Package: prozilla
Version: 1:1.3.6-11
Severity: normal
ftpparse.c heading:
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
you're using this in.
Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
confirm?
Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> ftpparse.c heading:
>
> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> you're using this in.
>
> Which I believes fails t
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> >
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> > Indeed, I know of various ice cream shops that take Oreo cookies,
> > crumble them to little bits, mix them in with other ingredients, and
> > are allowed to sell them as Oreo shake
severity 290242 serious
retitle 290242 Prozilla is non-free: requires notification for commercial use
thanks
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Package: prozilla
> Version: 1:1.3.6-11
> Severity: normal
>
> ftpparse.c heading:
>
> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> you're
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> >
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> > you're using this in.
> >
> > Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
> > confirm?
>
>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 06:37:55PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:03:19PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Please use X-Debbugs-CC to Cc bug reports. See
> > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:44:13AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
>
> That is by far the mos
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > ftpparse.c heading:
> > >
> > > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> > > you're using this in.
> > >
> > > Which
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:52:46AM +, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:42:05 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:44:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> > > I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> > > in
Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Justin Pryzby wrote:
>>>ftpparse.c heading:
>>>
>>> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
>>> you're using this in.
>>>
>>>Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > > ftpparse.c heading:
> > > >
> > > > Commercial use is fine,
This account is no longer active. Thus, your
mail regarding "[PMX:VIRUS] Re:" will not be received.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> severity 290242 serious
> retitle 290242 Prozilla is non-free: requires notification for commercial use
> thanks
>
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Package: prozilla
> > Version: 1:1.3.6-11
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > ftpparse.c heading:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:16:21AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
> > term to mean exactly that.
>
> I can't see (from a quick sampling of the items in there) tha
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:06:29AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:39:30PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Wrong? Well http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Commercial-HOWTO.html uses the
> > > term to mean exactly th
Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:54:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:46:51AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Bullshit. There's no requirement whatsoever that a source file may be
> > > used at all "commercially", assuming the com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) wrote:
> I know of other precedents that say otherwise. E.g. automobile modders
> in Europe have to remove the original trademarks.
I can believe that they have to remove the trademarked symbol
from the bonnet and boot, but I can't believe that
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:00:47AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:30:52AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > I can only find it currently in 2 packages in Debian--prozilla and elinks.
> > The others that used it in the past (libcurl, wget?) likely rewrote the
> > code since i
Michael Edwards wrote:
>Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
>impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
>it's still performance.
Right, this was the very specific question we were getting to. :-)
In determining the DFSG-freeness of a lice
>I've been contacted by people at Creative Commons who'd like to have a
>telephone conference to go over the draft. I think they're open to our
>suggestions, if we can stay focused on particulars. Right now, I think this
>is going to have to happen in late Jan. I'm running behind on a lot of
>t
Glenn Maynard wrote:
It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that
needs to be sent proprietary data for a "legitimate" reason (in the
sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is "legitimate").
Habeas SWE.
I believe SpamAssassin implements the server side (through hashes
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
to the process of buildi
I wrote:
>> > In contrast, pre-1986 (I think) US law specified that works published (==
>> > deliberately distributed to the public by their authors) without a
copyright
>> > statement went into the public domain.
Michael Edwards wrote:
>1976; but otherwise basically correct (IANAL)
Checked this
Michael Edwards wrote:
>If one wants to remove ambiguity about the copyright status of small
>contributions to a joint work, one could require either assignment of
>copyright to the primary holder or formal placement into the public
>domain,
One of the very unfortunate side effects of the Berne Co
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
there is a written agreement involved, a court will only find an
implied license as an implied provision in that agreement. As I wrote
before, if anyone can
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by l
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
> in different ways. I'm not referring
Glenn Maynard wrote:
This is questionable. I modify your work, removing a feature that somebody
likes, and sell it. That somebody, as a result ("caused by the act") of me
removing that feature in my redistribution, decides to sue you for allowing
me to do so.
You only idemnify the author "to
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:13:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Package: prozilla
> > Version: 1:1.3.6-11
> > Severity: normal
>
> > ftpparse.c heading:
> > Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> > you're using this i
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is the Common Public License, version 1.0, with the revision
>> right solely tied to IBM. This is a bit surprising, but doesn't have
>> any impact on the DFSG-freeness of the thi
Scripsit Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Package: prozilla
> Version: 1:1.3.6-11
> Severity: normal
> ftpparse.c heading:
> Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs
> you're using this in.
> Which I believes fails the desert-island test? Legal, can you
> confirm?
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
>> in diffe
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers mi
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:18:14AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:13:50PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Yes, if this is indeed a licence term. As quoted here it could also be
> > a non-legal notice that the author considers commercial use without
> > notification to be
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain references to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
anywhere it pleases. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the st
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
> in
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>>> great amount of time a
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
> instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
> bomb is most likely illegal.
As a general rule, bombs are not copyrighted works.
--
Raul
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
> derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
> libraries, included whichever one Debian shipped it with.
No, it's not a de
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 06:04:33PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I have previously argued for this position in the context of other
> licenses, but I have become less convinced that it is actually as
> important as I used to think.
I don't feel strongly about this clause, though I'd like to unde
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
> people at graphviz org intended it either.
It can't be an issue for DFSG-freeness, because of this part:
The Program (including Contributions) may always be d
Actually, Effects v. Cohen is a prime example of "implied license as
an implied provision in the existing contract":
The district court initially dismissed the suit, holding that it was
primarily a contract dispute and, as such, did not arise under federal
law. In an opinion remarkable for its lu
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with
> > instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the
> > bomb is most likely illegal.
>
> As a general rule, bombs are not
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> So you are basically saying that aiding or hinting the end-user to
> create these would-be derivative works is enough to be violating the
> license?
That's overstated. It's enough to have to argue the point in court and
be unsure of
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:28:42PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> The DFSG supposedly allow users to use Debian-distributed software in
> any way they wish. The theme of this thread seems to be that some
> people believe run-time linking of an application against a GPLed
> library, when there are o
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
> > mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
> > great amount of time and thought.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:08:23PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> So you are basically saying that aiding or hinting the end-user to
>> create these would-be derivative works is enough to be violating the
>> license?
>
> That's overstated. It's enough
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [large discussion of C snipped out]
>
> >>In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
> >>contain references to other classes which the JVM i
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> > mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled p
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> [large discussion of C snipped out]
>>
>> >>In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class
Hi,
There's been a lenghty (but in my opinion more fruitful) discussion of
similar matters on the Linux kernel mailing list. We all know that FSF
might be sometimes seen as interpreting its licenses very strictly, but
we also know that OTOH Linus has much more permissive approach.
Yet, if you fo
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:58:53PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
> >
> > They aren't with any degree of certainty.
>
> It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
They haven't tried. All Microsoft have done to them so fa
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:28:42PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > The DFSG supposedly allow users to use Debian-distributed software in
> > any way they wish. The theme of this thread seems to be that some
> > people believe run-time linking of an application against a
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> > when you build it.
>
> How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
> form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API?
M
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
> > you took the above.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> >
> > "However, when
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
>> > you took the above.
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/lice
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 07:58:53PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
>> >
>> > They aren't with any degree of certainty.
>>
>> It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
>
> Th
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:19 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> > > when you build it.
> >
> > How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I fail to see the relevance of this paragraph to the discussion
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:19 +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:02:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > > > Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> > > > when you build it.
> > >
> > > How many times does it
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Edwards wrote:
> >Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Even if the return performance is
> >impossible without exercising rights only available under the license,
> >it's still performance.
> Right, this was the v
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> I fa
Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular JVM. And it isn't kaffe, it's Sun's. We do docum
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
>> derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its
>> libraries, includ
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> great amount of t
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
>
> No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered by the
> GPL. Even the FSF admits that this do
On 13 Jan 2005 15:05:36 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
[snip]
> > Even according to Linus such "use" is not permitted
> >
> > http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2003/Dec/1042.html
>
> Linux header files are different from Java packages in
Grzegorz B. Prokopski writes:
> Do you understand that an interpreter for Java IS such an interpreter
> that provides "bindings" to other facilities?
>
> Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
> linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
>
> Do you underst
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:19:36 -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> But in our case you're using an implementation that also at the same
> time defines the interface (this if functional equivalent of header
> files). You cannot simply take a GPL implementation, compile ag
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the
...
> Do you understand tha
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
>>
>> No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that
> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
> some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
> requirement.
While most of what you said seemed perfectly reasonable, this does
not
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:28 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't
> >> deriv
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
>
> But Debian does, when it says:
> Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
>
> So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
Scripsit Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have difficulty thinking of anything a commercial user of software
> could do that would cause the upstream author to legitimately be sued
> in the first place--if the problem is really caused by my action, then
> the author being sued is frivilous al
[no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> You are ignoring the
> creative act performed by the programmer who arranged calls to
> functions within libc. That was creative effort on his part which
> cr
Scripsit Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I am not convinced that this is free, but I strongly doubt that the
>> people at graphviz org intended it either.
> The Program (including Contributions) may always be distributed
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:16:53 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoting Michael Poole]
> > It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
> > GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
> > some odd version of Eclipse, but the sta
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that AR
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
> on a website under the curr
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 15:58 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:19:36PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> >
> > "However, when the interpreter is extended to provide "bindings" to
> > other facilities (often
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is not hard: Some distribution of Eclipse is only encumbered by the
>> GPL if it requires a GPLed work to correctly operate. You may have
>> some odd version of Eclipse, but the standard releases have no such
>> requirement.
>
> While most of
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 22:02 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
> >
> > But Debian does, when it says:
> > Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-ru
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
> To: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:3
Hello,
I have a question about how to write the debian/copyright file
for packages which are distributed under the GPL.
Currently the debian/copyright file of chbg contains the paragraph
Chbg is copyrigthed by Ondrejicka Stefan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). It is
license under the GPL. On Debia
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >> "Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > No
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> It'd be useful to have a real-life example of a server that
>> needs to be sent proprietary data for a "legitimate" reason (in the
>> sense that a device needing to be sent firmware is "legitimate").
>
> Habeas SWE.
>
> I believe SpamAssassin im
"Grzegorz B. Prokopski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Putting it differently: if that was allowed, then why do we need glibc
> to be LGPLed, and not GPLed? After all the C language and its basic
> libraries are also standarized to great extent.
I can see no real reason.
> But having glibc purel
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his Contributions
>> on a w
Scripsit "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:46:18 -0500, Nathanael Nerode
>> I guess I'm convinced. :-)
> That the GPL is legally an offer of contract? If so, it's good to
> know that the substance of my argument is persuasive to at least one
> person besides myse
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The same thing is possible with the GPL, with it's "any later version"
> clause.
You can release your modifications in a way that allows this, but by
contrast, you're not required to do so. You can take a GPL-licensed
work with the "a
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > But was Kaffe _extended_ to provide such bindings for Eclipse 3.0?
>
> This FAQ entry discusses 2 cases. One is when we have an interpreter,
> that basically goes over the pseudo-code and purely "interprets" it
> (an old B
Scripsit Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Recently Justin Pryzby filed bug #290087 against chbg, claiming that
> the debian/copyright file should instead contain "the 3 paragraphs as
> found in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make/native/copyright", which turn out
> to be
[snip standard GPL blob]
> 1)
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:21 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
> > as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
> > of said interface.
>
> Great -- which implementation doe
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 09:18:21PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> To make what I fear explicit, here is a fleshed-out scenario:
>> 1. A writes a program and releases it under the current CPL.
>> 2. B takes A's program, hacks on it, distributes his
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 22:51 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> > Do you understand that a program being interpreted is effectively
> >> > linked to these facilities it uses thru these bindings?
> >>
> >> Yes. Which bindings does Eclipse use?
> >
> > I told you. Plenty. And if we're making Eclipse
Hello Henning,
thank you for your help.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:25:58PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> What you should include is the exact notice found in the upstream
> source which says that the program is covered by the GPL.
Does this mean we need all the notes from the source files with
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
