Date forwarded: 13 Feb 2000 11:23:26 -
Date sent: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 04:23:21 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Copies to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject:
[This is really long. Sorry.]
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 03:16:47PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >
> > > So obviously Qt is not a "Program".
> >
> > I agree that Qt is not a "Program".
> >
> > >
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Other people, including me, use another definition:
>
> > >"The complete source code for a binary consists of whatever
> > >is necessary for the recipient to recreate the binary with
> > >modifications of his own."
>
> > > where "bin
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> > So obviously Qt is not a "Program".
>
> I agree that Qt is not a "Program".
>
> > However, Section 2 of the GPL also refers to any "work based on the
> > Program".
> > This term is also defined in S
Anthony Towns wrote:
> (debian-legal brought back into the Cc list)
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:02:35PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > For an executable work, complete source code means all the
> > > > source code for all modules it *contains*, plus any asso
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:38:08PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Wrong, I don't think that a Program is a single file. I don't know where
> > you
> > come up with this stuff . . .
>
> I got that idea from your claims that the mechanics of linking (dynamic
> vs. static) was
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Other people, including me, use another definition:
> >"The complete source code for a binary consists of whatever
> >is necessary for the recipient to recreate the binary with
> >modifications of his own."
> > where "binary" means the "obj
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:20:22AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Qt *cannot* be distributed under terms 1 and 2 of the GPL: term 2 gives
> > your more freedom in how you make your modifications than the QPL permits.
> > Only Troll have the right to give that extra permission, no one else does.
>
>
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:24:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Note further that the `complete source' and `the Program' are distinct
> entities, with different definitions in the GPL. Don't make the mistake
> of equating them.
Actually, it is reasonable to equate them if the result is distribut
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> I think this is a sophism. My point all along has been that Qt is not part
> of
> the "Program".
>
> Remember where the term "Program" comes from. It is defined in Section 0 of
> the
> GPL to mean:
>
> any program or other w
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:38:08PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Wrong, I don't think that a Program is a single file. I don't know where you
> come up with this stuff . . .
I got that idea from your claims that the mechanics of linking (dynamic
vs. static) was somehow relevant to the GPL copyrigh
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:56:50PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The full source code to the binary created does include the source
> code to Qt, yes. (without Qt, the binary cannot be compiled (headers)
> and linked dynamically (direct object code and associated symbols)
>
> I cannot fathom how th
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "The complete source code for a program which, when running
> > normally, consistently includes both QPL and GPL licensed machine
> > code must include both QPL licensed source code and GPL licensed
> > source code."
>
> > That concept is central to my a
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (please don't drop debian-legal from the Cc list)
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 08:39:13PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Third, I challenge you to find a relevant case that says a program is
> > > > the s
Around 1989, NeXT wanted to release the Objective C front end as just
object files, and tell the user to link them with GCC. Since this
would clearly be against the goal of the GPL, I asked our lawyer
whether we had grounds to object. He said that what NeXT proposed to
do would be tantamount to d
(please don't drop debian-legal from the Cc list)
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 08:39:13PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Third, I challenge you to find a relevant case that says a program is the
> > > same "work", for copyright purposes, with a dynamically l
(debian-legal brought back into the Cc list)
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:02:35PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > For an executable work, complete source code means all the
> > > source code for all modules it *contains*, plus any associated
> > > interface defini
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > > Firstly I showed him a copy of the GPL: [...]
> > > and then Andreas Pour's interpretation of the GPL: [...]
> > > * He agreed the Andreas Pour
18 matches
Mail list logo
