Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

Gavriel has written a lengthy reply to the first paragraph in your letter.
He has chosen to clarify certain specifics regarding the licenses 
Cedega is distributed under.  My comments were never about the specific 
licenses but rather the copyrights themselves.  A copyright assignment or 
a license can never create copyrights where none existed beforehand.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 06:31, Nadav Frum wrote:
> 
> > Read my postings carefully.Please don't argue points I did not make. 
> >
> 
> 
> I would have to ask the same of you

I sometimes reply to more than one post in my postings.  It may cause 
confusion as to whom I am answering.  You and Bryan Kadzban share a similar
but not identical view.  I apologize if there was a misunderstanding.

> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
> >
> > > A patch is unique... if you change
> > >
> > > int c = 0;
> > > to
> > > int c = -1;
> > >
> > > That is unique - the patch itself is unique.Identified... copyright
> > > derivative work... not notional, legal.100% legal in court in front of
> > > a judge period and you don't seem to understand THAT.It doesn't matter
> > > if you charge money or not... your work is copyright end of story!And
> > > I question the notion that the GPL is a "game" or not a real license.
> > > In fact it's more clear and far more practical than the MS-EULA - and
> > > legally equally as credible.I think your misconstrued understanding of
> > > the law and linux development is what is not real world.You might do
> > > some research on this whole thing though.Your declaration is being
> > > challenged by judges and lawyers around theworld, as well as
> > > supported.But that is in the sense that some people feel that a
> > > license isn't real unless you make money on the product which it covers.
> >
> > If you think you can legally stop TG from changing the particular line you
> > are referring to in your patch to the corrected line you supply, by not
> > granting them copyright, you are living in a very disturbing state of
> > fantasy.
> >
> 
> First off, you can't legally top TG from changing anything under the
> licenseCedega is released under.Also I don't think you realize that
> Cedega is an open source *free* product.TG does not charge for it...
> they are not allowed to as it is a derivitave work of the original wine
> project.They are allowed to charge for the distribution medium... That
> is why you *subscribe* to TG.You are paying for the medium, not the
> software itself.

If you cannot stop Cedega from changing something then you do not own 
copyrights over that change.

> > Please don't take my statements about a patch and generalize them to all
> > code, everywhere.And money is not a defining condition.However, when 
> > real money is not used things will tend to take the form of a game.
> >
> 
> Things don't take the form of a game.If you take my code that I wrote
> for free and make a million dollars on it, THAT is not a game.Of
> course if everyone is doing free development outside of an Open Source
> License, one could still enforce copyright, but they wouldn't have much
> of a case for monetary compensation.

It is a game when you talk about copyrights you do not have, and the other 
side plays along with you.

> > Judges and lawyers in the real world are dealing with real world issues.
> > Your beliefs surrounding the patch in the example above may bear some
> > resemblance to these real world issues.Just don't try to make a case out 
> > of the above example patch.
> >
> 
> The only reason the above patch wouldn't hold up in court is because it
> is so trivial that a company could easily defend the possibility that
> they came up with it on their own.In a more complex example, there is
> a very good case actually.

When you analyze someone else's code and then advertise the inadequacies 
in that code, that can be interpreted as criticism.  When you provide 
a solution to solve those inadequacies it could be constructive 
criticism.  When this criticism is designed to harm only it may be 
destructive criticism.  Perhaps patches can be viewed in this context.  
Although, this would not apply to WineHQ patches w.r.t. Cedega criticism.  
Try to think of situations where you do work for the purpose of creating 
something and this is (I guess) where you can start talking about 
copyrights.

> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >                                                                             
> > > Nadav Frum wrote:
> > > > You still don't understand.You can hold copyright over something if
> > > > and only if it is unique in some way.
> > >
> > > And a patch IS.Nobody else has used those linesof code, in that
> > > sequence, in those places, in the program before.
> > >
> > > > If you cannot identify anything in your patch that is unique and
> > > > yours,
> > >
> > > As I said last time:THE LINES OF CODE THAT THE PATCH INSERTS.The
> > > person who wrote the patch created those lines, so under Berne
> > > Convention copyright law, they are theirs.If the code had already been
> > > in the program, it wouldn't be in the patch, so those lines are also
> > > unique.
> > >
> > > You obviously don't understand something about the definition of a
> > > "work", so this is going to be just about all I'll say on this.If you
> > > still refuse to understand it, then I guess it's going to be your
> > > problem.
> >
> > You have not identified what is unique about yourpatch.In particular:
> > 1. The place is dependent on the location of the bug and so is not
> >  entirely your doing.
> 
> doesn't matter - your work is still your work - the bug isn't your code
> (Though a patch doesn't have to address a bug, it can address additional
> functionality too.), but the fix is.

"Your work is still your work" is something you can say in court when you 
really want to piss-off the judge.

> > 2. White space can be added and removed.Names can be changed.  The 
> >  sequence can be altered in places where it does not affect the logic
> >  of the algorithm.
> 
> If you can *prove*that it is still a copy of your work with changes
> that don't affect it's operation, that would still be a copy of your
> work.But again, an easy defense is, "Look how different it is, we did
> this on our own."So true, there wouldn't be a good case here not
> because laws take away copyright under certain cases but because you
> can't prove your allegations.

This is true of work in general.  I would like to clarify that my 
discussion is about patches and the unique consideration that they may 
deserve.

> > 3. The program is not yours and is continuously in a state of change.
> >  A particular change may be an imperative and you cannot usurp the right
> >  to implement that change.
>
> You can't in this case, not because of general copyright laws, but
> because the license.Under the licenses that Cedega are under though,
> TG can implement whatever patch they want as long as the give the author
> credit.

In this case I am showing that copyright law cannot contradict other laws.  

> > Where does your copyright begin and where does it end?
> >
> 
> It's not one continuous block necessarily, it's the code you wrote that
> is copyright.Even the example above *IS* code, even if it IS trivial.

The law can never afford to be this vague.

Nadav Frum
----------