I think [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the place to go for this page, not [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:49:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >1.2" on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html .
>
> FYI, the Phorum license linked off the FSF page is version 2.0. I have
> no idea
On Feb 2, 2004, at 16:46, MJ Ray wrote:
However, if there is a good reason why the result of a compile that
included a file from a work, which appears only in that work because
it is an extension unique to that work, is not derived from that work,
I'm interested to read it.
The most obvious
On Feb 2, 2004, at 15:11, paul cannon wrote:
One
might make wide use of GNU grep extensively in a proprietary program,
for example, and do so without affecting or worrying about the license
on grep at all.
Lotus v. Borland
I don't think grep's CLI can have a copyright at all.
On Feb 2, 2004, at 14:02, paul cannon wrote:
I don't quite see how this is so. If the XFree86 Project were to say-
theoretically- something like "linking dynamically to an XFree86
library
does not constitute a derived work for the purposes of the XFree86
license" then Qt (e.g.) could be dynam
On Jan 30, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I believe it's still GPL-incompatible. See "The Phorum License,
Version
1.2" on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html .
FYI, the Phorum license linked off the FSF page is version 2.0. I have
no idea what 1.2 looked like, but its 3 & 4
Scripsit Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No I'm not. I can perfectly well give away a staically linked binary
> > without also giving a copy of the libc.a file is linked with. The fact
> > that *parts* of the library go into the binary cannot be used to
On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > But if you link the binary with the C library of a proprietary Unix (and
> > it's
> > not dynamic linking), you are distributing the component with the executable
> No I'm not. I can perfectly well give away a staically linked binary
> without also giving
Scripsit Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS
> > > exemption have ever been meant to be useful at all?
> > It is meant to allow third-party distribution of binaries linked with
> > the C libraries o
On 3 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS exemption have ever
> > been meant to be useful at all?
> It is meant to allow third-party distribution of binaries linked with
> the C libraries of proprietary Unices.
But if you link the binary with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
>>> opinion
>>> on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational
Scripsit Ken Arromdee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Huh? "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". Debian
> > can't use the OS exception.
> If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS exemption have ever
> been meant to be useful
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:04:55PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
> > > anything to which we need to apply this exc
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:02:36PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> > > As we all know, the FSF [6] considers the mere act of linking to
> > > create a derived work for the purposes of the GPL, and claims
> > > anything linked to a GPL'd work must also be distributable under the
> > > terms of the GPL.
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Huh? "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". Debian
> can't use the OS exception.
If that means what it appears to mean, how could the OS exemption have ever
been meant to be useful at all? I don't believe dynamic linking was popular
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
> > anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's
> > something that we have historically considered to
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:22:05PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Yeah. My own personal feeling is that we shouldn't be distributing
> anything to which we need to apply this exception, unless it's
> something that we have historically considered to be covered under
> it.
Huh? "unless that compone
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
> > package.)
> >
> > [In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't
> > meet the OS exemption.]
>
> This r
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 06:54:06PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> > Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the
> > operating system exemption anyway?
>
> No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
> package.)
>
> [In
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 09:35:39PM -0500, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the operating system
> exemption anyway?
Debian can never use this exception, due to the "... unless that
component itself accompanies the executable" clause. (You can use
a G
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the
> operating system exemption anyway?
No, because we don't distribute X in base (or as an essential
package.)
[In general, if you can have a working system without Y, Y doesn't
meet the OS exem
Wouldn't linking a GPL program against XFree86 fall under the operating system
exemption anyway?
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:49:41AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Been there, done that, learned something about GNU zealots. I'll try
> to stay out of this thread from now on.
Why do you insist on calling d-legal people "GNU zealots"? The fact that
this is at least the third time in two days tha
On 2004-02-03 00:46:13 + Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However, neither
> does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
> whatsoever.
You're making claims with no backing. In my position, would you believe Måns
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> As much as I'd like to, I don't have any references. However,
> neither does the FSF. They are simply making claims with no backing
> whatsoever.
You seem to forget that the GPL and the FSF's interpretation have been
researched rather carefully by its
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
>> Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
>
> Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitim
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 + Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so
>>> their published opinion probably would count.
>> The copyright owner does not
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
> Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitimately affect dynamic
linking every time a GPL comp
Måns Rullgård wrote:
>You are definitely not wrong. It's just the Debian folks that believe
>the faintest whisper from the FSF as were it the word of God.
The FSF have an opinion that's based on some amount of legal advice.
Unless we have either the at least the same amount of legal advice or a
On 2004-02-02 22:25:11 + Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Some works with copyright held by FSF are affected by this, so their
>> published opinion probably would count.
> The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
> contradicti
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> The copyright owner does not have the right to dictate rules
> contradicting copyright law. Not even if he believes copyright law
> is immoral.
There's no caselaw that I am aware of covering this particular issue
defining precisely where a derived work
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
>> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
>> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and ge
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
>> opinion
>> on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
>> dynamically linking to a library is on
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As another example, a command line program could wrap the functionality
> of nearly all libraries. If someone didn't want to link a program with
> libcurl, one would simply invoke /usr/bin/curl and get much of the same
> functionality. Should these be diff
On 2004-02-02 20:11:45 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
opinion
on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational view that
dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that library, not
creating a derived
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> It's just the Debian folks that believe the faintest whisper from
> the FSF as were it the word of God.
You must have slept through the GFDL discussions then.
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004, paul cannon wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that the FSF's
> opinion on this is not universal. That is, it is not an irrational
> view that dynamically linking to a library is only _using_ that
> library, not creating a derived work from it.
Consideri
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 + MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
>> > must carry the same restrictions as those in
paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The opinion of the XFree86 project is irrelevant. It is the licenses
>> on GPLed works that would be violated, not the license on XFree86, so
>> it's the interpretation of the authors of the GPLed works that counts.
>
> I don't quite see how this is so. I
On 2004-01-31 14:01:42 + MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If XFree86 does not consider linking to create a derived work which
> > must carry the same restrictions as those in the library, then it
> > does not seem there
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 05:17:00PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> > Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the
> > similarity between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising
> > clause":
>
> Let's nip that in the
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the similarity
> between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising clause":
Let's nip that in the bud before people start wasting time over
it. It's not really the advertising
On 2004-01-30 19:31:44 + paul cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
same reasons they give appear to apply also to the clause added by the
XFree86 folks. That is, one cannot distribute something under the GPL
with added restrictions like the one above quoted.
I'm still thinking about this, but
paul cannon said on Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700,:
> Several posters on slashdot and elsewhere have mentioned the
> similarity between this and the old, obnoxious BSD "advertising
> clause":
> The FSF is quite clear [4],[5] in that they do not consider
> licens
On 2004-01-30 20:12:28 + Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, it was nice for a while, being able to say the "X11 license"
That left a while back. MIT/X11, X.org or XFree86?
Requiring an acknowledgement in the documentation (README) isn't
comparable
to requiring it in advertis
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0700, paul cannon wrote:
> Since this issue has made it to slashdot [1], it may be the appropriate
> time for some discussion here. I haven't seen any here yet, but I may
Mentioning slashdot in the first line of a post isn't a good way to gain
credibility. :)
Since this issue has made it to slashdot [1], it may be the appropriate
time for some discussion here. I haven't seen any here yet, but I may
not have looked hard enough, so apologies in advance if this is old
news.
To summarize, an announcement [2] by David Dawes from last night indicates
that th
46 matches
Mail list logo
