
Regards
Santiago
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
--
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Source tar ball != svn tag (was: Re: [VOTE] Approve release CXF 2.0.5-incubator)
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 31 March 2008 01:19, Matthieu Riou wrote:
> So what makes you pretty sure public access to a SCM amounts to
> distribution in the definition of publication? AFAICT, there's still no
> purpose of distribution.
If I take various chapters of Copyrighted material (books, music) and make it
available to the public, without the "purpose" to distribute, I am violating
the law, conciously or not... I might be wrong, but IIRC "purpose" and the
related "intent" words are not defined in Copyright law.
I.e. the fact that it was distributed is what constitutes the act of
distribution, whether you intended it or not. I assume that illegal
activities, such as theft, are excluded from my responsibility, provided I
have taken reasonable actions to prevent it (putting up a sign saying "Not
for download" is not good enough).
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Source tar ball != svn tag (was: Re: [VOTE] Approve release
CXF 2.0.5-incubator)
Posted by Santiago Gala <sg...@apache.org>.
El dom, 30-03-2008 a las 10:19 -0700, Matthieu Riou escribió:
>
>
> So what makes you pretty sure public access to a SCM amounts to
> distribution
> in the definition of publication? AFAICT, there's still no purpose of
> distribution. We don't offer the download of a tarball from our
> repositories. That others offer doesn't change what our source
> repository
> is.
>>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repository , while there are a number
of things that a repository is, I stress this one: "a place where
multiple databases or files are located for distribution over a
network" (multiple -> several different tags, releases, modules, etc.)
In fact a source repository is for archival, auditing, development *and*
distribution. The fact that reading from it is 100% free (except certain
anti-DoS provisions) doesn't help claims about it not being a
distribution mechanism.
>
> Re: the purpose of further distribution, gentoo, just to give an
> > example, offers sometimes -svn/-git/-cvs versioned packages, and
> those
> > are built by accessing the SCM repository, checking out a HEAD copy,
> > building the binaries and installing. I've seen this kind of
> packages
> > (repackaged) in debian and rpm distributions too. and I've seen
> plenty
> > of XXX-patched-cvs-200XXXXX.tgz/jar files in our own distributions.
>
>
> Which means that these pakages, if they're produced and published with
> an
> intent to be distributed could very well be a publication. Still
> doesn't
> mean that offering a repository is by itself a publication.
>
The moment something is publicly out on a web site (and subversion
implements a superset of HTTP), it can be safely assumed that there was
an intent of publication of it. I think you'd had a difficult time
trying to convince a judge that it is *not* a distribution mechanism.
Regards
--
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Source tar ball != svn tag (was: Re: [VOTE] Approve release CXF 2.0.5-incubator)
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@offthelip.org>.
On 3/29/08, Santiago Gala <sg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> El jue, 27-03-2008 a las 21:42 -0700, Matthieu Riou escribió:
> (...snip...)
>
> > From what I understand of copyright law, it's not (of course IANAL,
> > etc...).
> > Distribution (or publication in copyright lingo) is defined as:
> >
> > "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a
> > work
> > to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
> > rental,
> > lease,
> > or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a
> > group
> >
> > of persons for purposes of further distribution, public
> > performance, or
> > public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or
> > display
> >
> > of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
> >
>
>
> The way it is written I take performance/display in the sense of
> "executing" the score (for music), playing the play (for theater),
> showing the movie, reading the poetry, exhibiting (displaying, for
> paintings)...
>
>
>
> > A source repository is in the category of "public performance or
> > display",
> > there's no purpose of further distribution. It doesn't constitute
> > publication.
> >
>
>
> I'd say that "performance" of software is executing it (like in music or
> theater, software is a "dynamic art"). Now I'm not sure if the "public"
> word stretches the meaning too much. But I'm pretty much sure that
> giving public access to a SCM repository amounts to distribution. Just
> notice how trac, git, mercurial and other UIs for SCM offer the download
> of a tarball for arbitrary revisions, for instance.
So what makes you pretty sure public access to a SCM amounts to distribution
in the definition of publication? AFAICT, there's still no purpose of
distribution. We don't offer the download of a tarball from our
repositories. That others offer doesn't change what our source repository
is.
Re: the purpose of further distribution, gentoo, just to give an
> example, offers sometimes -svn/-git/-cvs versioned packages, and those
> are built by accessing the SCM repository, checking out a HEAD copy,
> building the binaries and installing. I've seen this kind of packages
> (repackaged) in debian and rpm distributions too. and I've seen plenty
> of XXX-patched-cvs-200XXXXX.tgz/jar files in our own distributions.
Which means that these pakages, if they're produced and published with an
intent to be distributed could very well be a publication. Still doesn't
mean that offering a repository is by itself a publication.
Cheers,
Matthieu
Regards
> Santiago
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Matthieu
>
>
> --
> Santiago Gala
> http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>