Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

2000-02-18 Thread Raul Miller
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:35:55AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > You are right, I apologize, I should have left out the bracketed part. Thank you. > I note, though, there were some flames in the part I snipped as well. Hm... Rereading my message, I see that I referred to you in an ironic or sar

Re: Heart of the debate

2000-02-18 Thread Don Sanders
Ok I have said some things that weren't true. This was not my intent I was just trying really hard to understand the license, maybe too hard. > Consider section 1. It says "you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of > the > Program's source code provided that you ...". I interpret this as say

Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

2000-02-18 Thread Andreas Pour
Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:32:26PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > > [ double-think, confusion and inconsistencies snipped ] > > > > I think all the issues have been adequately aired. I will turn to > > other things. > > I agree that the issues have been adequately aired, but tha

Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

2000-02-18 Thread Raul Miller
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:32:26PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > [ double-think, confusion and inconsistencies snipped ] > > I think all the issues have been adequately aired. I will turn to > other things. I agree that the issues have been adequately aired, but that's no call for flamage. -- Ra

Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

2000-02-18 Thread Andreas Pour
Raul Miller wrote: > > > You're claiming that since it's possible to replace the copyright on > > > the library that it's necessary? > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:26:06PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > > You mean change the license? I'm just quoting from the LGPL, don't blame > > me. [ double-th

Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

2000-02-18 Thread Raul Miller
> > You're claiming that since it's possible to replace the copyright on > > the library that it's necessary? On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:26:06PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote: > You mean change the license? I'm just quoting from the LGPL, don't blame me. I blame you for failing to distinguish betwe

Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

2000-02-18 Thread Chris Lawrence
On Feb 17, Andreas Pour wrote: [...] > > I don't see why, after you've gone to such pains to establish that the > > on a module license doesn't change when a module is linked with a GPLed > > program. Why have you decided that this is a necessary step for this > > case? > > B/c the LGPL says so.