On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:25:36PM -0600, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 01:32:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > We're based in Canada - which I had hoped meant the export problem didn't
> > > apply to us.
> > (It does)
> Could you elaborate?
It does mean the export probl
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> This is because a project containing code under both licenses would impose
> both sets of license restrictions on people. The GPL, however, is not
> miscible with license that impose any more restrictions than it does
> itself.
>
> Thus,
It's official. It's been reported on Slashdot and is on the Python Web page.
Release candidate 2.0.1c1 of Python (a bugfix release in which the major bug
was the license) is now GPL-compatible, and the FSF has approved the new
license as GPL-compatible. The final release 2.0.1 will have the same li
I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the GPL, but still I'm not
able to decide this (even after browsing
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html):
Let's make up a gedankenexperiment:
I have written a program which I plan to distribute under a proprietary
license. Now I have found a GPL
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 06:13:26PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I have written a program which I plan to distribute under a
> proprietary license. Now I have found a GPL library that I could use
> to add some additional, optional features to my program. AFAIK, the
> GPL doesn't prohibit linking
Gregor Hoffleit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My program works well without the GPL library. Now if I sell this program,
> and add a module that the customer may link with the GPL library, would I
> violate the GPL of the library, and why ? If the customer linked in the
> module, would he violate the GPL
> My program works well without the GPL library. Now if I sell this program,
> and add a module that the customer may link with the GPL library, would I
> violate the GPL of the library, and why ? If the customer linked in the
> module, would he violate the GPL, and why (he's in the same situation
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 06:13:26PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the GPL, but still I'm not
> able to decide this (even after browsing
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html):
>
> Let's make up a gedankenexperiment:
>
> I have written a program
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Your code becomes a derived work of the library you linked with because you
> included the header files that are a part of that library into the text of
> your program when you compiled it.
For the sake of argument, and to keep this discussion focused, let's
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Your code becomes a derived work of the library you linked with
> > because you included the header files that are a part of that
> > library into the text of your program when you compiled it.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:21:14PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > For the sake of argument, and to keep this discussion focused, let's
> > assume you wrote your own compatible header files.
>
> If your code uses nothing from the library, there's nothing left to
> discuss.
Like I said, some people, including, I think, RMS, t
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think RMS claims that by distributing a program that uses a GPL
> library you are in effect distributing a derived work that includes
> the library even if you are not distributing the library yourself.
> On the one hand it seems strange: how
> > > For the sake of argument, and to keep this discussion focused, let's
> > > assume you wrote your own compatible header files.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If your code uses nothing from the library, there's nothing left to
> > discuss.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 09:54:40PM +0100, Edmun
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 10:59:44PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I think RMS's reasoning is that if you ever distribute the library
> to A, you need to accept the contract called GPL - and in that
> contract you promise to refrain from ever distributing to B a program
> that links against that li
Hi,
The libdvdcss is the Videolan project's DVD decryption software. I
would like to know other's position on packaging and distributing it
with Debian.
http://www.videolan.org/libdvdcss/
I am all for political activism, but I realize that it may cause
trouble to Debian so I want to make sure y
Suppose the author of a program publishes a program and the interface
to a set of plug in libraries for that program that allows third parties
to extend the program using dynamic linking. Lets say for the sake of
argument that the program is distributed under the unmodified BSD license.
(It is i
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 07:14:14PM -0500, Clark Rawlins wrote:
> Suppose the author of a program publishes a program and the interface
> to a set of plug in libraries for that program that allows third parties
> to extend the program using dynamic linking. Lets say for the sake of
> argument tha
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 07:29:48PM -0400, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> The libdvdcss is the Videolan project's DVD decryption software. I
> would like to know other's position on packaging and distributing it
> with Debian.
>
> http://www.videolan.org/libdvdcss/
>
There's no problems w
msg.pgp
Description: PGP message
19 matches
Mail list logo
