Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
> than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
This and related questions have been the subject of long and tedious
flamewars on debian-legal, complete with
a) Discussions about
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Your last suggestion seems contrary to your suggestion
> to "post your question somewhere less public." I guess
> that is the nature of the beast.
It's the difference between real-world cases that people should
understand, and hypothetical rambling about possible th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
> in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
> I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
> challanges that support this.
It's a perfectly normal case of a derivative work. When you link
pro
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I am sorry that I upset you
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > If a library's interface is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
> than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
No. Actually linking to the GPL'd library is not allowed if you are
doing so from non-GPL-compatible code.
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > How so? Example: I write a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I am sorry that I upset you. I am not saying that I am
> totally confused, nor that I read the right stuff. It
> is interesting that you claim that I think that "you"
> know better than me, and even more interesting that you
> claim that I think that you are ignoran
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > My readings suggest that th
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:06:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I wish I had a date, but I don't.
> >
> > Me too. Oh, you meant a date for the *release*. I just wish I had a
> > date.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:03:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person
> > who receives them does not have to take or keep them.
> > If it didn't, then I as Big Evil Proprietary Software
> > Company would just sell bina
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:19:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably send your question
> > to him. He isn't subscribed to debian-legal (or if he is, he hides it
> > well).
>
> Apparently, Branden
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:15:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
> > or intent from saying "no thanks" when the person handing you a binary
> > of GCC also offers you
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:06:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wish I had a date, but I don't.
>
> Me too. Oh, you meant a date for the *release*. I just wish I had a
> date.
I thought you swore those off when you became a monk... :)
--
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:51:38AM +, Stephen Turner wrote:
> An actual date would be helpful. I am working on a new version at the
> moment, and I was planning to change the licence in that version. But
> if you give me a definite deadline, I can make sure to work to that.
I apologize on beha
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:21:19AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > Certainly the current Vim license is GPL-incompatible. (Even if we
> > decided it's free after all, it's definitely not ok to link it against
> > a GPLd library.)
>
> I don't see how you can call a GPL'ed library "free" if it's n
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
> modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
> This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
> of people an
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > > I don't believe that is really the same situation.
>
> > How isn't it?
>
> Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I don't believe that is really the same situation.
> How isn't it?
Hm, if you want RMS to answer you should probably send your question
to him. He isn't subscribed to debian-lega
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning
> or intent from saying "no thanks" when the person handing you a binary
> of GCC also offers you the source code. It's just a lot more
> formalized.
Courts are more than able
On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:09:12PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
> > say "you don't need to give me the source", and then you're off the
> > hook. =20
>
> Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
>
> Ye
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> My readings suggest that this may be known issue that
> is not well addressed. I am hoping that it is well
> addressed or really is a non-issue as you suggest.
It's really very tedious, you know, to think that you help things by
dredging up well-settled discussions,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How so? Example: I write a book and suggest that you get another
> book, because I am going to identify some page numbers in that book
> where the content supports my content. If you don't get that book,
> I am going to suggest that my book means nothing.
The combine
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > This is something I am very
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This is something I am very interested in, but as of
> now, I am not well versed in the subject. My
> searching has found that this topic is well discussed,
> but not necessarily well described. Is there any
> legal precedence here?
It's a standard case of a derive
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish I had a date, but I don't.
Me too. Oh, you meant a date for the *release*. I just wish I had a
date.
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: "Bram Moolenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You can't
Stephen Turner wrote:
> Actually, my understanding was that debian-legal couldn't agree whether it
> was free or not, although I agreed to change it so that we could all agree
> that it was free.
Yeah.
> An actual date would be helpful. I am working on a new version at the
> moment, and I was pla
Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
> modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
> This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
> of people and not having to provi
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Stallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
> If I ask one of my friends "what is GNU" he doesn't ju
I have attempted to add the possibility to allow people to distribute a
modified Vim, under the condition that they include the source code.
This makes it possible to distribute it in a (more or less) closed group
of people and not having to provide a copy to the maintainer (that's
me). For examp
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[warning to the innocent reader: this quote is a *proposed* licence
wording that does not actually apply to Vim, as far as I know]
> > You are allowed to distribute a modified version
Scripsit Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> Now, if anyone tries to distrib
We had this discussion before. Most people call the whole thing
"Linux". It's just a name that people use. It's very common for people
to use a name which isn't 100% right, but they do it anyway.
I am aware of how common this mistake is. However, this is more than
just a mistake; t
Sunnanvind Fenderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does the modified BSD-license allow you to release forks under any
> license, for example a proprietary one?
Yes.
> Now, Microsoft Windows 95 is a well-known, proprietary system which
> uses code from BSD. Thus, it includes the BSD copyright not
As soon as I find a search interface for the debian lists (is there
one?) I'll stop posting newbie questions as this one, but...
People have always referred to the BSD-license as "more permissive" and
"non-copyleft", and I've thought that it meant that (for example) anyone
could release modifi
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can't link a GPL-incompatible program (closed source, or any that
> have more restrictions than the GPL) to a GPL-licensed program.
>
> I'm not sure of the reasoning; I think it's along the line of thought that
> you're reusing GPL code by linking a
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It sounds to me like what you really want to support are two licensing
> schemes; one for people who publicize the source code of their changes
> to Vim, and one for people who don't. You can do this and still be
> totally DFSG-fr
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:21:19AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
>>> to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
>>> GPL-inco
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:52:01AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> (crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct
> followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate)
>
> Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)?
We have a package here which we build from th
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:21:19AM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > Alright, I'll file this. Bram, you might want to check out any other
> > libraries Vim optionally links agaist. (This is another, completely
> > different reason to make your license GPL-compatible.)
>
> I don't think that is my
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
> > non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
> > it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
> > resolved, then
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
> > > to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
> > > GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/phil
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 11:18:26PM +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> > Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be
> > distributed with another license every person that contributed would have
> > to agree with it, since each person has the copyright
Richard Stallman wrote:
> > Ten million Linux users can't be wrong!
>
> If they think of themselves as "Linux users", they are wrong already
> ;-). The system is GNU; Linux is the kernel. They are really
> GNU/Linux users.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more
> expla
Thomas Bushnell wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
> > to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
> > GPL-incompatible? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
> license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
> to like it, and some of the licensing restrictions are arguably in defense
> of other kinds of freedom.
(crossposted to debian-legal for input on the license; please direct
followups to -devel or -legal as appropriate)
Has anyone looked into packaging BitKeeper (www.bitkeeper.com)? The
license[0] is obviously non-free due to usage restrictions, but people seem
to like it, and some of the licensing
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
> non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
> it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
> resolved, then bug 121916 will operate (as it should) to keep a
So this is still around; the current license for analog seems to be
non-free, but the upstream maintainer is willing to adapt. However,
it needs to be resolved; the freeze is coming. If it can't be
resolved, then bug 121916 will operate (as it should) to keep analog
out of woody, which would be
Theoretically this would be possible. However, for the software to be
distributed with another license every person that contributed would have
to agree with it, since each person has the copyright for the part he
contributed under the GPL. Since there hardly ever is an explicit
> Yep, that's the GPL. Of course, the person you give the binary to can
> say "you don't need to give me the source", and then you're off the
> hook. =20
Er, I don't think that's permitted, either.
Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person
who receives
I notice Vim in testing links against libgpm, which is GPL (according
to /usr/doc/libgpmg1/copyright). Is this a problem, Vim's license being
GPL-incompatible?
Yes it is.
53 matches
Mail list logo
