On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Perhaps we should define the scope we talk about. I base my assumptions on a
> GPL'ed work. The GPL says:
> For an executable work, complete source
> code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definiti
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 01:09:13AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Oh, but that is a completely different question. GPL defines here the
> type of data you are not allowed to keep secret if you distribute
> binaries under the terms of the GPL.
>
> The intention here is not to regulate who has righ
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mr. Foo is the author of a Makefile, covered by the GPL. Mr. Bar wants to
> use it in his work. He is allowed to do so, as he can read in section 2:
Mr. Bar does not need to read through to section 2 - the second
paragraph of section 0 is enough:
|
I wrote:
> I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> gcc does include the header files in the compilation process.
No. Gcc *reads* the header files in the compilation process.
> They ar
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 02:02:55AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Mr. Foo is the author of a Makefile, covered by the GPL. Mr. Bar wants to
> > use it in his work. He is allowed to do so, as he can read in section 2:
>
> Mr. Bar does not need to
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 06:38:42PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> > same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
>
> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> > gcc does include the header files in the compilation process.
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now, a makefile is essentially a program written in the 'make'
> > language. Mr. Bar is allowed to run this program and use it to turn
> > his own source into his own executable. That does not give mr. Foo
> > any sort of intellectual rights to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Remove gcc and try to compile again. It won't work. Does that mean the
> binary is a derivative of gcc?
that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly
obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique
things
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does that mean the binary is a derivative of gcc?
> that's actually an interesting question, though its answer has fairly
> obviously been answered long ago. gcc *does* do some fairly unique
> things to a bit of source to turn it into a binary; its
Marcus writes:
> #include
> It does include them.
#include does not mean what it says.
> But anyway, this is not the point. You have certainly read my other mail
> wrt to GPL'ed header files.
If they are not copied it does not matter how they are licensed.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joh
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Marcus writes:
> > #include
> > It does include them.
>
> #include does not mean what it says.
>
But it does. The compiler proper (cc1?) never touches the header files.
The preprocessor(cpp) reads the C file and spits out a C file that,
among other things, textually inclu
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > #include does not mean what it says.
> But it does.
[snip technical explanation]
Yeah, we know that. The point is that the stuff usually found in
headers has such a nature that it cannot be said to get included in
the object file
On 23 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Mr. Bar does not need to read through to section 2 - the second
> paragraph of section 0 is enough:
>
> | Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> | covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> | running
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> Is this DFSG free?
Looks great to me.
Jules
/+---+-\
| Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd|
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 03:19:22AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> | It is permissible to compile non-free programs with GCC. Compiling a
> | program with GCC and distributing the binary does not require you to
> | make the program free software or release its source code. This is
> | becaus
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 03:19:22AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > | The legal rules for using the output from GCC are the determined by
> > | the program that you are compiling, not by GCC.
> > This must mean that the FSF does not think that the
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 21:28:55 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> However, the FSF was usccesful to enforce the release of source code under
> the terms of the GPL because of this in the past, so nobody seems to take
> the risk. (For example, ncftp was linked with libreadline).
ncftp is developed
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 09:51:18PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 03:19:22AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > | The legal rules for using the output from GCC are the determined by
> > > | the program that you are comp
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see that. The function names are, but those are pretty much the
> > same as page numbers. You can't copyright words.
Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> > gcc does include the header files in the compilation process.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
> > > Not according to an email I got from RMS about compatibility
> > > between the GPL and other licenses.
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 03:26:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Then again, maybe that's not what he said. Care to re-post the
> > email?
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 02:01:54AM -0800, Joseph
"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> quoting http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html:
> :Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end
> :proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link
> :them with the rest of GCC, thinking this migh
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I think we should draw the line somwehere between what we call "source
> code" and what we call "compiler tools".
In the present discussion, none of us are trying to draw the line
anywhere. We're discussing where
22 matches
Mail list logo
