is clearly best to regard it
as non-free. However, I suspect he'd have a very hard time enforcing
it in court.
IANAL
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@mansr.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/yw1xiq8isx7h@unicorn.mansr.com
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong writes:
>> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> >> chooses not to do so.
>>
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
>> chooses not to do so.
>
> If a work is GPLed and we do not have the complete source for the
> work, we cannot distribute it under
bian is
> legal, but that doesn't grant Debian permission to distribute it any
> further.
More precisely, Debian has the right to distribute such a work, but
chooses not to do so.
--
Måns Rullgård
m...@mansr.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said:
>> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said:
>> >> There is one thing about that license that strik
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said:
>> There is one thing about that license that strikes me as slightly odd.
>>
>> Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>> including comm
it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
In the above grant of permissions, I see no explicit grant to
distribute modified versions. It is fairly obvious from the remainder
of the license that such permission was intended, but it should still
be explicitly mentioned.
--
Måns Rull
from you.
I agree that the rights to use, copy, and redistribute are distinct,
and that none of them implicitly include any of the others.
IANAL
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
encoder, e.g. for motion estimation, quantisation, or
any other aspect where the spec doesn't detail how values are to be
computed from input data. I have no idea whether any patents are
applicable to the FFmpeg H.261 encoder, but I wouldn't discount the
possibility without a thorough e
"M. Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Måns Rullgård-3" writes:
>>Mark Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I hope this is the right list to discuss GPL related issues. (Or where
>>> would be a better pla
odec however uses the following:
>
> Monkey's Audio Source Code License Agreement
It may be of interest to you that FFmpeg has an independent
implementation of this decoder licensed under the LGPL 2.1.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
GPLv3 require source distribution
with web services and similar, but these requirements were dropped
from the final version.
Disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said "people should not
> use this algorithm [as it is no longer considered secure enough". Could
> those situations not revoke my license to use this software?
Note that the text says "algorithm", not "implementation". If it is
not patented, there is nothing the "originators of the algorithm" can
do to stop it being used.
IANAL
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Matthäi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård schrieb:
>> Patrick Matthäi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I wanted to package maybe truecrypt for Debian.
>>> There was an older discussion on l.d.leg
e bits that might be controversial appear to be a few
naming restriction clauses and some advertising clauses. I don't see
anything restricting use or distribution.
IANAL
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
form.
>
> Please point out the flaw in this reasoning. Thank you.
Suppose I write from scratch a new library, Tq, that is source and
binary compatible with Qt (huge task, but that's beside the point).
Every app written to use Qt can now instead use Tq without even a
recompile. A
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is it a kind of "algorithm copyright"?
>
> No.
In some countries there is. They call it a patent.
> IANAL etc
Neither am I.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
course
>> have been borrowed from glibc at some point, but that's irrelevant.
>
> Are you sure that it is self-contained? Grepping through the sources
> of 2.6.22.1, I do not see an implementation of or
> . I do see , and is never included.
Inside the kernel stdio is meanin
; Doesn't the kernel get its implementations for pow(), sqrt(),
> printf(), and the rest of the C standard library from glibc, which is
> LGPL'd?
No. The kernel is completely self-contained. Some code may of course
have been borrowed from glibc at some point, but that's irrelevant.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ed under the GPL are considered free
> software under the DFSG. That does *not* mean that "anything in the
> GPL is DFSG free" outside the context of a work licensed under the
> GPL.
It may also be worth noting that GPLv2 *has* to be considered DFSG
free, or there would be
hout releasing the raw audio files grants no rights at all.
> GPLing video has a similar problem.
The "preferred form for modification" for a film director is often a
reshoot of the scene. I guess this means that a GPL video would have
to ship with (a copy of) Tom Cruise if he hap
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 11 June 2006 19:25, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Hello *,
>> >
>> > Since I have read tonns of different licences I do not realy know
>> >
it, without
any concerns about being "GPL compatible". All the fuss about open
source licenses being incompatible is, IMHO, contradictory to the
spirit of free software, and spending time on such issues is
counter-productive.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
r decoders. I did
> look at their patent portfolio, but is was brief and shallow. I'm having
> a closer look now.
>
> libxine: libfaad (AAC decoder)
> vlc: libfaad (AAC decoder); libx264 (AVC decoder)
> libavcodec0: libfaad (AAC decoder); libx264 (AVC decoder)
>
ither encodes nor decodes AAC. FFmpeg can optionally use external
libraries for these tasks.
I'm not familiar with libxine enough to comment on it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
eeds to be careful about
> distributing works which have patents in the United States[1] where
> the patent holders are well known and have been inolved in patent
> litigation against individuals using their patents.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it use, not distribution, that
2821.txt
IMHO permission to modify standards is uninteresting. The document is
only useful in it's original form anyway.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Schilly build system with autodev-stuff).
>
> That's a good reason to find someone willing to take over dvdrtools
> maintenance and development...
> We should really seek someone interested.
Umm... they released a new version just a couple of weeks ago. What
do you require of a
URL for the "real" X11 license (the one that
> used to live at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html)?
Gentoo has a fairly comprehensive collection of license texts at
http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/licenses/, including an
"MIT" and an "X11" license that are quite distinct.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 +0000 Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just use d
using more than one copy at a time, and convice the
> cort that your backup strategy does not comply with the license.
Next we know, they'll be counting mirrored disks as multiple copies,
and probably as using all the copies at once too.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 +0000 Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
>> >
>> > I need a bit support to clarify the iss
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:39:12PM +0000, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:35:16PM +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL P
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
> # control compilation and installation of the executable.
>
> "scripts used to control compilation" is clearly what we currently
> refer to as "build system".
Point taken. The obvious solution is to replace the
nch Debian (and other distributions) mirrors could be endangered.
>> This is a problem for French mirror operators, not for Debian.
>
> It is also a problem for any Debian Developer that would come to France.
What? Do the French lock you up for things you did outside of France,
even if the
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #include
> * Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
>> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
>> long lines, but tha
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> A work can't be derived from another work without including some
>> piece of it
>
> This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
> generated by a work) i
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
>> working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
>> convenience than a necessity to bui
case of the preamble question in
> Australia's 1999 constitutional referendum - the 'no' case says that
> the preamble could have had legal effect.)
Could you elaborate on this, or provide some pointers?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
>> invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using device
>> names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just u
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
>> > GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can
e (CDDL). Would that be suitable for main?
>
> I don't see how this would get around the GPL incompatibility issues,
> as the build system is only useful for cdrecord.
Not that I'd go so far as to call it useful, but JS does use the same
makefile templates for other software.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is closed
and difficult (or even illegal) to use on your operating system of
choice.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*free* as in speech. It
> being patent encumbered doesn't make it proprietary. It still is
> free as in speech in those countries that don't have such patents.
The spec is also available free of charge.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
H.264. If you need HD
content encoded at 4Mbps, H.264 is the only codec that is capable.
Likewise, SD content at 500kbps is impossible with other codecs. It
doesn't matter how free something is when it is useless for the
required application.
I'm not saying that Theora is useless p
ally is no viable alternative in some situations.
Microsoft's WMV9/VC1 comes close but I'm sure it has every bit as
non-free licensing terms.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ir octects"; I seriously
>> doubt that'd count...
> Mmm, I guess you're right.
But then transliterating to ASCII must be acceptable.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
spirit, no. However, it is easy to work around that restriction.
Simply sell the fonts as part of the Hello World package.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rate computers. From the point of view of the GPL work called the
> Linux kernel, they're just data.
Exactly what I've always been saying. Call them non-free if you will,
but don't get it mixed up with the GPL.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/20/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>> > Moglen: In all good faith, I can't tell you. If the kernel were
>> > pure GPL in its license terms, the answer...would be: You
>> &g
v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Besides, I'm free to insert whatever modules I want in my kernel, so
long as I don't distribute /proc/kcore.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/28/05, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Giannis Beredimas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
>>
>> There are similarities in the shape that has been rolled up to form
>> the spiral.
Giannis Beredimas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Måns,
>
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>>I played around with the Greek site's logo, trying to match it
>>against the Debian logo. This is the result:
>>http://inprovide.com/~mru/junk/debian.png
>>
>&
the result:
http://inprovide.com/~mru/junk/debian.png
This took a fair amount of rotating and stretching, and it's still not
very close. My guess is that someone happened to draw a vaguely
similar spiral.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a s
space?
>Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
>build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your
>program mean I have to GPL my program?
>
>A: Yes.
>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 09:22:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Statements like this one would seem to have something to do with it:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> Odd statements, indeed.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 07:23:24PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >>> > Do you think that this licence does not require a developer
>> >>> > of a modified package (other than PHP) to lie by saying
similar to believing that this
>> message is a derivative of the English Grammar manual I read in school.
>
> Or that all non-trivial Emacs Lisp code must be licensed under the
> GPL. This position is not *that* unusual...
Not being unusual doesn't make it sensible or corre
lks subscribe to the view that PHP scripts are
> derivative works of PHP. Then it wouldn't be lying, would it?
They still don't *include* PHP. There's a huge difference between
require and include.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>> I'd certainly expect a program as expensive and with such ambitions
>>>> as Adobe Illust
one to embed in a program.
Most programs of that type have tools to draw rectangles, (regular)
polygons, circles, ellipses, and spirals. Those are all basic
geometrical shapes.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:37:08PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Scripsit Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTE
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Scripsit Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>>> Isn't the Debian swirl logo just a very basic
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Amaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> /me wonders...
>> Isn't the Debian swirl logo just a very basic Adobe Illustrator
>> template?
>
> The stroke is, but the particular way it swirls is not.
Looks
uot;
> (in metaphysical sense) from some other preexisting GPL'd work(s) and hence
Not just from preexisting works, they can be derived from works to be
written later too. Some of the regulars here have repeatedly asserted
the equivalent of this.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
T
ent in principle. Remember that it is perfectly
legal to reverse engineer a protocol, and then proceed to write your
own programs using it. Surely, there can't be more restrictions when
the specification is publicly available.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the next obvious point, it concludes
> that the GPL doesn't work. Therefore it's broken somewhere. Figuring
> out where is left as an exercise for the students. I really don't care
> about the details.
Ah, but this is based on the assumption that the GPL actually does
work. The argument was intended to show that it doesn't, and
apparently succeeds at this.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s whatsoever. I can only take this to mean that they are
out of real arguments, but refuse to admit it, just like the FSF
themselves. I'm giving up this discussion for now, until people
perhaps decide to start using logic and reason, rather than philosophy
and religion to reach their conclusions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
n the FAQ? That's not in any way part
of the license/contract.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s true depends on what the Program does.
The phrase "running the Program" is not directly applicable to a
library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
running a program that uses the library. Th
86672
>
> Recently, a user posted a suggestion, i'd like to know if it's a
> valid solution. If not, is there anything else i can do?
This is getting absurd. The usual argument here is that Debian should
follow the wishes of the upstream author, even if the legal
foundation
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 24 August 2005 02:17 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Wednesday 24 August 2005 01:46 pm, Catatonic Porpoise wrote:
>> >> Sean Kellogg wrote:
>>
n a variety of systems, including Linux/glibc, *BSD,
Solaris, AIX, MacOSX, etc. Does this mean that my programs are
derivatives of all these C libraries/compilers?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on of those clauses is overbroad and
> incorrect. The clause does not state that the product must bundle
> PHP, but that it must affix a notice to the effect that it includes
> it.
But without including PHP, it won't be, well, included, making the
statement false. Using false statements
is needed and might be sufficient, but it looks like
> it deliberately discriminates against publishers. I don't think
> it follows DFSG 1 or 6.
It says something about publishers, but exactly what it's supposed to
mean is beyond me.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIK, no dispute
about this.
IANAL, TINLA, etc.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on who you ask, and on the precise definition of a
"derived work".
If you are writing a program, and want to link against a non-GPL
library, it's probably safest to use a different license than the GPL
for your program. Linking with 2-clause BSD or MIT licensed libraries
is always
) be produced from JPEGs, but (in general) not from ELF
> files.
I'll save this for next time someone claims that linking against a
shared library (ELF file) creates a derived work.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
f Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
> system such that when I type "eclipse" I get a program made out of
> both.
So what? Eclipse is still only a Java program being interpreted by
Kaffe, which is perfectly within the limits set by the GPL.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the first place.
>
> On the other hand, it's also exactly why it's problematic for Debian
> to distribute an Eclipse which incorporates a copy of the GPL'd Kaffe.
Please start using a dictionary with the same definition of "include",
"incorporate" and similar words as everybody else's dictionaries use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Now you stopped making sense. A program includes only references to a
library, not the library itself. A distribution, e.g. Debian, might
include both the program and the library. I don't see a problem with
distributing a collection of programs, where some of them can be
combined in ways that violate some license, as long as all of them
still have legitimate uses.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ason.
> But having glibc purely GPL just doesn't sound good, does it?
It sounds like it would make for a lot of arguing with FSF, nothing
else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
e had a Depends: some-non-kaffe-jvm | java-runtime and Kaffe
> a Provides: java-runtime, there would be no conflict with the GPL here.
You're starting to make sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Now you stopped making sense. A program includes only references to a
library, not the library itself. A distribution, e.g. Debian, might
include both the program and the library. I don't see a problem with
distributing a collection of programs, where some of them can be
combined in ways th
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
>
> But Debian does, when it says:
> Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
>
> So the eclipse-platfo
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
&g
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>
ason.
> But having glibc purely GPL just doesn't sound good, does it?
It sounds like it would make for a lot of arguing with FSF, nothing
else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
e had a Depends: some-non-kaffe-jvm | java-runtime and Kaffe
> a Provides: java-runtime, there would be no conflict with the GPL here.
You're starting to make sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
>
> They haven't tried. All Microsoft have done to them so far is send
> them some nastygrams in the mail.
And for some reason you believe Microsoft would be content with that,
if they believed they had any real chance to stop them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
>
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
>
> But Debian does, when it says:
> Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
>
> So the eclipse-platfo
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
&g
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> [large discussion of C snipped out]
>>
>
derived from?
>
> You've got the causality backwards here. The program is linked to the
> libraries because it is a derivative of the libraries. Not the other
> way around.
>
> Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> when you build it.
How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API? Any other
interpretation invariably leads to contradictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t; That's overstated. It's enough to have to argue the point in court and
> be unsure of the result, which is bad enough that we can't really go
> there.
>
>> Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
>
> They aren't with any degree of certainty.
I
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
