Mailing List Archive

In case there's any doubt, Perl ports would be considered
"derivative works" in Berne Convention (i.e. international)
copyright law, and therefore potentially infringing if
copyright notices are removed.

But: although snippets derived from Larry's code remain
his property, Microsoft can assert rights to any original
contribution by the folk at Hip. What separates an
original contribution from a derivative work? That's for
courts to decide, case-by-case.

Upon cursory inspection, it seems that ntperl
keeps Larry's code and copyright notices intact, and
only asserts rights to the NT-specific stuff.
That's kosher.

> but the kit does _not_ include the Artistic License.

It does, actually, just in a funny place: It's appended
to the GNU GPL in LICENSE.TXT. ntperl plays by the rules.

----

Copyright law yields a neat paradox when applied to
programs: the less accurate the port, the less it
infringes. Maybe that's the real story behind Cwd :-)

Here at the Media Lab, we ran headfirst into this with a
system we built that automatically colorizes black and
white movies. The better our algorithms, the fewer rights
we had to the output (not that we wanted any).

Had we chosen outlandish palettes (turning people green
and whatnot), that would have been an additional
"artistic" contribution, therefore meriting a separate
copyright. But as long as we kept flesh fleshy, we
sacrificed all our rights.

Jon Orwant
MIT Media Lab

"All rights reserved" is not something to get terribly excited about.
It's much like me selling you a bridge via a quit-claim deed. For your
money, I relinquish to you whatever rights I may have had to it.

What the "All rights reserved" means is simply that nothing is
relinquished by the fact of publication, other than what the law says.
(Certain trade-secret rights and potential patent rights vanish then.)

----------
| From: Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@ig.co.uk>
| To: <ntperl@mail.hip.com>; <Dick_Hardt@hip.com>; <orwant@media.mit.edu>
| Subject: Re: Copyright notices in new Perl for Windows source files
| Date: Thursday, November 16, 1995 5:18PM
|
|
| > From: Jon Orwant <orwant@fahrenheit-451.media.mit.edu>
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > Upon cursory inspection, it seems that ntperl
| > keeps Larry's code and copyright notices intact, and
| > only asserts rights to the NT-specific stuff.
| > That's kosher.
|
| I have absolutely *no* problem with a Microsoft copyright notice.
|
| My problem is with the 'All rights reserved' notice.
|
| > > but the kit does _not_ include the Artistic License.
| >
| > It does, actually, just in a funny place: It's appended
| > to the GNU GPL in LICENSE.TXT. ntperl plays by the rules.
|
| Ah, okay. I'd missed that. Thanks.
|
| All we need is for the new source files to refer to it (and the GPL)
| in the same way that the standard ones do.
|
| > [...]
| >
| > Jon Orwant
| > MIT Media Lab
|
| Tim.
|

> From: Jon Orwant <orwant@fahrenheit-451.media.mit.edu>
>
> [...]
>
> Upon cursory inspection, it seems that ntperl
> keeps Larry's code and copyright notices intact, and
> only asserts rights to the NT-specific stuff.
> That's kosher.

I have absolutely *no* problem with a Microsoft copyright notice.

My problem is with the 'All rights reserved' notice.

> > but the kit does _not_ include the Artistic License.
>
> It does, actually, just in a funny place: It's appended
> to the GNU GPL in LICENSE.TXT. ntperl plays by the rules.

Ah, okay. I'd missed that. Thanks.

All we need is for the new source files to refer to it (and the GPL)
in the same way that the standard ones do.

> [...]
>
> Jon Orwant
> MIT Media Lab

Tim.

> From: Larry Brasfield <larrybr@microsoft.com>
>
> "All rights reserved" is not something to get terribly excited about.
> It's much like me selling you a bridge via a quit-claim deed. For your
> money, I relinquish to you whatever rights I may have had to it.
>
> What the "All rights reserved" means is simply that nothing is
> relinquished by the fact of publication, other than what the law says.
> (Certain trade-secret rights and potential patent rights vanish then.)

I don't want to get into a legal debate here. All I'm asking for is for
the files to contain these words (or something _very_ similar):

* You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
* License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.

If that is not possible then I'd like to know why.

Tim.

> I don't want to get into a legal debate here. All I'm asking for is for
> the files to contain these words (or something _very_ similar):
> * You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
> * License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
> If that is not possible then I'd like to know why.
> Tim.

Agreed! Microsoft and Hip aren't infringing---but it sure
would be nice if ntperl users could enjoy the same benefits
as other Perl users.

Jon Orwant
MIT Media Lab

On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Larry Brasfield wrote:

> "All rights reserved" is not something to get terribly excited about.
> It's much like me selling you a bridge via a quit-claim deed. For your
> money, I relinquish to you whatever rights I may have had to it.
>
> What the "All rights reserved" means is simply that nothing is
> relinquished by the fact of publication, other than what the law says.
> (Certain trade-secret rights and potential patent rights vanish then.)

The point here is that this is _more_ restrictive then the original perl
distribution, going by either the GNU copyleft or the Artistic license.

At the very least, there needs to be something along the lines of "you may
freely distribute this code as part of the NTPerl distribution, compile
it, and modify it for your own use." Ideally, as Tim suggested, it would
point to the GPL or the Artistic Licence as the final say on what rights
are provided. An "All rights reserved" standing by itself, isn't too
helpful in freely available software.

--
Kenneth Albanowski (kjahds@kjahds.com, CIS: 70705,126)

I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
can take it and remove the GPL from it. MS's and Hips additions are
covered in the GPL and they should release what ever they are doing
under GPL.
Will Microsoft be the first non-free software vendor to challenge GPL ?

muzo

>
>> From: Larry Brasfield <larrybr@microsoft.com>
>>
>> "All rights reserved" is not something to get terribly excited about.
>> It's much like me selling you a bridge via a quit-claim deed. For your
>> money, I relinquish to you whatever rights I may have had to it.
>>
>> What the "All rights reserved" means is simply that nothing is
>> relinquished by the fact of publication, other than what the law says.
>> (Certain trade-secret rights and potential patent rights vanish then.)
>
>I don't want to get into a legal debate here. All I'm asking for is for
>the files to contain these words (or something _very_ similar):
>
> * You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
> * License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
>
>If that is not possible then I'd like to know why.
>
>Tim.
>
>

--------------------------------------------
Muzaffer Kal muzaffer@smixedsignal.com

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Muzaffer Kal wrote:

> I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
> can take it and remove the GPL from it.

No. Perl is not GPL'ed. The source states quite clearly that

> > * You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
> > * License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.

The Artistic License is different from the GPL.

Andy Dougherty doughera@lafcol.lafayette.edu

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Muzaffer Kal wrote:
> > I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
> > can take it and remove the GPL from it.
>
> No. Perl is not GPL'ed. The source states quite clearly that

Regardless of who is right or wrong in the legal sense, the "All rights
reserved" statement on the Microsoft/Hip source files will only serve to
divide. Keeping that statement will certainly guarantee that the
Microsoft/Hip code will never be merged into the main Perl distribution
maintained by Larry Wall and Co.. This will inevitably lead to a separate
porting effort that *can* be merged into the main distribution. The
users will be the losers here as various incompatibilities evolve in the
two separate chains of code.

Rob Lanphier
robla@eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla

Rob Lanphier writes:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Muzaffer Kal wrote:
> > > I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
> > > can take it and remove the GPL from it.
> >
> > No. Perl is not GPL'ed. The source states quite clearly that
>
> Regardless of who is right or wrong in the legal sense, the "All rights
> reserved" statement on the Microsoft/Hip source files will only serve to
``All rights reserved.'' is an out-dated legal clause that used to
have to do with copyright laws in various countries (I think mainly
it was Brazil). Basically, you didn't have a full copyright in those
counties unless you included that statement.

At any rate, whatever ``copylicense'' follows the copyright would
still be in force. Though it would probably give lawyers a good laugh.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so don't believe a word I say.
Of course, even if I was a lawyer you would have the same problem :-)

Rob Lanphier writes:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Muzaffer Kal wrote:
> > > I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
> > > can take it and remove the GPL from it.
> >
> > No. Perl is not GPL'ed. The source states quite clearly that
>
> Regardless of who is right or wrong in the legal sense, the "All rights
> reserved" statement on the Microsoft/Hip source files will only serve to
``All rights reserved.'' is an out-dated legal clause that used to
have to do with copyright laws in various countries (I think mainly
it was Brazil). Basically, you didn't have a full copyright in those
counties unless you included that statement.

At any rate, whatever ``copylicense'' follows the copyright would
still be in force. Though it would probably give lawyers a good laugh.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer so don't believe a word I say.
Of course, even if I was a lawyer you would have the same problem :-)

Message-ID: red-35-msg951122235918MTP[01.51.00]000000ad-1887

Here is why I believe the Copyright notice issue is
a tempest in a teapot:

1. The whole collection of Perl source code shipped by
Microsoft in the Windows NT resource kit, including the
Microsoft-funded additions by Dick and friends at HIP, is
clearly put under the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE"
as well as the "Artistic License", by the README.TXT file.

2. The statement in README.TXT, granting usage rights
under either of those licenses, is unambiguous and
legally binding. Even if every employee of Microsoft
were to go write, somewhere else, further statements
that either repeat or retract the original statement, no
change in the rights granted in README.TXT would
be effected by such repetition or attempted retraction.

3. The statement "All rights reserved.", found in sources
made available by Microsoft, is a brief way of saying
that whatever rights Microsoft may have, in the material
contained in that text, are retained. Those who actually
go read the licenses will see that some rights are still
retained by the grantor under the terms of the license.

4. To insist that this statement must be expanded by
referring to the grant of license included with the whole
package, is to insist on a repetition that has no legal
effect. Many (or nearly all) sources at Microsoft are
marked in exactly this way. Licences to use sources
are typically granted by cover statements instead of
by repeated statements in the source. This allows
the same source to be licensed under different terms
to different groups of people, all without modifying the
source to customize it for various groups. Anybody
who programs using #include directives can probably
appreciate the logistic advantages of this approach.

5. To those who say "But wouldn't it be clearer what
rights exist if there were a reference to the license
right in every file of the source?", I say "Yes. If you
want it that way, take advantage of the GPL and
make it that way." Just don't whine because it has
not been done already. Yes, Yes, Yes, it would be
nicer, but the fact that it's not as nice as it could be
cannot be reasonably construed as some kind of
attempt at skullduggery by Microsoft.

6. To those who believe that the "All rights reserved."
statement is an attempt to claim rights in Larry Wall's
sources, I say "Settle down. Read what it says. Ask
the question 'What rights are these "All rights"?'. The
only sensible answer is 'Those rights that already
exist.'. Certainly it does not mean 'every right that
anybody can think of, without regard for whether it
is a right that could be reserved'. Don't read more
into it than what it actually says."

Questions such as "Will Microsoft be the first non-free
software vendor to challenge GPL ?" are not warranted
by any of the facts of this case.

I'm pretty busy, doing real work to earn my pay, which
derives from Microsoft's role as a software vendor. So,
I'm not going to respond to messages on this topic unless
the response would require modification or substantial
clarification of what I've written above. If you care to
question or refute the points I've made, in a reasoned
way, I'll be happy to participate in the discussion. But
I don't have enough hours in my life to respond to
speculation, hysteria and accusation without any
discernible basis in fact.

-Larry Brasfield

P.S. This writing reflects my own personal views, and
is not a statement for or on behalf of Microsoft.

----------
| From: Muzaffer Kal <muzaffer@smixedsignal.com>
| To: Larry Brasfield; Tim Bunce <Tim.Bunce@ig.co.uk>
| Cc: <ntperl@mail.hip.com>; <orwant@media.mit.edu>
| Subject: Re: Copyright notices in new Perl for Windows source files
| Date: Tuesday, November 21, 1995 2:13PM
|
| I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
| can take it and remove the GPL from it. MS's and Hips additions are
| covered in the GPL and they should release what ever they are doing
| under GPL.
| Will Microsoft be the first non-free software vendor to challenge GPL ?
|
| muzo
|
| >
| >> From: Larry Brasfield <larrybr@microsoft.com>
| >>
| >> "All rights reserved" is not something to get terribly excited about.
| >> It's much like me selling you a bridge via a quit-claim deed. For your
| >> money, I relinquish to you whatever rights I may have had to it.
| >>
| >> What the "All rights reserved" means is simply that nothing is
| >> relinquished by the fact of publication, other than what the law says.
| >> (Certain trade-secret rights and potential patent rights vanish then.)
| >
| >I don't want to get into a legal debate here. All I'm asking for is for
| >the files to contain these words (or something _very_ similar):
| >
| > * You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
| > * License or the Artistic License, as specified in the README file.
| >
| >If that is not possible then I'd like to know why.
| >
| >Tim.
| >
| >
|
| --------------------------------------------
| Muzaffer Kal muzaffer@smixedsignal.com
|
|
|

>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Lanphier <robla@eskimo.com> writes:

Rob> Regardless of who is right or wrong in the legal sense, the "All rights
Rob> reserved" statement on the Microsoft/Hip source files will only serve to
Rob> divide.

Why are people getting so hung up on "All Rights Reserved"? It means
nothing more than "copyright", but was necessary for signators to the
pan-american copyright protection to get the same effect those
countries. In fact, now that all the panamerican countries are also
signators to the Berne Copyright Convention (the USA being the last
hold-out), "All Rights Reserved" means *absolutely nothing* that isn't
already conveyed in "copyright".

Read the copyright FAQ.

Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me

To clearly dismiss any confusion, the next release will have the GPL and
Artistic License statements in them.

The Microsoft and hip statements are in source files that are pretty much
new works or derived from the Honeywell and Intergraph ports, which also
have their respective notices.

These files will probably not become part of the core distribution.

Any changes that we make to "core" files we are trying to have included into
the main distribution so that we don't lose our changes.

-- Dick

At 10:37 AM 11/22/95 -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Muzaffer Kal wrote:
>> > I think the base of the Perl code is already GPL'ed. I don't think you
>> > can take it and remove the GPL from it.
>>
>> No. Perl is not GPL'ed. The source states quite clearly that
>
>Regardless of who is right or wrong in the legal sense, the "All rights
>reserved" statement on the Microsoft/Hip source files will only serve to
>divide. Keeping that statement will certainly guarantee that the
>Microsoft/Hip code will never be merged into the main Perl distribution
>maintained by Larry Wall and Co.. This will inevitably lead to a separate
>porting effort that *can* be merged into the main distribution. The
>users will be the losers here as various incompatibilities evolve in the
>two separate chains of code.
>
>Rob Lanphier
>robla@eskimo.com
>http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
>
>
>
--~--~--~--~-- hi mom! -~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~
mailto:Dick_Hardt@hip.com fax: 604.654.9881
http://info.hip.com/info me: 604.685.0124
hip communications inc.
350 - 1122 Mainland Street, Vancouver BC, V6B 5L1

> From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn@teleport.com>
>
> >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Lanphier <robla@eskimo.com> writes:
>
> Rob> Regardless of who is right or wrong in the legal sense, the "All rights
> Rob> reserved" statement on the Microsoft/Hip source files will only serve to
> Rob> divide.
>
> Why are people getting so hung up on "All Rights Reserved"? It means
> nothing more than "copyright", but was necessary for signators to the
> pan-american copyright protection to get the same effect those
> countries. In fact, now that all the panamerican countries are also
> signators to the Berne Copyright Convention (the USA being the last
> hold-out), "All Rights Reserved" means *absolutely nothing* that isn't
> already conveyed in "copyright".

Since I started this by saying I was not concerned about the Microsoft
copyright but I was concerned about the 'All Rights Reserved' I'd just
like to clarify what I meant.

I have no problem with 'All Rights Reserved' in itself. What was needed
was a statement of what rights you _are_ granted: "You can do X, Y and Z".

I'd like to express my gratitude to HIP for adding the 'standard' perl
rights notice to their files in the new '100' release.

Hopefully this closes the issue.

Tim.