M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
> >> right?
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
>> >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
>> >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
>> >> right? When the user ru
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:02:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugi
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works,
>> as long as the non-GPL things are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
>> my opinion, placing two shared objects in the same tar file doesn't
>> make one a derived work of the ot
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:49:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works,
> >> as long as the non-GPL things are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
> >> my opinion, placing two shared ob
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
>> > could decide either way.
>
>> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
>> > together you are creating a derived work that violates at least once
>> > o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
>>> > could decide either way.
>>
>>> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
>>> > together you are creatin
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> If I write a program and release it under some non-GPL licencse, and
> *later* someone writes a plugin and releases it under the GPL, how
> can the program possibly become a derived work of that plugin?
No, the program itself doesn't, but the work plugi
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If I write a program and release it under some non-GPL licencse, and
>> *later* someone writes a plugin and releases it under the GPL, how
>> can the program possibly become a derived work of that plugin?
>
> No, the program itself doesn't, but the work
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, the program itself doesn't, but the work plugin+program does.
>
> The derived work will never be distributed, and is thus permitted by
> the above paragraph.
We're obviously talking about distribution, a
4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
>> > If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
>> > at all.
>>
>> And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
>> Preamble)
11 matches
Mail list logo
