> I've been informed that this case did in fact make it all the way to the High
> Court of Australia (the highest court in Australia):
>
> COMPUTER EDGE PTY LTD v. APPLE COMPUTER INC. (1986) 161 CLR 171 F.C. 86/017
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/161clr171.html?
I've been informed that this case did in fact make it all the way to the High
Court of Australia (the highest court in Australia):
COMPUTER EDGE PTY LTD v. APPLE COMPUTER INC. (1986) 161 CLR 171 F.C. 86/017
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/161clr171.html?query=%22s
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:45:58PM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > > Why would these two (GPL and GPL+Qt) be compatible?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 02:23:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Because granting permission to distribute with Qt's restrictions is not
> > itself a restriction.
> >
> > Qt has res
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 02:23:44PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:45:58PM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > Why would these two (GPL and GPL+Qt) be compatible?
>
> Because granting permission to distribute with Qt's restrictions is not
> itself a restriction.
>
> Qt has restricti
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 06:45:58PM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> Why would these two (GPL and GPL+Qt) be compatible?
Because granting permission to distribute with Qt's restrictions is not
itself a restriction.
Qt has restrictions, but that's not the question you were asking.
--
Raul
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 01:23:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > I meant that source code could only be distributed under that new
> > BSDL-like license. For the purposs of discussion lets call it
> > Anticopyleft license. You could distri
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:49:19PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source
> > code exists:
> > http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep14
> >97.html?query=%22sourc
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:49:19PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source code
> exists:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep1497.html?query=%22source%22%20and%20%22code%22#disp5
>
> Australian Federal
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't think the Virginia legislature would care much that they
> can't legally distribute GPL software.
...at least until late November when they get voted out because of the
negative publicity that it generates (or that we would help generate, to
put
FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source code
exists:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep1497.html?query=%22source%22%20and%20%22code%22#disp5
Australian Federal court of appeals:
The decision of Judge 1:
I am satisfied that the
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 07:57:49AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> I meant that source code could only be distributed under that new
> BSDL-like license. For the purposs of discussion lets call it
> Anticopyleft license. You could distribute binaries under the
> Anticopyleft license, the BSDL license or a
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:10:25AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > And reuse doesn't really focus on the right issue. The issue is whether
> > > all
> > > users have full rights to distribute and modify the code and all
> > > derivatives
> > > of the code.
> > >
> > > The QPL guarantees that al
> > And reuse doesn't really focus on the right issue. The issue is whether all
> > users have full rights to distribute and modify the code and all derivatives
> > of the code.
> >
> > The QPL guarantees that all users do not have such rights, thus it's
> > incompatible with the GPL which guara
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:44:49AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> Is this really the issue, or is the issue the fact that modifications
> cannot be copylefted? Consider a license very similar to BSDL, except
> that it contains a clause saying that you can distribute binaries
> under any license you like,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:37:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> What QPL programs? QPL is a library.
Moonshine, for example. OCaml, for one that's in Debian. QPL seems to be
used for some QT stuff like some use Artistic/GPL for Perl stuff
or the Eiffel Forum License for Eiffel stuff or the GPL for
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 09:37:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:46:33AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> > Alright. Let me change my suggestion: that the GPL allows adding
> > certain restriction to the distribution of a derived work combining a
> > GPL program and non-GPL program
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:46:33AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> Alright. Let me change my suggestion: that the GPL allows adding
> certain restriction to the distribution of a derived work combining a
> GPL program and non-GPL programs if the non-GPL license demands
> that.
This is completely backward
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 07:06:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
...
> > > I think you're reading too much into the mere appearance of the QPL on
> > > that page, and not reading enough into the accompanying text.
> >
> > Well, the accompanying text says (along with warnings and criticism)
> > that th
> > What is specific point of law on which we disagree?
...
> The part where you stated:
>
> > So: the complete source code has to be licensed under the GPL, but
> > some of the individual elements of it do not.
>
> Also, from various statements I can't bother to cull together, I don't
> think you
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> > >
> > > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > > itself does not. There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> >
> > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> >
> > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > itself does not. There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> > where you could make sugar boil
> > If we don't have permission to modify the software, and distribute
> > changes, then it's better to leave distribution of that software to
> > someone who can deal with such issues.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 12:54:48AM +0200, Adi Stav wrote:
> Yet non-free is, for all practical purposses, a part
22 matches
Mail list logo
