5 ms·

Completely different cases. The GPL covers binary distributions as well, and if your source compiles to the mostly-the-same binary that doesn't make it differen

by Jach 15y ago

Completely different cases. The GPL covers binary distributions as well, and if your source compiles to the mostly-the-same binary that doesn't make it different enough, and you're bound by the GPL to release the modified source. I think the concept of derivative work is more important here. IANAL but I suspect there's a difference between copying someone's Skip List class (maybe modding it a bit) vs. writing your own even if your own compiles to mostly-the-same binary. Your own wasn't derivative even if the end result was very similar.

micks56 15y ago
I think your attempt at a distinction in paragraph 1 actually proves my point. Yes, GPL covers binaries, or however else the code is distributed. Just like how copyright law protects a Miles Davis picture on an album cover, a CD liner, and on a web page when it is "mostly-the-same." Baio was mostly the same. Koons was not. See these. http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/silksandals.jpg http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/silksandals.j... http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/koonsniagara_1.jpg http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/koonsniagara_... The second picture by Koons is transformative. Baio's is not even close to Koons.
- Jach 15y ago
  People seem to like downvoting you. Anyway, I agree with you on the mostly-the-same part, and I think it's a derivative work anyway. The article's "You're just copying what was copied" is an interesting argument that I agree with but it's not really relevant to the copyright laws--again applying to a programming example, just because you bought a licensed copy doesn't mean someone can copy your copy without a license. Do I think people should be able to make pixelized versions of photos for whatever purpose? Sure. Do I think the current law would be okay with that? No.
- Goladus 15y ago
  If you're talking about fair use, context matters. Two pictures out of context don't really prove anything.
  - micks56 15y ago
    Those two pictures are not out of context. They are from the case that Baio cited himself. On Baio's blog (http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/) he cites an "influential paper on fair use" as his reasoning and authority for his own fair use argument. These pictures show what the paper writer is actually using as the "transformativeness" example. Baio never bothered to dig into the writer's citations to figure out the details. Trying to claim his own work is similar to the Blanch v. Koons case is a mistake. They aren't alike at all.

by Jach 15y ago

micks56 15y ago

I think your attempt at a distinction in paragraph 1 actually proves my point. Yes, GPL covers binaries, or however else the code is distributed. Just like how copyright law protects a Miles Davis picture on an album cover, a CD liner, and on a web page when it is "mostly-the-same." Baio was mostly the same. Koons was not. See these. http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/silksandals.jpg http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/silksandals.j... http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/koonsniagara_1.jpg http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/koonsniagara_... The second picture by Koons is transformative. Baio's is not even close to Koons.

Jach 15y ago
People seem to like downvoting you. Anyway, I agree with you on the mostly-the-same part, and I think it's a derivative work anyway. The article's "You're just copying what was copied" is an interesting argument that I agree with but it's not really relevant to the copyright laws--again applying to a programming example, just because you bought a licensed copy doesn't mean someone can copy your copy without a license. Do I think people should be able to make pixelized versions of photos for whatever purpose? Sure. Do I think the current law would be okay with that? No.
Goladus 15y ago
If you're talking about fair use, context matters. Two pictures out of context don't really prove anything.
- micks56 15y ago
  Those two pictures are not out of context. They are from the case that Baio cited himself. On Baio's blog (http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/ http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/) he cites an "influential paper on fair use" as his reasoning and authority for his own fair use argument. These pictures show what the paper writer is actually using as the "transformativeness" example. Baio never bothered to dig into the writer's citations to figure out the details. Trying to claim his own work is similar to the Blanch v. Koons case is a mistake. They aren't alike at all.