From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm curious about using GPL'ed software in a supporting role for
> non-GLP software. Let's say YoyoDyne takes the Debian installer
> verbatum and uses it to install the next version of their propietary
> InternetDestructor 5.x. Is this legally acce
On 10-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If YoyoDyne wants to put a GUI wrapper around the dpkg, what then?
> > Does making a GUI wrapper for the product become a case of
> > "incorporating" it into a propietary system?
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 00:22:37 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
>
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
>
> that would be a derived work?
A similar discussion comes up on gnu.misc.discuss regularly regarding
linking against a GPLed library like re
Steve Greenland writes:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
> that would be a derived work?
I would say no. RMS disagrees.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
The GPL doesn't define guidelines for what is a derived product and what is
not.
Consider the problem of CORBA. It makes it possible to use a library that is
not tied into your application, and is not in your address space, as if it
were a static or shared library.
I'm hoping that GPL 3 will have
I am packaging the PS type 1 fonts for TIPA. They are distributed along
with the README file below. The author mentions "public domain" but he
"feels" something about the Metafont license. I think that the licensing
conditions are DFSG compliant. Could someone please confirm it? (Cc: to
me, a
Lots of excellent info, thanks everyone.
So far the basic answer appears to be "no one knows, because the
definition of derived is too vague".
I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing
a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that
shell scr
Hi,
I've been meaning to ask this for quite a while, but I haven't found
the time to sit down and actually write something.
As part of my research, I'm writing a program that I think will be useful to
other people in the astronomical/astrophysical community. I want to license
this progra
He means well but needs a bit of license education. He should reproduce the
metafont license in a file in his font distribution, he should note that the
font is under the metafont license, and he should add that the _modifications_
he has made are donated to the public domain.
Thanks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Even further, if the group (Foo Bar et al) publishes a paper for
> which the modified program was used, can I demand the changes to be
> published, based on the fact I would have evidence (because of the
> "et al") the program was redistributed? (I a
Bruce Perens writes:
> The GPL doesn't define guidelines for what is a derived product and what is
> not.
It doesn't need to. The law already does:
USC Title 17, Ch.1, Sec. 101, Definitions
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translat
On 11-Jun-99, 14:03 (CDT), Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing
> a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that
> shell script is not made public? I can see no difference between a
> GUI shell a
Maury Markowitz writes:
> if I have written concent from the authors in question to build a GUI
> shell is that OK regardless of the vagrity of the license in this regard?
Yes, of course.
> And who _are_ the authors in the case of GPL'ed code?
Who are the authors of any code? The terms of the l
> From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> USC Title 17, Ch.1, Sec. 101, Definitions
>
> A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduc
14 matches
Mail list logo
