> > > under the GPL while the library -- considered as an entity unto itself --
> > > does not.
> > >
> > > If this doesn't make sense to you then I'd say that your question is,
> > > in fact, not at all straightforward.
>
> [ ... ]
>
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 03:39:47PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > I'm asking a very straight-forward question: if you link a dynamic
> > library to a GPL Program, does the source code of the library have to
> > be licensed under the G
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > OK, perhaps we are making progress after all. It appears that you have
> > now abandoned the argument that Qt itself must be licensed under the
> > GPL. So if that is true, all
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You've been implying that the irreversible change mentioned in Section
> > > 3 is a requirement for cases where libc is used as a Library.
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > > Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> > > > General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> > > >
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> > General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> > the Library. To do this, you must al
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Feb 17, Andreas Pour wrote:
> [...]
> > > I don't see why, after you've gone to such pains to establish that the
> > > on a module license doesn't change when a module is linked with a GPLed
> > > program. Why have yo
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:32:26PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > [ double-think, confusion and inconsistencies snipped ]
> >
> > I think all the issues have been adequately aired. I will turn to
> > other things.
>
> I agree that the issue
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You're claiming that since it's possible to replace the copyright on
> > > the library that it's necessary?
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:26:06PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > You mean change the license? I'm just quo
Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You can distribute a work under more than one license, so I still don't
> > > see why this is an issue.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > May be true in general, but not w/ th
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> I'll just finish my round of quick shots and then _really_ be gone.
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > > By contrast GPL (as I read it) simply require
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you
> > have to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed
> > with Debian is a GPL libc, not
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:53:06AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > OK, so you admit that the advertising clause conflicts with the
> > GPL. Well, that's very interesting, b/c the Apache license (see
> > http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt, clause
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
[ . . . ]
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When I read "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2", I interpret that as "in
> > compliance with". "Under the terms of"
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
[ Raul Miller wrote: ]
>
> > > No clauses from the BSD license were presented which conflicted with
> > > any of the clauses from the GPL.
> >
[ Andreas Pour wr
Don Sanders wrote:
> Personally I think that it is theoretically possible to license a binary under
> the GPL, but I don't think it make much sense to do so, (it's equivalent to
> applying the GPL to say a file of raw binary data of rainfall measurements).
>
> For instance Section 0 of the GPL req
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> > source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> > distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 d
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > However, the main point seems to be that you want to apply the requirement
> > > of GPL 3a that "the complete
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> > meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined by a
> > copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL use
stated those disagreements and see no
> urgency in repeating those disagreements in response to any urls.]
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:34:44AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Now, in the Gimp/X example, let's consider what the "collective
> > works" copyrig
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
It appears that you have raised a (somewhat) new issue, so I will address that
one.
Your claim appears to be that, when combining X with Gimp, the Gimp is under
the GPL, X
is under XFree, and the "combined whole" is under the GPL. You do this by
reference to
"colle
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:47:33AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
> > > Please read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html, particularly
> > > section (c).
> > >
> >
> > I addressed compilations in
> &g
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 11:37:20PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Raul Miller wrote:
> >
> > [ stawmen arguments, conclusory stuff, and flames snipped ]
> >
> > Oops, nothing left :-(
>
> For instance:
>
>
> Please rea
Raul Miller wrote:
[ stawmen arguments, conclusory stuff, and flames snipped ]
Oops, nothing left :-(
> --
> Raul
Ciao,
Andreas
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> > So obviously Qt is not a "Program".
>
> I agree that Qt is not a "Program".
>
> > However, Section 2 of the GPL also refers to any "work based on
Anthony Towns wrote:
> (debian-legal brought back into the Cc list)
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:02:35PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > For an executable work, complete source code means all the
> > > > source code
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 01:38:08PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Wrong, I don't think that a Program is a single file. I don't know where
> > you
> > come up with this stuff . . .
>
> I got that idea from your claims that the mechanics
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Firstly I showed him a copy of the GPL:
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> >
> > and then Andreas Pour's interpretation of the GPL:
> > http://lists.kde.org/?/=kde-licensing&m=94950776505266&w=2
> >
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> > He is technically literate, and is an avid FreeBSD user and active
> > software developer. He established a BBS in 1983 that later became
> > part of FidoNet and was in service for a total of 14 years.
> >
> > He analysed part of Andreas' interpretation for me free
Raul Miller wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
>
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:08:16AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Right. And those are distributed in source form.
>
> Not under terms wh
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
> > > (*) The source code must be complete.
> >
> > Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition
> > of what
> > the comp
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
> > > this point?
> >
> > It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph
gt; > which lets GPLed code be used on proprietary operating systems).
> > > And, the GPL explicitly gives the kernel and the compiler as
> > > explicit examples of what it means in that context.
>
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 04:26:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > So don't put the binary in "main" :-); it's not so hard to have users
> > compile the 2-3 apps that fall within the "KDE developers borrowed GPL
> > code from anoth
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:14:15PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Where does it say that (in the GPL, that is). It only says you have to make
> > available the complete source code to what you are in fact distributing.
>
> I don't think we&#x
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with
> > > kghostscript that the executing program doesn't contain Qt?
>
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:17:56PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Well, this is funny indeed. W
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 12:39:51AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Making that change under the scenario described by Marc would violate
> > the GPL, but so would lots of other things, such as linking a GPL
> > program with a proprietary libc.
>
&
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:31:48AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > That point is: why does GPL section 3 not say something like the
> > following?
> >
> > For object code or other kinds of executable work, complete source code
> > means the full source text for all exec
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any
> > copies you
> > redistribute.
>
> So does the GPL, for the cases where a GPLed program includes XFree l
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
> > statement "since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the GPL,
> > and
> > not .
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > > So we must "cause the App and X sources to be licensed as a whole at no
> > > charge
> > > to all third parties under the terms of this License&qu
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I cannot see how your reading of the GPL allows linking with XFree code but
> > not Qt code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by claiming
> > that the XFree code can be licen
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how they are enforceable. The copyright holder, A, has said C
> > can do certain
> > things, B can't change what A has permitted C t
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> >
> > >Scanning through your posts, all indications are that you refuse to
> > > listen. It is certainly possible to distribute XFree86 (and any
>
Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > > If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
> >
> > Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had
> > made
>
Joseph Carter wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies
> > to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and
> > only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy
> > if they ask. The QPL is completely sil
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If you have something to say, say it to the lists.
Sorry, I was trying to get you to respond to the particular issues I had made
rather than continue to make the generalized statements "It just isn't so" or
"The GPL requires this" w/out bothering to indicate where in the G
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:07:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >
> > Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > This is all true. However, the BSD licensing terms are not being
> > > violated, are they? There is no clause in the BSD license
Hi,
I apologize for any typos/grammar problems, I did not error-check very well . .
.
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:01:32AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
>
> > Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:00:40AM -0500, Andreas Pour
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jan 29, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > (3) real permission to distribute from the authors.
> >
> > I do not quite know what you mean by this, but if you mean that to
> > conform to your practice noted above of confirming from package
&g
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> Debian tries to maintain a good relationship with the upstream authors.
> We ask for permission to distribute code, and if it's clearly granted,
> and we have a maintainer who wants to maintain the code we distribute it.
>
> If we don't have clear permission, then goo
Hi,
OK, looks like at least one more round . . . .
Jeff Licquia wrote:
> [whoops - wrong lists for last message - fixed - sorry]
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:00:40AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > True. However, the BSD license al
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:48:40AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Hmm. I don't know, the BSD license says you can modify the source code, it
> > does
> > not permit you to modify the license. The copyright holder still holds the
> > cop
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 03:00:40AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >
> > > Errh, I keep hearing this misconception that BSD code can be
> > > relicensed as GPL code, but can not figure
-
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > > Section 2 deals with
> > > > this modification. Subsection 2c talks about licensing as a
"whole".
> > > > This section does not require each individual source file to be
GPLd.
> > > >
distributed.
But in the end, this is a pointless provision, no way TT will sue someone for
*using* a Qt library b/c someone distributed it in violation of Qt licenses
(since
use is not limited by Qt license you could run afoul of 5 only if someone up the
chain did something wrong). Also, a user wo
really hope that precedent of
debate/controversy-generating text is not repeated.
While the free software community can give Qt advice on the substantive points
to include in the license, I think it is a huge mistake to have computer
programmers draft legal agreements/licenses. Huge mistake. Huge.
Bye,
Andreas Pour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
57 matches
Mail list logo
