On March 21, 2019 4:21:22 PM UTC, David Lamparter wrote:
>You can't copyright words.
Not words, but as you say, you can copyright characters.
And characters have names.
And such names are the first expressions of the copyright, that is called
copy-right because if regulate the copy of those expr
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
What you say is: I could replace the "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
Stone" with another novel under the same name "Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer's Stone" and with the same characters (data structures,
enums...) and places (functions, macros...) AND a
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:17:23AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Technically, he is asserting that any text that use substantial
> original words defined in another original copyrightable text is a
> derivative work of such original text.
You can't copyright words. You probably can't even copyrig
On 21/03/2019, Eloi wrote:
> El 21/3/19 a les 11:17, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
>> So why do you think that this is a "toxic precedent"?
>
> No free software could run under Windows without proper Microsoft
> licensing: Firefox, Libreoffice...
>
> No free software could use or implement compatible W
On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2019-03-20 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> How this relates to compilation?
>
> It doesn't. Nobody is disputing that the compiled result is GPL.
>
> The question at hand is the licensing of the source. These are two
> separate issues.
Sure, I was talkin
El 21/3/19 a les 11:17, Giacomo Tesio ha escrit:
> So why do you think that this is a "toxic precedent"?
No free software could run under Windows without proper Microsoft
licensing: Firefox, Libreoffice...
No free software could use or implement compatible Windows services,
either server or clien
On 21/03/2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
>>> So why do you think that this is a "toxic precedent"?
>>
>> Because then you'd never be able to provide a compatible free software
>> alternative to *any* proprietary solution.
>
> But they couldn't provide any COMP
On 21/03/2019, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2019-03-21 11:17, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> Most of commercial APIs are crap so we wouldn't lose much.
>
> You care confusing quality with popularity/success. POSIX has its own
> share of crap interfaces, but they are prevalent.
No, I know that crap is p
On 2019-03-21 11:17, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Most of commercial APIs are crap so we wouldn't lose much.
You care confusing quality with popularity/success. POSIX has its own
share of crap interfaces, but they are prevalent.
> OTOH Free Software is strong enough to innovate and through a strong
> e
On 2019-03-20 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> How this relates to compilation?
It doesn't. Nobody is disputing that the compiled result is GPL.
The question at hand is the licensing of the source. These are two
separate issues.
> If the GPL header at
> https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/
On March 21, 2019 12:04:36 PM UTC, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>>
>> Lots of free software also is very much inspired by proprietary
>works,
>> be they APIs, protocol or entire programs.
>
>http://docs.ceph.com/docs/mimic/radosgw/s3/
Is Amazon S3 the best possible interface one could think of?
For s
On March 21, 2019 11:55:04 AM UTC, Ansgar wrote:
>As far as I know POSIX isn't a new and original interface that was
>designed in a clean room; it (in large parts) documents interfaces that
>were available in proprietary operating systems.
As long as the original vendors recognised the standard
On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 13:17 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Git in Debian actually links (L)GPL-3+ libraries:
>
> /usr/lib/git-core/git-remote-https links libtasn1.so.6; libtasn1.so.6
> is distributed under non-trivial terms (according to its Debian
> copyright file):
>
> The library is licensed
>
> Lots of free software also is very much inspired by proprietary works,
> be they APIs, protocol or entire programs.
>
http://docs.ceph.com/docs/mimic/radosgw/s3/
paultag
> Ansgar
>
>
>
>
On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 10:04 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ansgar Burchardt:
>
> > People have argued before that this applies to Debian. In that
> > case
> > Debian wouldn't be able to distribute binaries of GPL-2-only
> > programs
> > linking against any GPL-3+ runtime libraries like libstdc+
On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 12:40 +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On 21/03/2019, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you are supporting Oracle's position, but consider
> > the impact on the computing world of that position, and what
> > trouble
> > it causes if it wins.
>
> I can't answer for
On 21/03/2019, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I'm not sure why you are supporting Oracle's position, but consider
> the impact on the computing world of that position, and what trouble
> it causes if it wins.
I can't answer for Paul, and I really don't care about neither Oracle or Google.
But ther
Paul Jama wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> My example
>>
>> #include
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have the
On 21/03/2019, Steve Langasek wrote:
> But as for the substance of your claim, what you are doing here is asserting
> copyright on an interface. While there has been recent notable case law in
> certain jurisdictions which wrongly supports the notion that interfaces
> contain sufficient creativit
* Ansgar Burchardt:
> People have argued before that this applies to Debian. In that case
> Debian wouldn't be able to distribute binaries of GPL-2-only programs
> linking against any GPL-3+ runtime libraries like libstdc++? Or am I
> missing something?
Yes, I think we need the system library e
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> #include
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have the vague idea there c
Dear debian-legal@,
suppose I compile the following trivial GPL-2-only program:
+---
| #include
| int main() { throw std::exception(); }
+---
Then the resulting binary program links (among other things) against
libstdc++6, licensed under GPL-3+ with runtime exception.
The GPL requires the comp
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:54:12AM +, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Those files do not use GPL code; they just refer to it. No line of that
> > code was originated in GPL licensed code.
> Ah, you're in the "copyright only protects literal copying"
23 matches
Mail list logo
