Are neural nets (the weights file) copyrightable?

[syzygy]

Then it should have said that the other parts have to be distributed under the GPLv3 (or a compatible license). And it should not have used "work" if it didn't mean "work".

Your problems with the GPL are then fundamental. If we used your reading that would mean every dynamic library linked to a GPL'd program would not be considered part of a combined work.

Correct. I have already stated so in an earlier post.

This would make the GPL effectively the same as the LGPL.

No, the LGPL is meaningful in the case of static linking.

1) There are numerous court cases where the GPL has been upheld and in particular with regard to linking to shared libraries

Let's find one.

[Michel]

This is where we disagree I guess. To me that section is clearly saying that the previous terms in that very section don't apply to a mere "aggregate". The obvious and straightforward reading is that they do apply if you don't meet the definition of mere "aggregate." I think this is the legal reading as well.

In my reading, the drafter of the GPLv3 made the incorrect assumption that a compilation would be a "work" and would therefore in principle be covered by the Program's copyright. If that assumption were correct, the aggregate paragraph exempts certain cases from the GPL. But the assumption is not correct, and the drafter loses.

The GPL 3 was written by a lawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Rosen_(attorney) and was in development for a long time. I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume it contains obvious errors.

Anyway as I see it what the GPL considers a combined work is simply it’s own definition, which is fine since it only affects the distribution of software covered by the GPL.

EDIT: Sorry it was written by Eben Moglen http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ Rosen was a consultant.

[syzygy]

This is where we disagree I guess. To me that section is clearly saying that the previous terms in that very section don't apply to a mere "aggregate". The obvious and straightforward reading is that they do apply if you don't meet the definition of mere "aggregate." I think this is the legal reading as well.

In my reading, the drafter of the GPLv3 made the incorrect assumption that a compilation would be a "work" and would therefore in principle be covered by the Program's copyright. If that assumption were correct, the aggregate paragraph exempts certain cases from the GPL. But the assumption is not correct, and the drafter loses.

The GPL 3 was written by a lawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Rosen_(attorney) and was in development for a long time.

Are you sure?

GPLv3 was written by Richard Stallman, with legal counsel from Eben Moglen and Richard Fontana from the Software Freedom Law Center.[26][27]

I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume it contains obvious errors.

I don't see another explanation for the inclusion of the meaningless "aggregate" section

Anyway as I see it what the GPL considers a combined work is simply it’s own definition, which is fine since it only affects the distribution of software covered by the GPL.

But it doesn't give a definition, and "This License will therefore apply ..." suggests that it doesn't want to deviate from the concept from copyright law with the same name.

But I guess I have made my position sufficiently clear now

[Michel]

Are you sure

it was written by Eben Moglen http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/ Rosen was a consultant.

[gonzochess75]

1) There are numerous court cases where the GPL has been upheld and in particular with regard to linking to shared libraries

Let's find one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/200 ... plaint.pdf

Note the complaint specifically references the section (although in version 2 location) of the GPL we are discussing. Note also that a judge gave a default judgement in one of the suite of cases that arose out of the same/similar violations: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 3132055210

I'll find others with explicit language about dynamic linking and not just firmware.

[Dann Corbit]

This is where we disagree I guess. To me that section is clearly saying that the previous terms in that very section don't apply to a mere "aggregate". The obvious and straightforward reading is that they do apply if you don't meet the definition of mere "aggregate." I think this is the legal reading as well.

In my reading, the drafter of the GPLv3 made the incorrect assumption that a compilation would be a "work" and would therefore in principle be covered by the Program's copyright. If that assumption were correct, the aggregate paragraph exempts certain cases from the GPL. But the assumption is not correct, and the drafter loses.

The GPL 3 was written by a lawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Rosen_(attorney) and was in development for a long time. I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume it contains obvious errors.

Anyway as I see it what the GPL considers a combined work is simply it’s own definition, which is fine since it only affects the distribution of software covered by the GPL.

IF it is true that a program's data is also covered by the GPL, then the GPL will be abandoned instantly by each and every commercial user.
For this reason, I cannot imagine that it is being read correctly by forum members.
If your HL7 medical data is held in a MySQL database, can I demand it be given to me?
If not, why not?

I think that the GPL is a nice model and we have lots of fabulous software produced by it.
The intention of the rule is that end users be given the program code, if requested, so that they are not prohibited from making their own fixes and advances.
This is the freedom that is intended to be like "free speach" in that your rights to use the program for useful work are protected.
If the company creating the binary goes out of existence, you can still go forward using it because you have the source and you can compile it yourself.
You can maintain it if it needs fixing, and add new features.
Msys2, GCC, Linux, MySQL are all products that I utterly adore. All of them are GPL,
There is simply nothing wrong with the GPL model.
But I think that the way it is being interpreted in this forum is absurd.

https://www.google.com/search?q=medical ... e&ie=UTF-8

[gonzochess75]

1) There are numerous court cases where the GPL has been upheld and in particular with regard to linking to shared libraries

Let's find one.

Here is another one for you. Specifically with Linux and a proprietary module:

https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20En ... nt%20Cases

What was at issue: Since the terms of the negotiations are undisclosed, the facts are not clear. What follows is a recollection of data from second-hand sources (listed below) and should be treated as such. The WRT54G is a home router manufactured by Linksys; it included a Broadcom chip that shipped with some embedded firmware; development of such firmware was outsourced by Broadcom to some independent contractor. Apparently, the contractor used some code released under the GPL licence without informing Broadcom. Additions to the Linux kernel were made, in the form of statically linked modules. This aspect is relevant because there is doubt if non-essential kernel modules constitute a derivative work (thus allowing for binary modules subject to licences different from GPL). That was not the case, since the modules developed by Linksys/Broadcom/the subcontractor (author is not really clear) were necessary for the working of the product and thus hardlinked to the kernel itself. Unaware of these issues, Cisco bought Linksys and started selling the WRT54G router without releasing the firmware source code or providing the GPL text. Someone noticed the licence infringement and reported to the FSF which, in turn, asked Cisco to respect the terms of the GPL.

[gonzochess75]

IF it is true that a program's data is also covered by the GPL, then the GPL will be abandoned instantly by each and every commercial user.
...
If your HL7 medical data is held in a MySQL database, can I demand it be given to me?
If not, why not?
...

Hey Dann, did you see my answer to your hypothetical? I wrote http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... QL#p884839

What matters for the sake of the GPL is whether the data is a mere aggregate as defined by the GPL or if it is a combined work. In the case of MySQL and the data it carries the answer is clear: it is merely aggregated. In the case of a GPL'd chess engine and the neural net weights I believe the answer is also clear: it is a combined work.

To see this we can ask: what is the purpose of MySQL? Does the data it is carrying fundamentally change the operation of MySQL? Is it an extension of MySQL? Is it combined with MySQL to form a larger program? No.

How about for a GPL'd chess engine and the neural network weights file? Does the data in the weights file fundamentally change the operation of the chess engine? Is it an extension of the chess engine? Is it combined with the chess engine to form a larger program? Yes.

Here is the language from the GPL that talks about this:
"...which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program..."

The weights file - if it is copyrightable - does not meet this definition of a mere aggregate. Rather, it meets the definition of a combined work.

[syzygy]

Lawrence Rosen does feature in this somewhat confusing section taken from WIkipedia (my emphasis):

Point of view: linking is irrelevant

According to an article in the Linux Journal, Lawrence Rosen (a one-time Open Source Initiative general counsel) argues that the method of linking is mostly irrelevant to the question about whether a piece of software is a derivative work; more important is the question about whether the software was intended to interface with client software and/or libraries.[68] He states, "The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used [in a copy-paste sense], modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that it is not a derivative work,"[68] and lists numerous other points regarding intent, bundling, and linkage mechanism. He further argues on his firm's website[69] that such "market-based" factors are more important than the linking technique.

The part in bold is my position. I don't quite understand the contradicting preceding sentence about "was intended to interface". I guess I should look up [68]:
https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366

So he indeed does mention intent, but only as a quarternary factor to be taken into consideration.

I agree with "linking is irrelevant", except that static linking is a form of copy-paste of the object code to create a new (arguably derived) program.

[syzygy]

Here is another one for you. Specifically with Linux and a proprietary module:

https://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/GPL%20En ... nt%20Cases

What was at issue: Since the terms of the negotiations are undisclosed, the facts are not clear. What follows is a recollection of data from second-hand sources (listed below) and should be treated as such. The WRT54G is a home router manufactured by Linksys; it included a Broadcom chip that shipped with some embedded firmware; development of such firmware was outsourced by Broadcom to some independent contractor. Apparently, the contractor used some code released under the GPL licence without informing Broadcom. Additions to the Linux kernel were made, in the form of statically linked modules. This aspect is relevant because there is doubt if non-essential kernel modules constitute a derivative work (thus allowing for binary modules subject to licences different from GPL). That was not the case, since the modules developed by Linksys/Broadcom/the subcontractor (author is not really clear) were necessary for the working of the product and thus hardlinked to the kernel itself. Unaware of these issues, Cisco bought Linksys and started selling the WRT54G router without releasing the firmware source code or providing the GPL text. Someone noticed the licence infringement and reported to the FSF which, in turn, asked Cisco to respect the terms of the GPL.

So that's about static linking.