Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:00:43AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Section 1 of the GPL grants permission to "copy and distribute
>> verbatim copies".
>> Section 2 grants permission to "modify [...], and copy, and
>> distribute". Section 3 grants permission to "copy and distribute
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:00:43AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> >> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL
> >> FAQ, it does)
> >
> > Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or
> > whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue.
>
> But that
Joe Drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
["them" here refers to a GPL library linked to a GPL-incompatible work. The
link is performed by the end user, and the combined work is not distributed]
>> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL
>> FAQ, it
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
> Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it
> does)
Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or
whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PRO
Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line
>> change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He
>> never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of th
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> > If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library,
> > then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the
> > terms of the GPL.
>
> The specific example of FireBird was a program (GPL-incompatible lic
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> >> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
>> >> > program.
>> >> > Bu
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> >> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
> >> > program.
> >> > But it would be illegal for Debi
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
>> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
>> > program.
>> > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird
>> > that uses libreadline.
>
>> On
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you
distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers
and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program).
Im not a lawyer, it's been intersting looking over the web on rea
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
> [sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant]
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program.
> > But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird
>
[sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant]
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program.
> But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird
> that uses libreadline.
On further research, http://www.gnu.org/lic
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> W li?cie z ?ro, 07-08-2002, godz. 10:58, Mark O'Donohue pisze:
> > Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> > >A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL
> > >library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible softwa
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> > Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's
> > probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't
> > distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if
> > there i
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be
> violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to
> GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub
> lib).
Is this really the case? IANAL, but I was under
W liście z śro, 07-08-2002, godz. 10:58, Mark O'Donohue pisze:
> Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
> >A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL
> >library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software.
> >However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL
> S
Hi Grzegorz
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
Hello!
A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL
library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software.
However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL
used by FireBird
(http://firebird.sourceforge.net/in
17 matches
Mail list logo
