ompatibility test suite (i.e. behaved as documented) on a
NPTL-ed glibc without some nudging in form of LD_KERNEL_ASSUME etc.
See http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;:YfiG?bug_id=4885046
for a particular instance of the problem. If you search Sun's bug
database/the web, you should be ab
help make the Java application you care about
work (better).
See http://jroller.com/page/dgilbert?entry=sven_de_genius ,
http://kennke.org/blog/?p=5 and http://kennke.org/blog/?p=7 for a few
applications that are currently being liberated from dependencies on
proprietary Java implementations.
che
particular
handholding from someone else to figure out what free software is, given
how many bright people work over there on free software already. ;)
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:15:32PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Commentary by Dalibor Topic: "The license is, frankly, still pretty bad,
> and contains various nasty clauses: from the overly broad
> indemnification(i) part, which has nothing to do with Sun'
have them
at hand. I recall that SCO made some expensive mistakes miscalculating
the laws there, though, and making claims from Germany they could not prove.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:46:20 +0100 Dalibor Topic wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Should debian-legal@lists.debian.org be signed up directly (provided
this is possible *at all*!), in your opinion?
No, please.
Ciao Francesco,
Why do you think so?
Could you
Francesco Poli wrote:
Should debian-legal@lists.debian.org be signed up directly (provided
this is possible *at all*!), in your opinion?
No, please.
Or do you think signing up individual personal e-mail addresses would be
better?
Yes, please.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
s in your
specific context, you'll have to ask the copyright holders of the
non-free software about it, since they are the ones who may take you to
court if you violate their license.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the only
thing that might help w
nditional obligation, since
litigation is uncertain -- is a thing of value under contract law.
Weird rhetorical question: What happens when the venue no longer exists?
Natural & man-made desasters, political changes, wars, etc all can do
pretty mean things to chosen venues.
cheers,
dalibor t
right
holders consent.
So I would not expect number of contributors to be a problem to
re-relicensing it under an ammended CDDL.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of Mr. Daniel Wallace, a famous
platiff [1] trying to make fascinating claims about the GPL in court.
cheers from the gnu.misc.discuss peanut gallery,
dalibor topic
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_%28plaintiff%29
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If "something bad happens to the user" (I will not call this
"discrimination") in some improbable mad
raine has been arrested in
Thailand and extradited to US on similar charges in 2003/2004.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>
>>>>>The application of the
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations
org/s/star/news/4.html and the license change
did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on
CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Walter Landry wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You have made a very convincing argument that "required to install" is
too broad. My criteria is "required to run".
I've showed that your interpretation of 'required to run' is too broad,
ce to kaffe.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eclipse, or not. :)
To me, it's quite obvious that since they are distributable, independant
works, they can be distributed on the same medium, and that's what the
GPL says, and the FSF does. [1]
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] Not everything distributed from ftp.gnu.org is under the GPL,
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'll use a verbatim copy of my post to take apart your and Gadek's
claim. Please do not take the heat of the debate as a personal affront.
It's not meant to hurt. I very much appreciate your civility in your
e-mail messages, which are a refreshing change f
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[OK. One "past-last" message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL
the GPL is the
definitive one ;) If you could do the same, that would be just dandy,
and we wouldn't have to go through this stupid, annoying, ridiculously
boring pissing match.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AQ earlier
in the thread.
No exception to the interpreter is necessary, the FAQ is fine, and says
the same as what I do.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ine together. How is this different from
your case?
Because Eclipse is not a derived work of Kaffe.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
theless, although the two works are not
derived from each other, distributing them together also violates the GPL.
If that was the case, then GPL would put restrictions on works that are
not derived from it, i.e. on unrelated data/works shipped along with it.
Then GPL would not meet DFSG #9.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion is
ty and doubt about the legal status of using
and distributing Kaffe.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hin the virtual machine itself.
Irrelevant as these native methods are a part of the interpreter. An
interpreter can not impose the GPL on its input no matter whether its
well-modularized like Kaffe, or whether its like other vms. Says the FSF
in their FAQ.
Please do yourself a service and read the whole thread, as all of your
arguments have been already debunked here several times.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, which are surprisingly short,
and quite clear, in my humble opinion.
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To
se in November 2003 already right here on
debian-legal.
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-java@lists.debian.org/msg03572.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-java@lists.debian.org/msg03575.html
Are we done now?
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're right. Sorry. Can you get an explicit answer from them as to
whether you can distribute GPL-incompatible applications with Kaffe?
If you believe you need another answer, you'll have to ask them. You
have mine and the GPL's already.
cheers,
dali
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When they are entwined with dependencies, every component of the
collection must be distributed under the GPL.
The GPL doesn't talk about 'entwining with dependencies'. It makes no
such demands.
Can you g
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But distributing them as one work -- say, the Debian OS -- is covered
by the GPL. In what way is Debian not a "work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program
Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
On Sat, 2005-15-01 at 00:20 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
less eclipse
That doesn't make eclipse a derived work of less.
Of course not. less is a filter-like program. It takes its input,
then displays it on screen as output.
So is any interpreter.
But Kaffe com
, that probably means that it *might* be arguably subject to
it (depending on how much of gcc ends up in gcc's output), and the FSF
is giving an explicit exception to eliminate any doubt.
Irrelevent. Kaffe is an interpreter, it's not a compiler like gcc. Kaffe
creates no output of its inpu
sh, or anything else under the GPL does, because to all these
programs, Eclipse is a bunch of data, just like for Kaffe.
Can we stop flogging a dead horse now, please?
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
eeds it graphically: Shit, Brian. Real Shit. Not your intestines
working on the 100USD bills. Shit.
Does Kaffe generate an *out*-put containing GPLd, copyrightable parts of
*itself* and its *input* *data*? No.
Now please, please, stop regurgitating this nonsense.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNS
rom other people's shits,
invokes unpleasant images in my head, and is best left as an excercise
to the so inclined reader.
Now, can we please end this discussion?
cheers,
dalibor topic
NI or Java Native Interface is an example of
such a binding mechanism."
There is no contradition between the first part of FSF's statement about
a GPLd intepreter not being able to restrict its input and this part.
The part you quote is not about the interpreter, it is about *ot
's shits,
invokes unpleasant images in my head, and is best left as an excercise
to the so inclined reader.
Now, can we please end this discussion?
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s explicit use of JVM functionality through
sequences of small byecode-langiage commands like 'invokevirtual',
'add', 'sub', 'dup' and so on. The fact that the bytecode is run on a
GPLd interpreter does not let the intepreter impose the GPL on its data,
just because the implementation of 'add' in that interpreter is GPLd.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Native Interface is an example of
such a binding mechanism."
There is no contradition between the first part of FSF's statement about
a GPLd intepreter not being able to restrict its input and this part.
The part you quote is not about the interpreter, it is about *other*
facilities that a
ds non-GPLd works in memory is irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether works are actually copies, modifictions or
derived works. Or all my e-mail would have to be GPLd, as it's loaded
into the memory of a GPLd program :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevan
of JVM functionality through
sequences of small byecode-langiage commands like 'invokevirtual',
'add', 'sub', 'dup' and so on. The fact that the bytecode is run on a
GPLd interpreter does not let the intepreter impose the GPL on its data,
just because the i
works in memory is irrelevant.
What's relevant is whether works are actually copies, modifictions or
derived works. Or all my e-mail would have to be GPLd, as it's loaded
into the memory of a GPLd program :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you
x27;undistributable Java in main' from 2003:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00026.html
cheers,
dalibor topic
Would you please, please stop regurgitating this nonsense. The FSF's FAQ
is perfectly fine. It's your casual reading of it that it wrong.
cheers,
dalibor topic
cess data does not restrict the user in
any way regarding the license of the data to process. So much for the
generic claim about Kaffe's GPL propagating through using it to build
something with it.
c) GPL allows users to run GPLd programs for any purpose without letting
the GPL'd program
#x27;undistributable Java in main' from 2003:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00026.html
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you please, please stop regurgitating this nonsense. The FSF's FAQ
is perfectly fine. It's your casual reading of it that it wrong.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
estrict the user in
any way regarding the license of the data to process. So much for the
generic claim about Kaffe's GPL propagating through using it to build
something with it.
c) GPL allows users to run GPLd programs for any purpose without letting
the GPL'd program impose restr
f
some Kaffe developers, like me, to have waste their time debunking this
infantile 'K4FF3 15 1LL3G4L, U53 54B13' bullshit every time there is a
new release of SableVM to 'market'.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00026.html
ld restrict its use to
GPL-only data would go afoul of DFSG #6 and #9, I guess, beside claiming
rights that are not given to an interpreter by the copyright law.
cheers,
dalibor topic
fe developers, like me, to have waste their time debunking this
infantile 'K4FF3 15 1LL3G4L, U53 54B13' bullshit every time there is a
new release of SableVM to 'market'.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.deb
se to
GPL-only data would go afoul of DFSG #6 and #9, I guess, beside claiming
rights that are not given to an interpreter by the copyright law.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
restrictions on the
data, the incompatibility of intepreter's GPL and data's CPL does not
matter, as the data never becomes limited by the GPL and the license
conflict never happens.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
restrictions on the
data, the incompatibility of intepreter's GPL and data's CPL does not
matter, as the data never becomes limited by the GPL and the license
conflict never happens.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
, is wrong, in my non-lawyerish opinion, because
Eclipse's source code or bytecode does not derive specifically from
Kaffe's interpreter or class library, afaik, but uses 'standard' Java
APIs all the way. Just as explained above in the links.
cheers,
dalibor topic
in my non-lawyerish opinion, because
Eclipse's source code or bytecode does not derive specifically from
Kaffe's interpreter or class library, afaik, but uses 'standard' Java
APIs all the way. Just as explained above in the links.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
rg/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=15416&tstart=0
The submitter is seriously misinfomed about what the license text
actually says.
In short: the JRL is a poison pill. Don't touch unless you have to.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor
do so -- just that you've
acknowledged that the software isn't licensed-by-the-DOE for that or
designed for that.
Who is DOE and why is he licensing Sun's software? The BSD+ license
doesn't mention a DOE, afaik.
cheers,
dalibor topic
ne the same for (some of ?) the
freedesktop.org code that Sun contributed according to
http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/stsf-commit/2004-July/88.html . So
maybe the same could be done for javacc and other Sun-owned software
that's licensed under 'BSD+'.
cheers,
dalibor topic
no business being in main,
afaik.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] For example, the free toolchain might have a bug preventing the
compilation. We want to know about such things before they bite users.
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Well, for the gif problem... I suppose we'll never be able to support
that?
I guess whenever that software patent expires worldwide debian can
happily support gifs.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken
place on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument
ght
on the differing interpretations of what constitutes a derivative work,
but instead go on about a hypothetical case to prove your point. That is
a very bad way to present your case, in my opinion.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
The language is defined by the Java Language Specification.
But the v
LGPLd RMI
implementation, for example). But it would exclude the
ASL.
In worst-case-plus-using-GNU-classpath case, this
would mean that the exception would have to go, as it
could not be extended to code outside of GNU
classpath. That stripping would make it GPL, which
would be allowed by the
es not affect
your ability to run any Java or JNI-based code that
you could run on any other Java virtual machine.
best regards,
dalibor topic
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
mple. the FSF says that a GPLd
interpreter can hardly make requirements to the
interpreted data, and I believe them ;), but there is
a lot of room for interpretation of linking in the
context of an interpreter.
As for my own small contributions, I am quite glad to
see them under the GPL. I'm
73 matches
Mail list logo
