Title: Goodbye!
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:37:18AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:37:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Allow me to propose the "What if Microsoft Did It" test. Microsoft
> > creates a new program, and says "you are prohibited from running this
> > program beh
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
> > distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
> > it with rmi.bar.com
The problem that is fundamental (for me, at least) about the "ASP
loophole" is where to draw the line. I'm currently of the opinion that
distribution is a good line and any other is fuzzy, but I'd kind of like
to be convinced otherwise.
Here's the continuum I see:
a) Joe opens a business "Joe
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:42:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC
> > call is made from a Free work is a "Bad Thing" on general principles.
> That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web,
> there's
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:56 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My understanding (IANAL, etc) is that public performance could cover
> > this sort of thing (the problem would be scaling it back to cover only
> > what we want it to). Are you simply o
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:55:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
> > The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
> > tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the tax thing fail the
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
> > [...]
> > I know you meant this as a code
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
> whether:
> 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
> work?
> 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that so long as the source for these programs are generally
> available there's no real problem. The problem shows up when someone
> uses this technique (which could be a web server or a shell server) to
> make the programs available for use bu
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
> >> of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
> >> possessor of
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Or how about this: "If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
> > must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
> > ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost."
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
> > GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
> > people want. And I'll write a CGI so th
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
> ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
Such people are idiots. I dev
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
> work?
>
> 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
> explicitly?
I'm not sure if the "combined work" is relevant, here.
[I screwed up and sent this to Glenn first, apologies]
I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
whether:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
Thank you for subscribing to the Body and Mind Online newsletter at
http://www.BodyAndMindOnline.com. A great stop for your fitness and
bodybuilding resources. Don't forget, if you know of a great fitness,
bodybuilding or health site please feel free to add to the links area. See you
soon!
T
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 15:05, Joe Moore wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins said:
> > "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Jeremy Hankins said:
> >
> >>> Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
> >>> and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the ASP
> >>> n
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:19:32PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> The paragraph above is the result of the logic:
> 1. linking -> combined work
> 2. dynamic linking -> linking
> 3. dynamic linking over network (RPC) -> dynamic linking
> 4. network service -> dynamic linking over network
Note that these
Mark Rafn said:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> So the requirement here is that if the RPC service is part
>> of the source code, you MUST ship the server, or not ship anything at
>> all.
>
> Huh? I'm missing that paragraph in my copy of GPLv2. You can't ship
> the server and the
Jeremy Hankins said:
> "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Jeremy Hankins said:
>
>>> Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
>>> and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the ASP
>>> nightmare.
>>
>> How is this different (from a licensing pers
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ah, but if you're shipping binaries of someone *else's* GPL code, the
> requirement is that you must provide "the complete corresponding
> machine-readable source code", which includes "all the source code for
> all modules it contains
The client does
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
> software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
> platform (remember Netscape & the MS antitrust trial). So they take
> commonly available Free software package
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:08:12PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > > and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look
> > > at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or
> > > http://www.fsf.org
> > > w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
>> of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
>> possessor of a copy is is really a technical detail that can be
>> ch
"Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins said:
>> Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
>> and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the
>> ASP nightmare.
>
> How is this different (from a licensing perspective) from a
> publicly-acc
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030313 06:15]:
> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
> ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
But we (at least I) a
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:34:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
> > the GPL client. Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
> > non-free derivatives of GPL w
28 matches
Mail list logo
