On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 09:32:07AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Darren O. Benham said:
> > > Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at
> > > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
> >
> > Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI
> > board (but
Darren O. Benham said:
> > Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at
> > http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
>
> Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI
> board (but to say I am speaking FOR either entity)...
>
> I don't like the "or lat
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> > source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> > distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 deals only with source
> > c
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 deals only with source
> code).
I disagree.
Section
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > However, the main point seems to be that you want to apply the requirement
> > > of GPL 3a that "the complete source code must be distributed under the
> > > ter
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:16:07PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Do you mean that distributing sources of kghostview, not for the purpose of
> literary enjoyment of reading the sources, and in practical absence of any
> alternatives for libqt, would be equally illegal as distributing binaries,
>
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:10:57 -0500 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not inconvenience that's relevant.
>
> What's relevant is what the distributor intended to distribute, and what
> decisions are available to the end user.
>
> If the distributor intends to distribute a working copy
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > However, the main point seems to be that you want to apply the requirement
> > of GPL 3a that "the complete source code must be distributed under the
> > terms of GPL 1 and 2" without having, i
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:00:51PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> But your remark reveals an interesting line of thought, one that would
> never have occurred to me. It considers any inconvenience, caused to
> the recipients by having to distribute sources, not as an inevitable
> by-product of ha
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> You fundamentally don't understand what a copyright in a collective work is.
> There are copyrights in the component works, and a separate copyright in
> their collection. Thus, any origniality used in kghostview (a component
> work)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> > meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined
> > by a copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the a
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> > meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined by a
> > copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL use
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:03:38 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Are you now claiming that it's legal to distribute kghostscript?
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:21:44PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > Yes,
> definitely, if you are distributing sources; from your remarks I > concl
Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined by a
> copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL used
> inconsistent language in Secti
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Don Sanders wrote:
> > > I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> > > based on the Program".
> >
> > Because it contains the Program yes.
>
> Hmm I need to think about this more, the complete source code is aggregated
> with the Program but i
> > I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> > based on the Program".
>
> Because it contains the Program yes.
Hmm I need to think about this more, the complete source code is aggregated
with the Program but it may be considered a collection of works none of whic
Raul Miller wrote:
> [I've deleted a lot of material which I don't think is relevant to
> discuss. For the most part, I agreed with his points from this portion
> of this message. I disagree with some of the points he has stated in
> other messages, but I've already stated those disagreements an
Darren O. Benham:
> I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either.
> It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides
> the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distributing
> the software...
Can you even license someth
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:53:34PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > In this specific case I want to determine if I can apply the GPL to
> > all the files in a particular kdepackage/application directory (I call
> > this work the KDE application, I'm assuming I
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> You claimed, essentially, that section 6 of the GPL was was not valid
> legally.
No, I claim that your application of it is wrong.
We've been through this a xillion times, so I'll shut up now.
--
Henning Makholm
[I've deleted a lot of material which I don't think is relevant to
discuss. For the most part, I agreed with his points from this portion
of this message. I disagree with some of the points he has stated in
other messages, but I've already stated those disagreements and see no
urgency in repeati
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
It appears that you have raised a (somewhat) new issue, so I will address that
one.
Your claim appears to be that, when combining X with Gimp, the Gimp is under
the GPL, X
is under XFree, and the "combined whole" is under the GPL. You do this by
reference to
"colle
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clearly talks
> about licensing under the terms of this License, it's very clear derivative
> works must be licensed under the GPL.
Thank you.
> Now if your interpretation is c
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:53:34PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> In this specific case I want to determine if I can apply the GPL to
> all the files in a particular kdepackage/application directory (I call
> this work the KDE application, I'm assuming I wrote all the stuff in
> these files and own th
(Missed debian-legal)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code
> > .. must be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to mean
> > or at least imply "th
I'm going to take the slightly unusual approach of replying to your comment in
two parts.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Finally interpreting the phrase "the complete source code must be
> > distributed under the terms of
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:20:30PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either.
> It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides
> the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distribut
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:54:30AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia said:
> > I think it was intended for this clause to be nonbinding "requested and
> > strongly recommended" - but not required. I think it's a good
> > recommendation. But you're right - it's not always possible to meet
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code
> .. must be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to mean
> or at least imply "the complete source code must be distributed by
> applying Sections 1 and
29 matches
Mail list logo
