Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This causes no problem, because the QPL is not incompatible with the LGPL,
> but it is with the GPL. So there is no possibility to link it with
> libreadline, isn't it ?
You are correct: such a combination is not allowed if the licenses are
incompatible.
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
>
> > Lbh'er zhqqyvat nccyrf naq benatrf. Urer gur pbheg vf gnyxvat nobhg
> > gur serr fcrrpu orvat vgfrys n pbclevtug npg bs fcrrpu.
>
> Could somebody please explain the joke? Why is this rot13'd?
"none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure I understand the significance of the difference here and what
> "issue" I am confusing - perhaps you can enlighten me on your position.
> Copyright infringement may occur whether you fail to comply with a license
> or whether you breach a contract
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In principle, at least, we should be able to find a basis for agreement,
> and go from there.
Where to? What exactly is served by the whole discussion?
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is hereby
established. etc etc.
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
> My program works well
- Original Message -
From: "Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
[snip]
> > Of course, we're talking only about U.S. law here. The relevant laws in
> > other jurisdictions
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
> "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't see how "contract issues are entirel
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:54:00PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> When I first read Young's clause, my impression was that it meant to
> apply to derived works, so one could not produce a GPL'd varient of
> OpenSSL. I do not know if this is truly the case.
Its main purpose appears to be an expressi
My program works well without the GPL library. Now if I sell this program,
and add a module that the customer may link with the GPL library, would I
violate the GPL of the library, and why ?
No court has ruled on this, but the FSF position is that this would
violate the GPL. The GPL w
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:12:01AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> I daresay that I, Aaron, and a number of other regulars here (and on
> license-discuss@opensource.org) are familiar enough with the usual sort
> of copyright law, and how licensing operates as a legal mechanism under
> it, to see that Yo
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Lbh'er zhqqyvat nccyrf naq benatrf. Urer gur pbheg vf gnyxvat nobhg
> gur serr fcrrpu orvat vgfrys n pbclevtug npg bs fcrrpu.
Could somebody please explain the joke? Why is this rot13'd?
--
Henning Makholm "Nee
> > Well I think I know a little bit of law as an attorney. I hoped I was
> > providing useful information. I'd be happy to go away if you prefer.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:06:35AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You seem out of your depth here. A tax attorney, for example, may be
> exceedi
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how "contract issues are entirely moot". Certainly at
> least the terms of the license must be interpreted to determine if
> they are complied with. AFAIK copyright law does not deal with such
> issues. Rather contract law has a long establ
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: 21 Jun 2001 09:48:34 -0700
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EM
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:49:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It not only has the obnoxious advertising clauses, but it also has the
> > Apache style "trademark" clauses (Products derived from this software may
> > not be called [some
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An additional basis for the clause is to turn a default rule into a
> breach of contract/license issue, which can have different thresholds
> of proof, elements of breach, etc. than relying on copyright
> infringement.
Though it's a public license, so
"Puybr Ubsszna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jevgrf:
> Va Unecre & Ebj, Choyvfuref, Vap. i. Angvba Ragrecevfrf,91 gur Fhcerzr
> Pbheg znqr pyrne gung pbclevtug ynj vf fhofgnagviryl pbafgvghgvbany:
> gur Svefg Nzraqzrag qbrf abg fuvryq fcrrpu gung vasevatrf nabgure'f
> pbclevtug.92 Pbclevtug, gur Pbheg fnvq
"Chloe Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By this distinction are you suggesting that all clauses that cause the
> licensee to forego rights are unenforceable e.g. limitation of
> liability? I would not think too many open source developers would be
> happy with that scenario. Aren't they all
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court
> of law, then I would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
>
> In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterpr
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:12:58AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> If we're talking about enforcement of copyright in a court of law, then I
> would note, as summarized by Eugene Volokh
> (http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/copyinj.htm#IIA):
>
> In Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Ente
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc
etc
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2
Chloe Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >This is what I thought. So contributory infringement is not relevant
> >here. By ordering us to read up about contributory infringement, I
> >think Raul is trying to deliberately waste our time! :-)
>
> Certainly Raul is not wasting our time. It is a valid is
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:59:52AM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> I fail to see the "first amendment" reasons. Violation of the First
> Amendment to the U.S. Constitution typically requires state action.
> To me this is a contract matter between private parties - I don't see
> state action.
Enforce
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: OpenSSL and GPLed programs
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:12:01 -0700
[Aaron Lehmann kindly posted my private comment to him that Eric
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Q: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:27:57 +0100
none <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[Aaron Lehmann kindly posted my private comment to him that Eric A.
Young's no-relicensing clause in his OpenSSL code is, as Aaron
articulately puts it, "a no-op".]
begin Anthony Towns quotation:
> I specifically asked RMS about this in private mail before bringing up
> this thread: he indicated
This is not legal advice. No lawyer-client relationship is established. etc.
etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
To: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
Subject: Re: Question about the old BSD license and GPL (gtkipmsg)
Date: 20 Jun 2001 20:04:21 -0700
"none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
none <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ("[T]here can be no contributory infringement by a
> defendant without direct infringement by another.")
> Henning's point which I believe is a valid one is that an end-user needs to
> infringe in order for someone else to be found a contributory infringer. If
> the en
28 matches
Mail list logo
