Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
>> Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
>> of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
>>
>> It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
>
> The usual contention is that ha
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 21:01, Michael Poole wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
>
> > What does the primary purpose have anything to do with it? When I buy
> > a new computer, I do it because I want the functionality it offers --
> > not because it is a distribution medium for software.
>
> To tie tha
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 20:47, Michael Poole wrote:
> Patrick Herzig writes:
>
> > The question is if the Linux kernel itself can be interpreted as being a
> > "storage or distribution medium". Storage or distribution of binary
> > blobs is at least not the primary purpose of the Linux kernel as it
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>
> >Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine. This is a
> >compilation derivative of his compilation. It's clearly not mere
> >aggregation, as the two pieces combine to produce a single
Michael Poole writes:
> What does the primary purpose have anything to do with it? When I buy
> a new computer, I do it because I want the functionality it offers --
> not because it is a distribution medium for software.
To tie that into GPL: Does that mean that if I buy a machine
pre-installed
Patrick Herzig writes:
> The question is if the Linux kernel itself can be interpreted as being a
> "storage or distribution medium". Storage or distribution of binary
> blobs is at least not the primary purpose of the Linux kernel as it
> would be much easier to just store or distribute them on t
I'm sorry, I messed something up with my mailer in the previous message.
This reply is in the correct thread (see below quote).
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
> > of the kernel
Raul Miller writes:
> Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
> of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
>
> It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
The usual contention is that having some helper function load the
18-Jun-04 12:55 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>
>> > This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
>> > transformation??!!
>>
>>
>> Why is this a problem?
> *because* t
> > Why is this a problem?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> *because* the GPL exempts "mere aggregation"
> > The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of
> > collective works based on GPLed code. It grants an exception, but
> > that exception do
@ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of
collect
@ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
*because* the GPL exempts "mere aggregation"
The GPL excercises
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of collective
works based on GPLed code. It grants an excep
@ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine. This is a
>compilation derivative of his compilation. It's clearly not mere
>aggregation, as the two pieces combine to produce a single work.
>If I publish an anthology of short stories, that
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:35:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a deri
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:16:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its
> > > distribution.
> >
> > And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF objects
> > -- no matter how tricky the instructions are about who doe
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:35:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
> >> Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped wi
@ 15/06/2004 23:09 : wrote Evan Prodromou :
>>"BTS" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>BTS> Yes. And this picture of a Gnu is not a derivative work of
>BTS> Emacs. But if I package it with Emacs as the Emacs icon, the
>BTS> combination IconEmacs is a deriva
> "BTS" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTS> Yes. And this picture of a Gnu is not a derivative work of
BTS> Emacs. But if I package it with Emacs as the Emacs icon, the
BTS> combination IconEmacs is a derivative work of Emacs -- and of
BTS> my iconic gnu.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its
> > distribution.
> And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF objects
No, it isn't.
The FSF doesn't prohibit derivatives (of GPL works and proprietary works
tog
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
>> Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped with Windows, is.
>
> Either it is or isn't. You create a derivative work (or don't
On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a derivative work of
Windows. Surely WinFoo, shipped with Windows, is.
Either it is or isn't. You create a derivative work (or don't create a
derivative work) when you create a work.
Tapin
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:20:57AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> FOO is and always was a derivative work of MS Windows. It was
>> provably such until Wine added that function; after that, it's much
>> harder to prove.
>
> Ah... I though
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:20:57AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
> FOO is and always was a derivative work of MS Windows. It was
> provably such until Wine added that function; after that, it's much
> harder to prove.
Ah... I though it was being argued that wine's existence somehow made
so
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 8, 2004, at 14:56, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
>> Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant
>> win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which works on both is a
>> derivative of neither.
>
> That leads to even wei
On Jun 8, 2004, at 14:56, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Bad example. There are two implementations of most of the significant
win32 libraries - windows and wine. Anything which works on both is a
derivative of neither.
That leads to even weirder things.
FOO was a derivative work of M$ Windows until
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> However, in the case of a a GPL library it is possible to argue that
> the person distributing the program is encouraging people to fetch the
> library from a public server and link it with the program, and
> therefore that person is in effect distr
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:03:38PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
> > > derivative of Windows?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetuall
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > So before Wine was created, anything which uses a Windows library was a
> > derivative of Windows?
>
> Yes.
There are so many theories on this subject that I am perpetually
confused, but I don't think that is what is usually claimed in the
case of GPL libra
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:00:21PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Also, note that the Linux kernel includes an explicit exception for
> works that simply make system calls; without that exception, software
> that uses any system call specific to Linux would most likely be a
> derived work of the ker
@ 08/06/2004 14:48 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Searching for "Starscream" somehow managed to miss that page. I'll
check it out.
Eh, it's the same thing from before. Different addy, but just about
the same content. I'm going to look into replacing the m68k core.
Pr
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>>>The FSF's position here is well-known, but has some odd implications. For
>>>instance, if you write code that requires Windows libraries, it is a
>>>derivative
>>>work of Windows, and thus Microsoft can at any time prohibit you f
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > The FSF's position here is well-known, but has some odd implications. For
> > instance, if you write code that requires Windows libraries, it is a
> > derivative
> > work of Windows, and thus Microsoft can at any time prohibit you from
> > distributi
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
>
>>That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
>>only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
>>source. It does not get around the GPL's requirements. Quoting from
>>http://www.gnu.org/
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:42:12AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
> > only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
> > source. It does not get around the GPL's requ
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Josh Triplett wrote:
> That is commonly done for packages that allow distribution as source
> only, or do not allow distribution of binaries built from modified
> source. It does not get around the GPL's requirements. Quoting from
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Searching for "Starscream" somehow managed to miss that page. I'll check
it out.
Eh, it's the same thing from before. Different addy, but just about the
same content. I'm going to look into replacing the m68k core. Probably
from UAE, since that's a pretty tested co
Josh Triplett wrote:
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
A search for the author's name turns up http://www.neillcorlett.com/ ,
which has a page http://www.neillcorlett.com/star/ about Starscream.
There is an email address on that site
@ 08/06/2004 13:58 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Humberto Massa wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even the
GPL). As to mpg12
Andrew Suffield wrote:
A quick search of the Packages file reveals basilisk2, an emulator for
m68k macs. I know there are more m68k emulators out there, which
haven't been packaged.
Looking at Basalisk it says that it uses UAE's emu core for m68k...
sounds like it's worth looking into, but p
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
A search for the author's name turns up http://www.neillcorlett.com/ ,
which has a page http://www.neillcorlett.com/star/ about Starscream.
There is an email address on that site's contact page; is it th
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> I had another idea, though. I've noticed a few packages in contrib don't
> actually assemble the package until postinst... could I seperate gens
> into "gens" (all the GPL code) and "gens-nonfree" (mpg123 and
> Starscream), and have gens postinst call "ld" at install-time?
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:58:04AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Humberto Massa wrote:
> >>I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
> >>
> >>
> >Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
> >release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2cl
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> >No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a
> >derivative work of starscream.
> >
>
> Not even something like what I mentioned in my other message? Seperating
> the source packa
Andrew Suffield wrote:
No amount of hoop-jumping will help you here. It's still clearly a
derivative work of starscream.
Not even something like what I mentioned in my other message? Seperating
the source packages wouldn't help either?
m68k is not a difficult chip to emulate, and there ar
Humberto Massa wrote:
I can't even find the original source page for Starscream any more...
Other (better!) option would be try the Starscream original author to
release under a more liberal license (BSD/MIT/2clause or even the GPL).
As to mpg123, what about mpg321 ??
I should also have m
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:58:57AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Humberto Massa wrote:
> >Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
> >_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
> >
> >If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
@ 08/06/2004 12:58 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
Humberto Massa wrote:
Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
package it this way (/vide/
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
I g
Humberto Massa wrote:
Well, it is if you yank off the non-GPL parts. If you meant the
_pristine_, untouched source tarball, yes, it's not distributable.
If gens is still usable/useful without the non-free parts, you can
package it this way (/vide/ all the flam^W healthy discussions about
the non
@ 08/06/2004 12:10 : wrote Benjamin Cutler :
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
>> work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free,
>> can't be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire
>> thing be under t
"Benjamin Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
>> work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
>> be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
>> the
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
I guess I'm missing something
Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable. A single
work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
the terms of the GPL.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAI
I'm pretty sure the following is at the very least non-free, but I
wanted to run it by here first because I don't want to waste any more
time trying to package this unless it can at least go in non-free. I
already had to close the ITP[1] once I discovered that some of the code
was lacking a lic
55 matches
Mail list logo
