Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

This is a pointless discussion. Nobody here is a lawyer nor have they
professed intimiate knowledge of International Copyright law. Merely
believing that it is ok is not enough for the "judge," as you say.

Regardless, Transgaming simply is not going to apply this patch. You can
argue about it all you want but they not going to change their mind, so
please just drop it.

The risk is all theirs, not yours. I commend them for being careful and
conscious of the intention of the patch author. There are lots of folks
who wouldn't be very pleased if TG started incorporating patches intended
for the wine project.

Has anyone bothered to contact the patch author to see if he cared whether
it was included in Cedega?

rob

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Nadav Frum wrote:

> You still have not answered the judge's question.  Assuming TG applies 
> your patch to their code, renaming variables where necessary, what exactly 
> have they taken from you?  Or perhaps you could inform the judge what 
> should be taken out of TG's code to undo their crime.
> 
> Nadav Frum
> ----------
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> 
> > Nadav Frum wrote:
> > > Why are we discussing the XFree86 project and Microsoft?
> > 
> > They are examples to illustrate some logical fallacies.;-)
> > 
> > > Try to imagine yourselves sitting in front of a judge with your legal
> > > representative and TG's team is onthe other side of the court.The
> > > judge looks at your team and politely asks what it is about your
> > > patch that you feel was unlawfully taken from you?
> > 
> > The patch.
> > 
> > Not the format, not the algorithm, not the structure/design, not the
> > bug.But the patch itself.The exact bits in the patch file.
> > 
> > This is *NOT* covered by the copyright on the "diff" program -- it's a
> > work produced by the diff program, yes, but is not a derivative work, so
> > the FSF disclaims any copyright on it.Copyright is therefore yours.
> > This is the same reason that you can write a program, compile it with
> > gcc, and not distribute it under the GPL -- it's not a derivative work
> > of gcc, because gcc doesn't incorporate a significant amount of its own
> > code in the program when it compiles it.Neither does diff when it
> > creates a patch file.
> > 
> > Alternately, you could argue that you own the lines of code that your
> > patch would have inserted (anything with a + before it in the patch
> > file).TG can't apply the patch without those lines, so this would have
> > the same effect.They could fix the bug without them, but then it would
> > be either an independent implementation (which is almost guaranteed to
> > be different, and not copyrighted by you), or a derivative work (which
> > you might also be able to claim some rights to, depending on the patch's
> > license).
> > 
> 
>  ** CRM114 Whitelisted by: transgaming.org **
>  
>  ** ACCEPT: CRM114 Whitelisted by: transgaming.org **
>  
>