On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:14:56AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> Is that before or after KDE was found to be undistributable :)
[I'm responding more to what you seem to be trying to imply, than what you
explicitly asked. However, my response is couched as an explicit response
to your explicit questio
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:10:48AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> If they're incompatible, that logically means that one (or both) is
> restricting SOMEBODY's freedom
True. If you read the GPL it will explain exactly which freedoms
it restricts and why it does that. And if you examine the DFSG, or
th
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
> > license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
> > and the logical assumption
Since I'm in his killfile, I'm responding to the list more to set the
record straight than caring whether or not Starner hears me...I guess the
freedom quote fell on deaf ears... I've always thought a "killfile
parting shot" was in bad taste, but this is sort of about freedom of
others to speak,
On 24-Apr-00, 00:29 (CDT), John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
> license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
> and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after
> suitable
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 11:29:36PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> suitable application of weasel words. From the vast (or is it half-vast?)
> amount of discussion on this point, I'm guessing that the GPL is the
> violated one, so thus is the more restrictive in that circumstance. I'm
Guessing indicat
The question then becomes one of which license is violated. The violated
license is logically the more restrictive in that particular circumstance
and the logical assumption may be extended via generalization, after
suitable application of weasel words. From the vast (or is it half-vast?)
amount
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> a problem but is is NOT a combined program - I see it as
> KDE including parts of QT2 and therefor requiring those parts
> of the QT2 to be under the GPL (symbol names, api definition etc).
>
It's actually more than that.
The proc
On 23-Apr-00, 09:57 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> just wanted to discuss the ability to "misinterpret" the DFSG Par. 9
> and possibly working creativly on a change for the terminology
> making it more clear wha
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > Read your quote: "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software"
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 11:25:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Excuse me, but what about that quote makes it illegal for a license
> > to license the software that
Steve Greenland wrote:
> A reading of the complete GPL, along with RMS's other writings, not to
> mention the gigabytes of commentary and clarification that have been
> written since the GPL's release make it clear that GPL is intended to
> apply only to the licencsed software itself and derived w
On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 11:25:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Read your quote: "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software"
>
> Excuse me, but what about that quote makes it illegal for a license to
> license the software tha
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Read your quote: "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software"
Excuse me, but what about that quote makes it illegal for a license to
license the software that it licenses for distribution?
$ dict other
1 definition found
>From Wo
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Likewise, the intent of the DFSG is clearly to allow the combined
^^
> distribution of independent works on the same media or from the same
^^
> (vi
On 22-Apr-00, 12:22 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The relation might be from "on earth", "on same spindle", "same filesystem",
> "same archive", "same ftp server", "same directory", "compiled with
> same compiler" etc - All these are inacceptable as a "contamination"
> clause
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 07:00:23PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > But THIS relation (Linked Against) is not really clear from the Terms
> > in Par.9 - It says "distributed along" which KDE + QT2 would also
> > be.
> >
> > IMHO the
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 10:01:54AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > The problem already stated in another
> > mail the problem i had/have with Par.9 is that it doesnt contain
> > a specification/definition under which relations a contamination
> > would be legal/illegal.
>
> It does. "Other softwa
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > So the GPL (or QT) license does not "contaminate" until someone actively
> > makes a derived work that combines the (formely seperate) programs.
> > But as long as they are really seperate programs (or contain a special
> > excepti
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:21:48PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> But THIS relation (Linked Against) is not really clear from the Terms
> in Par.9 - It says "distributed along" which KDE + QT2 would also
> be.
>
> IMHO the "distributed along" term does not clear the tightness/intense
> of the
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 06:06:29PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> So the GPL (or QT) license does not "contaminate" until someone actively
> makes a derived work that combines the (formely seperate) programs.
> But as long as they are really seperate programs (or contain a special
> exception) they
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:57:03PM +0200, Samuel Hocevar wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > The paragraph says "License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software".
> > As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible
> > and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:45:05PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> The paragraph says "License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software".
> As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible
> and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires "the whole work"
> distributed under
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> The paragraph says "License Must NOT Contaminate Other Software".
> As Debian and the FSF agree that the GPL and QPL are incompatible
> and this is mainly the cause of the GPL which requires "the whole work"
> distributed under "THIS license" this means
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:41:59PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:18:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > the DFSG Paragraph 9 says:
> >
> > 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> > [...]
> > A restriction could be that you have to publish all "par
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:18:14PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> the DFSG Paragraph 9 says:
>
> 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> [...]
> A restriction could be that you have to publish all "parts" of the program
> under the same license as the GPL says - This Discussion h
Hi,
the DFSG Paragraph 9 says:
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
26 matches
Mail list logo
