On 5 Nov 99, at 14:33, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > I wish other copyright law of other countries was as easy to
> > access.
>
> Germany, for example, here:
>
> http://www.compuserve.de/recht/gesetze/urhg/
Czech is (or was some time ago) on
http://www.krovina.cz/studna/doku
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
> code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
> Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
> development environment
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll still take the stance that because this hasn't gone to court
> that we don't know what the courts will decide.
If the courts agree with your reasoning I think we'll be in big
trouble. As far as I can see it would imply:
1) Linus' exception for syste
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Finally, I couldn't even access the danish laws.
Yeah. Nobody can, unless they use a browser that speaks JavaScript.
And even then it is is impossible to get a persistent URL for a given
document - for unknown reasons they enforce a "session login"-style
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 07:06:40PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> You should put a link to the unofficial English translation of Finnish
> Copyright Act. I posted the URL earlier.
I never got your original, I extracted the finnish link from a
followup.
If it's convenient, could you forwa
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 11:23:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> http://master.debian.org/~moth/copyright-law.html
>
> I'll be maintaining this page if anyone wants to send me additional
> info.
You should put a link to the unofficial English translation of Finnish
Copyright Act. I posted the URL
I've put up a page detailing the copyright law references that
have been posted so far. I should add a berne convention link.
Also, note that I can't tell whether the non-english law references
are specific to copyright law or whether they're references to
all law for that country.
Finally, I co
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:33:53PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> http://www.compuserve.de/recht/gesetze/urhg/
This is one I'm too ignorant to understand.
[I don't understand German.]
--
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
> I wish other copyright law of other countries was as easy to
> access.
Germany, for example, here:
http://www.compuserve.de/recht/gesetze/urhg/
Marcus
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 11:15:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I wish other copyright law of other countries was as easy to
> > access.
[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17]
I could actually read it in lynx. But I'm not impressed of the
(no
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 11:15:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I wish other copyright law of other countries was as easy to
> access.
All Finnish laws are available online at http://finlex.edita.fi/ ;
of course, most of them are available only in Finnish and Swedish.
Jukka Korpela is keeping trac
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 11:15:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 09:52:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Australia doesn't have fair use provisions, as I understand it, btw.
> > I hope that doesn't mean we're not allowed to use dynamically linked
> > libraries. (`implied pe
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 09:52:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Australia doesn't have fair use provisions, as I understand it, btw.
> I hope that doesn't mean we're not allowed to use dynamically linked
> libraries. (`implied permission' would come to mind as an excuse) :-/
U.S copyright law is
> > To balance this out, there's also a concept of fair use. Most uses
> > of the command line interface count as fair use.
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 10:07:28AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Is this an assumption, or do you have citations?
[I should also mention that there's section 117 of title 1
> Maybe Ian/Debian/GNU should clarify how Debian/GNU code is licensed
> and intended to be used. It'd be a lot easier for some of us if there
> was a statement saying what can and can't be done with Debian/GNU.
I couldn't agree more. If companies, and even private individuals, feel that
they
are
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 12:28:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Copyright law (by which I mean U.S. Copyright law) does indeed
> have such a principle, but it's formulated very differently:
>
> According to U.S. Copyright law,
>
>A ''computer program'' is a set of statements or instructio
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
> > often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
> Which probably reflects a lack
Raul Miller wrote:
> > I discussed this issue with two attorneys, one of whom appears to be the
> > acknowledged authority on free software law. They are not nearly as sanguine
> > as you. There is thus some possibility that _you_might_be_wrong_.
>
> These are Corel's attorneys, right?
Do you rea
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> For the case of U.S. copyright law dynamic linking not explicitly provided
> for in the license is a fair use issue, not a "this isn't covered by
> copyright law" issue.
I know nothing of US copyright law except that it and Finnish cop
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
> > Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
> > formats would be in violation of copyright.
>
> We're starting to digress here though.. le
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'll still take the stance that because this hasn't gone to court
> that we don't know what the courts will decide.
I will amplify this for you. We are writing the rules as we go along.
There is a body of case law that must be accumulated before those
rules
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > These are Corel's attorneys, right?
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:56:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable
> speaker on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also
> an attorney.
>
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> These are Corel's attorneys, right?
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable speaker
on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also an attorney.
They are on our side, and they are not as sanguine on this issue as you
> The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at Columbia is that run-time
> linking is a device to circumvent the copyright of the library, which
> otherwise would be static-linked and explicitly copied. Given the universality
> of run-time linking, I think there's a good counter-argument that
Gavriel State <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the
> > header file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key poi
> A legal argument can be made that the relevant portions of header content
> are not protectable by copyright since they are essentially a 'compilation
> of facts'
They document the API of the library, so you get into the API copyright issue,
too.
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
> > a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
> > I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
> > sentence would be too c
Gavriel State <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the header
> file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
Anthony Towns writes:
> (It counts as copying if you get one person
> to read it, and someone else writes it down, you don't have to be using
> cp or anything. And personally, I can't see any way you could `reinvent'
> a header file that wouldn't amount to doing exactly that :-/)
Then it's proba
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
> a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
> I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
> sentence would be too complicat
Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
> allows,
I.e. looking at the source code? That seems to be quite much allowed
by the GPL.
--
Henning Makholm "Monsieur, vous êtes fou."
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:29:00AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
> allows,...
The GPL places no restrictions on reverse engineering.
--
Raul
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> What Raul seems to be getting at is that dpkg is presently the only
> existing implementation og the command-line interface in question.
>
> His arguments apparently lead to a general principle: if, for some
> protocol (a command l
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:29:38 -0800 (PST), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
>> Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
>> can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
>> on the GPL?
>
>T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
> is a device created explicitly for the circumvention of the library's
> copyright, and would not protect you from being liable for infringement.
It could be done without even l
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 07:00:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell) writes:
> > Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
> > can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
> > on the GPL?
> I don't see an
Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> Hmmm...consider the Wine project: a re-implementation of Microsoft DLL's
> (among other things) using no Microsoft code. No code means no headers
> as well--anything less would be copyright infringement.
>
> Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own heade
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
> Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
> can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
> on the GPL?
The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
is a device cr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell) writes:
> Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
> can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
> on the GPL?
I don't see any way the copyright on .so could affect programs that
link against it, if
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:19:06 -0800 (PST), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>That doesn't matter. Static linking copies. Dynamic linking copies at run
>time, which is a rather shaky argument. Executables that run dynamic libraries
>are derivative of the
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> But the GPL is very careful about how it defines "program".
>
>The GPL does not define "program". However, FSF has a guidline for when
>linking should be considered derivatio
Jeff Teunissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, my examples seem to be precisely what you are talking about. Corel's
> tool, using libapt, is using dpkg's command-line interface, in the same
> way an IDE calls a C compiler's command-line interface. The only real
> difference is in the results; gc
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> > I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
> > code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
> > Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the o
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:34:03AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The QPL does not require patches. It prefers them, but doesn't require
> > them. You could just as easily provide the original for reference and
> > let someone else diff it (which is at least a major improvement over
> > requiring th
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
> code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
> Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
> development environment
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
>
> Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg.
>
> I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this
> with gcc.
I haven't seen RMS claim that E
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
> > > expressions of facts are.
> > Such as a particular way to express the format for
Raul:
> This is a personal statement, not a technical one.
I think we all got to the point of exasperation on that argument. And having
discussed it with attorneys this evening, they don't have a good answer either.
So, I think it's best to table it until something changes, like legislation or
a t
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 03:16:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind.
This is a personal statement, not a technical one.
Please confine your discussion to the technical issues.
--
Raul
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The backend (which I found at
> ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/Modula-3/release-3.6/m3cc.tar.gz
> ) is not pure GCC; they add (=link) in an m3.c which begins with
>
> /* Copyright (C) 1993, Digital Equipment Corporation */
> /*
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one could make
> a GPL'ed patch for gcc to make inserting intermediate code simple, and then
> write a proprietary tool to generate that code..
No, it'a already easy to insert intermediate code
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
> Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
> formats would be in violation of copyright.
We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop this thread, I
think all arguments have been mad
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
> > expressions of facts are.
>
> Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate languag=
> e?
No, file formats are not copyrig
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
> expressions of facts are.
Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate language?
Wichert.
--
_
/ General
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
> out what the intermediate code _is_,
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
--
Henning Makholm"Kurt
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 07:58:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
> > /copy of/ get_it.
>
> Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
> it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright l
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
> out what the intermediate code _is_, and the result, if copied into a non-GPL
> program, would probably be an infringement.
But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I understand it, DEC SRC (now part of Compaq of course) released a
> Modula-3 frontend which uses GCC as a backend, with some kind of funny
> licence.
The backend (which I found at
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/Modula-3/release-3.6/m3cc.tar.gz
)
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg.
I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this
with gcc.
--
Raul
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
> push the intermediate code into the gcc backend. You wouldn't need
> headers to do that..
Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
out what the int
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yup. I want to see if he finds a difference where the Modula-3 compiler
> is concerned. I think he _will_, because the compiler _must_ be using
> GPL headers to work with the GCC back-end.
I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
push th
I'd guess that Modula-3 compiler is including GPL headers to work with the
GPL back-end. Is there confirmation of that?
Thanks
Bruce
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Yup. I want to see if he finds a difference where the Modula-3 compiler
is concerned. I think he _will_, because the compiler _must_ be using
GPL headers to work with the GCC back-end.
Thanks
> Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
> /copy of/ get_it.
Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright law doesn't care
what programs do _when_they_run_ because it has no conce
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't see much sense in carrying it on any longer.
> If asked, I'd have to state that there is _not_ a licensing problem with
> dpkg and get_it. So far, I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with thi
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're not asserting copyright on that command-line interface. We're
> asserting copyright on a derived work
There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind.
--
Henning Makholm"I stedet for at finde på en bedre plan havde de alle
Richard Stallman writes:
> What front-end is this? I know nothing about it as yet.
>
> If the GPL is being violated for GCC, the FSF needs to take action.
> But we need to know the facts first.
> Would someone please send me a description of the situation?
As I understand it, DEC SRC (now part o
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
> > > the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Netscape owns it.
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at
The DEC Modula 3 compiler, and its descenedents, like the Polytechnique
Modula 3 compiler.
I vaguely remember that this program was non-free and worked with GCC
in some way, but I don't remember the details. I knew more about it
once upon a time, and if I thought at the time that there w
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
> > the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
>
> Netscape owns it.
Owns what? Don't confuse the
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> > not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an
> application stops functioning if you remove another co
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
> > QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
> > requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
> > you wind up
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
> QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
> requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
> you wind up with a b
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
> the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
Netscape owns it. Try combining MPL with MPL' where some other company
owns MPL', then imagine peop
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Should this interpretation of the GPL become dominant I believe we should
> > deprecate the GPL in favor of a license which does not skirt the letter of
> > the DFSG while violating its spirit in favor of some license which
> > d
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:56:30AM +, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> It's also distributed with bash, the Linux kernel, and so on. Is it a
> derivative of all the software on the CD?
I think this issue has already been discussed. Several times. But
maybe there isn't any sort of concise explanation,
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Kernel is GPL. Everything is a derivative of the kernel under your
> interpretation. You can argue that Linus has allowed people to abuse the
> GPL of the kernel so it's okay, however I think this would cause the GPL
> to contaminate any distribution wh
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:39:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (If this is the case, it might be a worthwhile service to separate main
> into `gpl' and `free', so that the things you can just willfully mix and
> match (the GPL stuff) is more clearly separated from the stuff you have
> to have a d
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:11:12AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >
> > *anxiously awaiting Brian's URL to the Nintendo v. Galoob thing which will
> > hopefully settle this..*
> >
>
> Here's a page that explains Galoob V. Nintendo
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> *anxiously awaiting Brian's URL to the Nintendo v. Galoob thing which will
> hopefully settle this..*
>
Here's a page that explains Galoob V. Nintendo and similar cases. It doesn't
look like it's the same page that I read and base
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> > not present.
> Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
> stops functioning if you remove another com
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> not present.
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
stops functioning if you remove another component of the system. Copyright
law deals with copying.
You are graspi
Raul Miller wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> But it matters for the Corel front end.
>
> What you're basically trying to show, I think, is that the Corel front
> end isn't a derivative work of dpkg.
>
> What I'm trying to show is that it is -- and I've offered two pieces of
> evidence that it is:
>
> (1) I
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:55:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > Where would you like the discussion to head?
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 11:28:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Finally, the reason I'm making an issue of this: I think it's reasonable
> for Ian to talk with Corel about the licensing of the Corel front end,
> while other people have claimed that it's not.
It's perfectly reasonable for Ian to ta
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:55:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Where would you like the discussion to head?
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
>
> How does my interpretation of copyright law
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> > not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:33:36PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is not
> present. Loss i
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > > > see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I understand that this definition of "modifies" is rather technical,
> > and thus non-i
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:04:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So it'd be perfectly okay for Corel to do something like setup their own
> > ftp site, that doesn't contain dpkg, but does contain their frontend,
> > and tell people to include both the Corel and Debian sites in their
> > apt sources
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> not present.
Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is
not present. Loss in functionallity, but parts will still work.
It more critically ceas
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > > see how this can be a problem.
>
> I understand that this definition of "modifies" is rather technical,
> and thus non-intui
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Where would you like the discussion to head?
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
How does my interpretation of copyright law make the G
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:19:06PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless
> of whether or not any othe
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please keep trying then--but the discussion is headed the wrong way
> > right now.
>
> Where would you like the discussion to head?
Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
--
- Joseph Carter GnuPG
> Where would you like the discussion to head?
I'm sorry, but I don't see much sense in carrying it on any longer.
If asked, I'd have to state that there is _not_ a licensing problem with
dpkg and get_it. So far, I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Thanks
Bruce
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> see how this can be a problem.
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless of whether
or not any other application uses it, and such copying is simple aggregation.
> Why
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 12:08:22PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Please keep trying then--but the discussion is headed the wrong way
> right now.
Where would you like the discussion to head?
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 12:34:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Also if Corel's front-end calls apt, the fact that apt uses dpkg as a
> backend is arguably apt's problem since it is intended for apt to also
> support rpm at some point.
How does apt's license conflict with dpkg's? [Or with rpm's?
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > My argument is that since the corel front end enhances dpkg it counts
> > as a derivative work based on dpkg for the purpose of copyright law,
> > just as editorial notations on a screen play create a derivative work
> > even though the text of the screen
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My argument is that since the corel front end enhances dpkg it counts
> as a derivative work based on dpkg for the purpose of copyright law,
> just as editorial notations on a screen play create a derivative work
> even though the text of the screen play is i
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
