> > What is specific point of law on which we disagree?
...
> The part where you stated:
>
> > So: the complete source code has to be licensed under the GPL, but
> > some of the individual elements of it do not.
>
> Also, from various statements I can't bother to cull together, I don't
> think you
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> > >
> > > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > > itself does not. There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> >
> > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> >
> > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > itself does not. There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> > where you could make sugar boil
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 GPL? I think you are really wafflin
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 you require is that the collective work
> > > in k
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 you require is that the collecti
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 you require is that the collective work
> in kghostview/Qt be
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:
> > Well, it seems you misquoting me is beco
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:
> Well, it seems you misquoting me is becoming an annoying ritual. What
> I
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 alter all t
> > 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 alter all the notices that refer
> > >
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 alter all the notices that
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 alter all the notices that refer
> to this License, s
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 you decided that this is a necessary step for this
> >
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:35:55AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> You are right, I apologize, I should have left out the bracketed part.
Thank you.
> I note, though, there were some flames in the part I snipped as well.
Hm... Rereading my message, I see that I referred to you in an ironic
or sar
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 issues have been adequately aired, but tha
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 issues have been adequately aired, but that's
no call for flamage.
--
Ra
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 quoting from the LGPL, don't blame
> > me.
[ double-th
> > 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 quoting from the LGPL, don't blame me.
I blame you for failing to distinguish betwe
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 you decided that this is a necessary step for this
> > case?
>
> B/c the LGPL says so.
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/ the LGPL. Look at Section 3 of the LGPL:
>
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/ the LGPL. Look at Section 3 of the LGPL:
>
> You may opt to apply th
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 an LGPL libc (ignoring for the
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 an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment
> that Debian does no
On Feb 16, 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 an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment that Debian
> does not in fact do the conversion).
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 3) includes this provision,
> > a
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 3) includes this provision,
> as well as several others (clau
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 wrote: ]
> > The advertising clause is a "furt
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> You fundamentally don't understand what a copyright in a collective work is.
> There are copyrights in the component works, and a separate copyright in
> their collection. Thus, any origniality used in kghostview (a component
> work)
Raul Miller wrote:
> [I've deleted a lot of material which I don't think is relevant to
> discuss. For the most part, I agreed with his points from this portion
> of this message. I disagree with some of the points he has stated in
> other messages, but I've already stated those disagreements an
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> You claimed, essentially, that section 6 of the GPL was was not valid
> legally.
No, I claim that your application of it is wrong.
We've been through this a xillion times, so I'll shut up now.
--
Henning Makholm
[I've deleted a lot of material which I don't think is relevant to
discuss. For the most part, I agreed with his points from this portion
of this message. I disagree with some of the points he has stated in
other messages, but I've already stated those disagreements and see no
urgency in repeati
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
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 09:34:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Sheesh. I point out that you are asking for the impossible. I cannot
> give a precise reference to the page in the law where it does not say
> what you claim it does. The does not say as you claim on all of its
> pages, and there is
> > The BSD license doesn't forbid the restrictions of the GPL.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 02:33:34PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It doesn't allow them either.
It does allow these restrictions in the same way that it allows for
BSD code to be distributed under proprietary and commercial licenses:
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 07:30:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Okay. So GPL.3 can be applied *either* to a program *or* a work that
> > happens to be based on a program.
> If you distribute a work based on the program you must distribute it
> under
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
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00150
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > No. GPL.3 does not speak about "programs" at all.
>
> > Here's proof to the contrary:
>
> >
> > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > under S
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No. GPL.3 does not speak about "programs" at all.
> Here's proof to the contrary:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object
> > > > However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file"
> > > > and not "program".
>
> > > Excactly.
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The GPL doesn't require that you distribute all of the executable files
> > for a program. However, it does require that you d
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file"
> > > and not "program".
> > Excactly.
> The GPL doesn't require that you distribute all of the executable files
> for a program. However, it does require that you distribute (o
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
> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00150.html.
That message has false st
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 read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html, particul
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 read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html, particularly
section (c).
--
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
[ stawmen arguments, conclusory stuff, and flames snipped ]
Oops, nothing left :-(
> --
> Raul
Ciao,
Andreas
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
[This is really long. Sorry.]
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 03:16:47PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> 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".
> >
> > >
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Other people, including me, use another definition:
>
> > >"The complete source code for a binary consists of whatever
> > >is necessary for the recipient to recreate the binary with
> > >modifications of his own."
>
> > > where "bin
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 the
> > Program".
> > This term is also defined in S
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 of linking (dynamic
> vs. static) was
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Other people, including me, use another definition:
> >"The complete source code for a binary consists of whatever
> >is necessary for the recipient to recreate the binary with
> >modifications of his own."
> > where "binary" means the "obj
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 02:24:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Note further that the `complete source' and `the Program' are distinct
> entities, with different definitions in the GPL. Don't make the mistake
> of equating them.
Actually, it is reasonable to equate them if the result is distribut
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> I think this is a sophism. My point all along has been that Qt is not part
> of
> the "Program".
>
> Remember where the term "Program" comes from. It is defined in Section 0 of
> the
> GPL to mean:
>
> any program or other w
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 of linking (dynamic
vs. static) was somehow relevant to the GPL copyrigh
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 and associated symbols)
>
> I cannot fathom how th
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "The complete source code for a program which, when running
> > normally, consistently includes both QPL and GPL licensed machine
> > code must include both QPL licensed source code and GPL licensed
> > source code."
>
> > That concept is central to my a
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 03:28:43PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> 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: [...]
> > > and then Andreas Pour's interpretation of the GPL: [...]
> > > * He agreed the Andreas Pour
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
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:38:10PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:04:02PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > I the potential for problems with this. For example, directing his
> > attention to certain aspects of the license during lunch, you'd likely be
> > glossing over what I see as the major flaw of Andreas Pour's argument:
> > his conce
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "The complete source code for a program which, when running normally,
> consistently includes both QPL and GPL licensed machine code must include
> both QPL licensed source code and GPL licensed source code."
> That concept is central to my argument.
Ex
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:04:02PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> I have been researching your comments. Especially the thread containing this
> mail:
>http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00133.html
>
> Am I correct in stating that under your interpretation of the GPL "the
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 list.
> I the potential for probl
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 list. The copyright lawyer has two law degrees and is
> completing a Master's degr
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 01:21:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Now if Bob receives a copy from Alice, Alice has specifically given
> him permission (in term 2) to ``modify [his] copy [...] of the Program or
> any portion of it [...] and copy and distribute such modifications or work
> under the t
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
>
> * He agreed the Andreas Pour's
On Feb 10, Don Sanders wrote:
> Secondly I showed him Andreas Pour's XFree license comment, which contains a
> copy of the Xfree license:
> http://lists.kde.org/?/=kde-licensing&m=94950776505271&w=2
>
> * He agreed that software licensees have no inherent right to relicense
>software under a
Being concerned with the legality of redistributing KDE linked to QT I
consulted a copyright lawyer about Andreas Pour's interpretation given on this
list. The copyright lawyer has two law degrees and is completing a Master's
degree a component of which comprised copyright law, he has 20 years
expe
70 matches
Mail list logo
