4 ms·

I fail to understand the conflation of "nonfree" with "nontrival." If they are implying that the complexity of a snippet of code has some bearing on whether co

by valar_m 12y ago

I fail to understand the conflation of "nonfree" with "nontrival." If they are implying that the complexity of a snippet of code has some bearing on whether copyright protection applies, that is simply untrue. Forgive me for that strawman, but if they had told us we wouldn't have to guess. I also sense a bit of fear mongering here. Half a megabyte of Javascript for a web page? Goodness, what could they be putting in there? And just a reminder, eval is evil. But why does that automatically qualify code as nontrivial? And how does that have anything to do with free software in the first place?

flomo 12y ago
It's a legal distinction. Code which is 'trivial' or 'functional' cannot be copyrighted, so therefore the GPL doesn't apply.[1] The example given there is a Hello World dialog, but certainly I have written tons of DOM manipulation JS which is purely 'functional'. The contents of underlying HTML elements might have more copyright protection than the code. (As to what it actually means, the case law is complex and the FSF would probably tell you to go ask a lawyer if you really want to know. Otherwise they will just offer you some arbitrary guideline, somewhat like their prohibition on linking to GPL C programs.) [1]http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/ http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It's a legal distinction. No, its not. The article lays out precisely what the FSF's policy on triviality is, and it has no relation to any criteria in copyright law; that's not to say that "triviality" might be a good common-language term for a real consideration in copyright law that relates to whether something is an original work of authorship subject to copyright law, but to the extent it is it has nothing to do with the "triviality" at issue in the article here.
  - flomo 12y ago
    Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. And neither do you. So I will maintain that my copyright explanation is the best explanation, simply because (sofar) it's the only explanation.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. I didn't say they did. I said that they say what their policy is, and I said that the policy they describe has no relation to any distinction in copyright law. A counterargument would be to show such a relationship, not to point out the absence of something that I never claimed was present.
      - flomo 12y ago
        This is an unproductive discussion, you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law and therefore is very relevant to the GPL and whatever argument they're putting forth. That is all.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > This is an unproductive discussion, Yes. Largely because you keep inventing things I'm not saying to respond to. Such as: > you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". No, I never said anything like that, and I stated quite directly how you were wrong. > In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law I don't think that's accurate, and the article you offered upthread to support that position does not -- in fact, the only uses of trivial in that article are to make the point that the legal concerns it discusses (idea vs. expression, and functional vs. creative works) are relevant in the same way to trivial (which it doesn't discuss as a term with legal significance) and non-trivial programs. And, in any case, the use of "trivial" in Stallman's post isn't connected to anything related to copyright law -- even if "trivial" was a term that had legal significance, that wouldn't make every use of "trivial" in regard to the GPL automatically related to that significance, especially when the sense of "trivial" being used is explicitly defined in the work in which it is used and isn't tied to the definition of any legally-significant distinction.

by valar_m 12y ago

flomo 12y ago

It's a legal distinction. Code which is 'trivial' or 'functional' cannot be copyrighted, so therefore the GPL doesn't apply.[1] The example given there is a Hello World dialog, but certainly I have written tons of DOM manipulation JS which is purely 'functional'. The contents of underlying HTML elements might have more copyright protection than the code. (As to what it actually means, the case law is complex and the FSF would probably tell you to go ask a lawyer if you really want to know. Otherwise they will just offer you some arbitrary guideline, somewhat like their prohibition on linking to GPL C programs.) [1]http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/ http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/

dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's a legal distinction. No, its not. The article lays out precisely what the FSF's policy on triviality is, and it has no relation to any criteria in copyright law; that's not to say that "triviality" might be a good common-language term for a real consideration in copyright law that relates to whether something is an original work of authorship subject to copyright law, but to the extent it is it has nothing to do with the "triviality" at issue in the article here.
- flomo 12y ago
  Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. And neither do you. So I will maintain that my copyright explanation is the best explanation, simply because (sofar) it's the only explanation.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Actually, the article makes no explanation of why GNU is specially identifying "trivial" programs, nor how they came up with their guidelines. I didn't say they did. I said that they say what their policy is, and I said that the policy they describe has no relation to any distinction in copyright law. A counterargument would be to show such a relationship, not to point out the absence of something that I never claimed was present.
    - flomo 12y ago
      This is an unproductive discussion, you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law and therefore is very relevant to the GPL and whatever argument they're putting forth. That is all.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > This is an unproductive discussion, Yes. Largely because you keep inventing things I'm not saying to respond to. Such as: > you're telling me that "you're wrong, but I don't know why". No, I never said anything like that, and I stated quite directly how you were wrong. > In any case, "trivial" has a meaning under copyright law I don't think that's accurate, and the article you offered upthread to support that position does not -- in fact, the only uses of trivial in that article are to make the point that the legal concerns it discusses (idea vs. expression, and functional vs. creative works) are relevant in the same way to trivial (which it doesn't discuss as a term with legal significance) and non-trivial programs. And, in any case, the use of "trivial" in Stallman's post isn't connected to anything related to copyright law -- even if "trivial" was a term that had legal significance, that wouldn't make every use of "trivial" in regard to the GPL automatically related to that significance, especially when the sense of "trivial" being used is explicitly defined in the work in which it is used and isn't tied to the definition of any legally-significant distinction.