On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:15:38AM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > correct; the gpl doesn't allow itself to be mixed with any licenses of
> > 'lesser blood'. i guess that would make rms feel dirty or
> > something. ;)
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This really (I mean _REALLY_) turn
I've been observing a lot of this discussion.
I think that it is fair to say a lot of this discussion of header files,
and linking run-time libraries, etc. is mostly academic.
I think what this discussion centers around is the legal distinction
between an original work of authorship and an origin
Henning Makholm writes:
> It seems DFSG free to me, as I found it at
> ftp://ftp.dante.de/pub/tex/macros/latex2e/required/tools/multicol.dtx
i should hope so since that was the intention (and the license is the result
of some disucssion between Richard Stallman and me)
> The commercial use
/*
* Discussion returned to -legal where it belongs, please don't move
* -it to devel to talk about licenses, we have enough traffic there
* already
*/
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 04:08:03PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> > > I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms m
On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 09:26:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I would sooner create YAL that had the GPL's terms matched
> > with the exception of license compatibility than use a license I KNEW was
> > going to limit where others could or could not use my code for the
> > purposes of Free S
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> In copyright law, there are no defined distinctions. For the most part
> you must judge for yourself. The discussion about the GPL, LGPL, etc., is
> outside the scope of copyright law, and is governed by Contract law.
> Therefore, 'What is a derivative' is not a pertinen
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> > In copyright law, there are no defined distinctions. For the most part
> > you must judge for yourself. The discussion about the GPL, LGPL, etc., is
> > outside the scope of copyright law, and is governed by Contract law.
Hello,
Let me first, Paul, thank you for your elaborations on this subject. I think
it is very helpful, especially for people like me, who have little to none
education in this area.
Even so little things like the distinction between copyright law and
contract law are easily overlooked in the "h
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either the GPL needs to change (VERY unlikely), the FSF needs to
> publish a new license which is more friendly to things which are Free
> Software but not GPL, or someone else needs to do it and TRY to get
> people to use it.
>
> Somehow all of these opti
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
of the GPL'd work, under copyright law, then how can the
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS is very actively pushing his intentions of the GPL. The GPL has
> a preambel, he is giving talks about this subject, answers questions
> privately and in public. It is hard to miss his opinions.
>
> He is also explaining what he thinks of derivative
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> > However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> > right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
> of t
Raul Miller wrote:
> I don't think that Paul way even trying to imply that the author of
> work A has any rights on the completely independent work B.
In that case we were talking at cross angles, because I thought we
were discussing exactly that point. (Trying to find the boundary of
"completely
Raul Miller wrote:
> > I don't think that Paul way even trying to imply that the author of
> > work A has any rights on the completely independent work B.
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case we were talking at cross angles, because I thought we
> were discussing exactly that
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 12:30:55AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> RMS has also argued against GPL+extra permissions. RMS wants GPL, only
> GPL, and never anything else. Because of the anti-social nature of the
> GPL many things are being written for the LGPL and RMS recently made a
> plea to pe
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Let me first, Paul, thank you for your elaborations on this subject. I think
> it is very helpful, especially for people like me, who have little to none
> education in this area.
>
> Even so little things like the distinction between
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> > However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> > right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
>
> Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RMS is very actively pushing his intentions of the GPL. The GPL has
> > a preambel, he is giving talks about this subject, answers questions
> > privately and in public. It is hard to miss his opinions.
> >
>
Paul Nathan Puri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would make that argument, but that's just me. RMS made a big mistake by
> not defining all the legal terms. One huge risk is that 'derivative' and
> 'copyright' will be divergently interpreted in various countries. Many
> countries adhere to WIPO,
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 04:03:27PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > RMS has also argued against GPL+extra permissions. RMS wants GPL, only
> > GPL, and never anything else. Because of the anti-social nature of the
> > GPL many things are being written for the LGPL and RMS recently made a
> > pl
Joseph Carter wrote:
> Ahh, you mean use a license that grants me NO PROTECTION AT ALL or use a
> license that grants me lots of protection, but prevents other people from
> using it unless they agree with RMS' ideals? I don't agree with RMS'
> ideals. RMS' ideals involve taking away the choice t
> > Oh, come back from your high horse and land on mother earth again, will ya?
> >
> > If you want to prevent license fragmentation, use the GPL. if you want to
> > suck in all dfsg free software, use X license.
>
> Ahh, you mean use a license that grants me NO PROTECTION AT ALL or use a
> licen
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 12:55:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm sorry, but your understanding is severely lacking or else you do
> not agree with the free software premise that Debian is based upon, in
> which case I would have to question why you are a Debian developer at
> all.
>
> The GPL
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GPL does not restrict my rights. It protects my rights, and the
> > rights of everyone else, by preventing people from being able to steal
> > the code and release it in binary-only form. This is an excellent
> > thing, and highlights one seriou
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 12:55:12PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Ahh, you mean use a license that grants me NO PROTECTION AT ALL or use a
> > license that grants me lots of protection, but prevents other people from
> > using it unless they agree with RMS' ideals? I don't agree with RMS'
> > idea
On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not the
> > "fact" you make it out to be. GPL *does* restrict your rights. If you
> > found a kewl foobar program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it,
> >
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may protect your rights, but it also keeps your code from being useful
> as a shared lib for example to other software which is Free Software but
> is not GPL. It discriminates against software, even Free Software. I
> see this as a bad thing. You di
Paul Nathan Puri writes:
> This question will be governed by the click-box case (I need to find it).
> Point and click licenses are enforced because they show that the user has
> read and agreed to the terms of the license. In the case of GPL
> software, this does not usually occur. It's a new is
28 matches
Mail list logo
