Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes:
> On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>>> * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software
>>
>> A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't
>> merely distributed alongside.
>
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:28:46 -0400 Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
> > Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
> > program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
> > to
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Precisely. It only has bearing on whether the system library
> > exception to derivative works applies.
>
> It should apply.
Why should it apply? GPLv2 is written to make the system library
except
On 30/03/17 08:05, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:10:01PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> Apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 [1] (therefore also with GPLv2+).
> It's more complicated than "therefore also".
> Imagine a GPL2+ program library linked with a GPL2 lib
On 30/03/17 21:29, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>> * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software
>
> A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't
> merely distributed alongside.
>
>> Shipping a collection of software on a
On 30/03/17 21:09, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lars Wirzenius writes:
>
>> Instead, I'll repeat that licenses shouldn't be violated. One way of
>> achieving that is to ask copyright holders for additional permissions
>> that are needed to avoid a violation.
>
> The problem with this approach, though,
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> * License Must Not Contaminate _Other_ Software
A work which is a derivative work of another piece of software isn't
merely distributed alongside.
> Shipping a collection of software on a DVD doesn't make any of this
> pieces of software a
On 30/03/17 14:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes ("Re: System libraries and the GPLv2"):
>> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a
>> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is
>> considered part of the base system
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Holger Levsen wrote:
> It's also a major fuckup for some GPLv2-only users (as you just
> described), which as a result made *me* like+trust the FSF and the GPL
> less.
The FSF has always suggested that everyone license their works with the
current revision of the GPL at the ti
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 19:12:53)
> On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
> >> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
> >>> +0200:
On 30/03/17 10:44, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
>> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
>>> +0200:
I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> What really annoys me about this whole situation is this: I think no
> one presently argues that the GPLv2 prevents people from distributing
> pre-built binaries for proprietary operating systems. I can take
> Hotspot (a component o
Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez writes ("Re: System libraries and the GPLv2"):
> However, I still don't understand why we don't just declare OpenSSL a
> system library; or at least define a clear policy for when a package is
> considered part of the base system (so the GPL system exception applies
> to
Quoting Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez (2017-03-30 05:08:24)
> On 30/03/17 03:11, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez's message of 2017-03-30 02:49:04
> > +0200:
> >> I understand that Debian wants to take a position of zero (or
> >> minimal) risk, and I also understand th
* Richard Fontana:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:08:24AM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
>> Do you (or anyone else) _really_ think the copyright holders of the GPL
>> program in question had any intention ever of not allowing their program
>> to be used along with OpenSSL, when they wher
* Adam Borowski:
> The approach of commercial companies to both code and law is "it compiles?
> Ship it!". They have sizeable legal departments, so the question they ask
> themselves is not "is this legal?" but "are costs of possible litigation
> smaller or greater than the cost of doing it corr
16 matches
Mail list logo
