Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
> > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
> >> Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the
> >> compilation is under Section 2 and the distributi
16-Dec-03 16:07 Joe Moore wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis said:
>> The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
>> copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
>> what they'd do then.
> I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that "The Work"
> d
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
>> > If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
>> > can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
>> > particular kind of m
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
>> doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
>> license to trump each other?
> If one section of a le
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:07, Joe Moore wrote:
> So, since I've never seen the "source" for the firmware files that started
> this thread, I'd argue that verbatim distribution of the firmware image
> (even in .o format) is permitted under the GPL.
Probably. It'd be interesting for them to try and
Anthony DeRobertis said:
> The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
> copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
> what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that "The Work"
described in sections 1 and 2 is the object
On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
If one section of a legal document is more specific than an other, it
i
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft. While possible
>> > in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it. As
>> > Henning said, it is really just an oversight. The intent is clear,
>> > which may sway a court more tha
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
> > If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
> > can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
> > particular kind of modification (compilation), and Section 2 al
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
>> > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> >> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many "binaries" where the
>> lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from
>> layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated
8-Dec-03 11:15 Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
>> under Section 2?
> Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
I can't get rid of the thought that there is
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
> > Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
> >> > at all.
> >>
> >> And that (togethe
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
> under Section 2?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
--
Henning Makholm"Jeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber
7-Dec-03 13:50 Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> If Section 2 allows someone (not copyright holder) to distribute a
>> binary, there are only two alternatives IMHO: either
>> 1. Section 2 doesn't require source form of anything distributable;
> That
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If Section 2 allows someone (not copyright holder) to distribute a
> binary, there are only two alternatives IMHO: either
> 1. Section 2 doesn't require source form of anything distributable;
That is correct, it doesn't. But the only thing th
4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
>> > at all.
>>
>> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
>> Preamble)
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
> > at all.
>
> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
> Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 c
30-Nov-03 22:30 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
>> placed under GPL?
> If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
> work, most likely not. However, if, for example, y
30-Nov-03 17:12 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Eh, that should teach me to go by my memory of the license. I meant
> 2a. Because they are object files, it's pretty nigh impossible for
> them to bear prominent notices stating that the files have been
> changed and the date of any change.
That's a separate
30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
> If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
> at all.
And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 cannot be
interpreted as permitting to distribute binaries. T
29-Nov-03 15:00 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Sure, and I'm arguing that because you're distributing only object or
> executable code, not source, Section 3 applies. It's the only
> permision grant that specifically covers what you are distributing, so
> it trumps the other clauses.
There are two alterna
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That's pretty prominent, I think. Especially as strings(1) is the
> > canonical way of looking for notices in an object file.
> Sure, but that's a case where you have acess to the assembly and can
> modif
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
> placed under GPL?
If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
work, most likely not. However, if, for example, you were distributing
a compiled perl program
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > Could you please describe the way you read the GPL in more details?
> > How do you understand "under the terms of"? What are "the terms of
> > Section 1" exactly, in your opinion?
>
> Section 1 gives yo
26-Nov-03 06:57 Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you distribute whatever precise bits it was that the copyright
> holder waved a copy of the GPL over, those bits must be assumed to be
> "the Program",
Right, GPL 0 is clear about it:
This License applies to any program or other work which contains
26-Nov-03 20:01 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> You mean that section 3 should really be read as "If you ... you must
>> ..." instead of "You may ... provided that ..." and must be complied
>> with irrespective of section 2?
> If you are distributing an e
27-Nov-03 04:41 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2003, at 21:59, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
>> binaries.
> Section 2 says you may do so "under the terms of Section 1 above."
> Section 1 grants rights to "copy and distribu
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> That's pretty prominent, I think. Especially as strings(1) is the
> canonical way of looking for notices in an object file.
Sure, but that's a case where you have acess to the assembly and can
modify the resultant binary to include such a message. It's
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Huh? 2c essentially applies only when one changes a noninteractive
> > program to an interactive one.
> Eh, that should teach me to go by my memory of the license. I meant
> 2a. Because they are object fi
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [Furthermore, it's rather plain that we would be unable to fullfill
>> 2c et al. for these files as well,
>
> Huh? 2c essentially applies only when one changes a noninteractive
> program to an interactive o
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being
> > distributed to, because what's being distributed is "the Program",
> > which is what section 2 specifically applies to.
> If you re
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being
> distributed to, because what's being distributed is "the Program",
> which is what section 2 specifically applies to.
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a sec
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Section 2 gives you permision to distribute modified version of the
> program's source
False. The word "source" does not appear in section 2.
(And section 2 contains no references to section 1 that are not also
present with similar wording in section
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation where
> > the object code *itself* is "the Program" to which the copyright
> > holder applied the GPL.
> Sure, and I'm arguing that because you
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> Could you please describe the way you read the GPL in more details?
> How do you understand "under the terms of"? What are "the terms of
> Section 1" exactly, in your opinion?
Section 1 gives you the permision to distribute source, and covers the
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation where
> the object code *itself* is "the Program" to which the copyright
> holder applied the GPL.
Sure, and I'm arguing that because you're distributing only object or
executable code, not s
25-Nov-03 23:11 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
>> precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
>> over, those bits must be assumed to be "the Program", and as such GP
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > #1 explicitly applies only to "the Program's source code", but #2
> > speaks generally about "the Program", source code or not.
>
> Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
> distributi
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you are distributing an executable or object code, that
> distribution is subject to Section 3. No other section of the GPL
> gives you rights to distribute executable or object code.
Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation wher
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> >> Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
> >> why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
>
> > When bin
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> #1 explicitly applies only to "the Program's source code", but #2
> speaks generally about "the Program", source code or not.
Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
distribution under #1 (You may modify your copy or copies of the
P
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
> > precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
> > over, those bits must be assumed to be "the Program", and
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
> >> able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
> > Section 2 of the GP
On Nov 26, 2003, at 21:59, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
binaries.
Section 2 says you may do so "under the terms of Section 1 above."
Section 1 grants rights to "copy and distribute verbatim copies of the
Program's source code"
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> You mean that section 3 should really be read as "If you ... you must
> ..." instead of "You may ... provided that ..." and must be complied
> with irrespective of section 2?
If you are distributing an executable or object code, that
distribution
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
>>> able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
>>
>> Section 2 of the GPL doesn't
26-Nov-03 08:22 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> >> Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
>> >> why binaries can not be distributed
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
> precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
> over, those bits must be assumed to be "the Program", and as such GPL
> #2 gives you right to distribute a mod
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
>> able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
>
> Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It doesn't
> ta
50 matches
Mail list logo
