On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> >> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY th
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is
> entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable
> entity.
Nope, it's not. But since you don't listen, it's pointless to keep
talking to you.
--
To UNS
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that
> NeXTStep distributed only the object files
It's in "Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism" by RMS,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
"Consider GNU Ob
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
> > of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
> > That makes it a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
> > of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
> > That makes it a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
> of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
> That makes it a derivative work of the kernel.
In theory, one could design a patch for
also sprach John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]:
> >However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes
> >the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source,
> >because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's
> >what the GPL req
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
> >A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
> >Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
> >lacking direct permission (rather painful for
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wis
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
>> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
>> has the rights of authorship in, he may d
Lynn Winebarger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they
> figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after
> him. There's a substantial difference.
And what we're talking about is exactly that. Eben Moglen, who
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
> > It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license
> > and/or
>
> That's sort o
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
> It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or
That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a
court to
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> > the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> > has the rights of authorship in, he may
John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
However, his patches are patches *of
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
> the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
> has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
A patch to a pro
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, martin f krafft wrote:
>[please cc me on responses]
>
>hey wise people,
>
>i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
>selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
>advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
>kern
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel
> source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all
> his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches
> for the kernel, righ
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:15, martin f krafft wrote:
> [please cc me on responses]
>
> hey wise people,
>
> i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
> selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
> advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he pat
19 matches
Mail list logo
