Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> once.
OK, apache2 depends on Bash to function (/etc/init.d/apache2). This
must mean that Debian cannot distribute Apache 2 and Bash together (at
least we would have to remove Bash from E
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
>> once.
>
> Well, Linus claims the kernel has an exemption, though I've never
> heard an explanation of how Linus has any
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My recollection is that there is no specific exemption - rather, Linus
> has said that he believes the syscall layer to be the boundary of
> derived works.
The COPYING starts with this:
'NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use ker
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My recollection is that there is no specific exemption - rather, Linus
> > has said that he believes the syscall layer to be the boundary of
> > derived works.
>
> The COPYING starts with this:
>
> 'NOTE! This copyright does
Walter Landry writes:
> I meant linking as a shorthand for "incorporated as a section of a
> whole work". Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being
> distributed while "linked" to Eclipse.
My point is that it has no clear basis for that objection without
violating DFSG #9.
> I am talking ab
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
> about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
> was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
> distributing binary firmware blobs in aggregati
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
> > tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
> > weeks, for which I thank all inv
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[OK. One "past-last" message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash scr
> > [3] Debian dependencies. [The GPL doesn't seem to have any requirements
> > in this area.]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Actually, it does. The GPL says (with some parts elided)
>
> If sections are separate works, then this License does not apply to
>
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
> once.
Irrelevant:
The kernel supplies kernel-specific #include files which are incorporated
into C program.
Kaffe doesn't supply any such thing -- no one has ident
> > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
> > granting license is what copyright licenses do.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:48:55PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> "The GPL isn't law" was in response
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:07:56AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
> about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
> was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
> distributing binary firmwa
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'll use a verbatim copy of my post to take apart your and Gadek's
claim. Please do not take the heat of the debate as a personal affront.
It's not meant to hurt. I very much appreciate your civility in your
e-mail messages, which are a refreshing change from the pissing mat
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:48:23 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
> > > granting license is what copyright licenses do.
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 a
> > > > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > > > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
> > > > granting license is what copyright licenses do.
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:48:55PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > > "The GPL isn't l
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like "linking" vs. "interpretation"
are irrelevant to its legal force; and a judge is unlikely to permit
the GPL to reach acros
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I imagine that (where two copyright holders differ from one another in
> > > their interpretation) the judge would look at the history of how these two
> > > copyright holders have acted. If one has recently changed their intent
>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:16:37PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
> but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
> contract; technical distinctions like "linking" vs. "interpretation"
> are irrelevant
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:41:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Well, by the nature of free software, I can incorporate code into my
> program from yours (or into a friend's program, eg. writing a patch for
> lftp incorporating code from wget), without you necessarily being made
> aware of it at a
[routed back to debian-legal; I accidentally replied directly to Raul]
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:04:02 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > The GPL is a license document, and "automatically receives" is a
> > > > > license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
I wrote:
> Suppose the FSF had gone beyond complaining and threatening when KDE
> used Qt under the QPL ...
And negotiating effectively too, of course. I'm glad that Qt is now
QPL/GPL dual licensed, and I prefer the GPL. I don't mean to sound
quite so one-sided here; just because I think the FSF
21 matches
Mail list logo
