query=%22source+code%22
Interesting stuff, still researching...
(I include one reply below).
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Don Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:49:19PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > > FYI a legal precedent that object
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:49:19PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source
> > code exists:
> > http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unr
FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source code
exists:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep1497.html?query=%22source%22%20and%20%22code%22#disp5
Australian Federal court of appeals:
The decision of Judge 1:
I am satisfied that the
Ok I have said some things that weren't true. This was not my intent I was just
trying really hard to understand the license, maybe too hard.
> Consider section 1. It says "you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
> the
> Program's source code provided that you ...". I interpret this as say
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
> > decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
> > appr
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> The problem with reading the GPL this way is that it systematically uses this
> phrase when the rest of the GPL (or the designated part) does NOT explicitly
> treat the subject of "under the terms" (in some cases: explicitly not). This
> is most clear
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Don Sanders wrote:
> > GNU e?grep, version 1.6
>
> Grep (the binary) does contain the following:
I see this message in grep 2.3 but not 1.6. (At the time I was logged into a
stable machine that doesn't get upgraded very often).
Bu
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 requires that in order to apply
I just want to prefix this message by saying the issue I am concerned with is
whether I can apply the GPL to a KDE application.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrel
Ok I screwed up in a few places in recent mails
> Is applicable and the complete source is not under the scope of the license.
Could have been clearer:
Is applicable and none of the complete source except for the Program is under
the scope of the license.
> If the complete sources do not contain
After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
appreciated.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Heart of the debate
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:19:41 +1100
From: Don Sa
I hope you don't mind me replying to this too.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, 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 t
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, 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 copyrigh
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Don Sanders wrote:
> > > I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> > > based on the Program".
> >
> > Because it contains the Program yes.
>
> Hmm I need to think about this more, the complete so
> > I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> > based on the Program".
>
> Because it contains the Program yes.
Hmm I need to think about this more, the complete source code is aggregated
with the Program but it may be considered a collection of works none of whic
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:53:34PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > In this specific case I want to determine if I can apply the GPL to
> > all the files in a particular kdepackage/application directory (I call
> > this work the KDE appl
(Missed debian-legal)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code
> > .. must be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to m
I'm going to take the slightly unusual approach of replying to your comment in
two parts.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Finally interpreting the phrase "the complete source code must be
> > distr
I would like to address an issue that I feel is at the heart of the debate
about the legality of distributing KDE.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Section 3 of the GPL states:
>
>3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form unde
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 04:56:50PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > The full source code to the binary created does include the source
> > code to Qt, yes. (without Qt, the binary cannot be compiled (headers)
> > and linked dynamically (direct object code an
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (please don't drop debian-legal from the Cc list)
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 08:39:13PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > Third, I challenge you to find a relevant case
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> IMO the contentions lie solely in section 2 of the GPL. Satisfy those
> requirements and the license would be compatible with the GPL.
I have made an honest effort to locate a thread where you explain "the
contentions" but have been unable to do so. Cou
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:47:21PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Being concerned with the legality of redistributing KDE linked to QT
> > I consulted a copyright lawyer about Andreas Pour's interpretation
> > given on this li
ftware under the XFree license+++
under the GPL, as the XFree license prohibits this.
I (Don Sanders) conclude that copyright law supports the premises of Andreas'
interpretation.
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
BFN,
Don.
++ I (Don Sanders) don't think such an action
I share similar views to Mr. Hutton. Allegations have been made that KDE is
responsible of GPL abuse and copyright violation. The fact that the GPL is
generally misunderstood has served to amplify these allegations. It took me
a considerable amount of time to find Andreas Pour's arguments in the se
I have been following the KDE/QT licensing issue with concern for over a year
now, and decided to spend the weekend catching up with the last couple months
of the kde-licensing archive. In particular I spent time reading Andreas
Pour's comments and all the replies to them. I also spent some time
26 matches
Mail list logo
