Walter Landry wrote:
>Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> There is an aggregate work which is also being distributed which includes
>> both Kaffe and Eclipse, but the GPL allows that.
>
>They are not an aggregate work, they are a whole work.
You and Brian keep on claiming that. Do you ac
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 21:43 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > So, I would like to ship the icons in the .deb, and repoint the links.
> > My problem is: is this legal? Here is what I think is the relevant part
> > of the copyright:
> >
> > o Any work distributed or published that in whole or in
Package: libapache-mod-aspseek
Version: 1.2.10-1.1
Severity: serious
Reviewing the license of the libapache-mod-aspseek package to verify whether
its license was compatible with the license of libmysqlclient12, I found
that this package's copyright file says it is licensed under the GNU GPL.
Unfo
Afternoon,
I am asking for advice.
I got involved on http://acx100.sf.net . This project develops an OS driver
for the ACX100 wireless chipsets.
We recently got D-Link Germany to grant redistribution of the firmware
(binary only) files that can be used on almost any wireless device based on
Texas I
Christian Kirbach writes:
> Afternoon,
>
> I am asking for advice.
> I got involved on http://acx100.sf.net . This project develops an OS driver
> for the ACX100 wireless chipsets.
> We recently got D-Link Germany to grant redistribution of the firmware
> (binary only) files that can be used on a
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/
> When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like
> licenses and refused to create one. But:
The author is well-meaning, but I think current law says his work is
copyright and all rights reserved u
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the rest of the driver software satisfies the DFSG, contrib is the
> least controversial place to put it.
Just to clarify, it looks like the driver always needs a firmware file
for operation, which is uploaded to and run on an embedded processor.
I do
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/
> > When asked about licensing, the author replied that he doesn't like
> > licenses and refused to create one. But:
>
> The author is well-meaning, but I th
A side note, based on all your quoting of (dubiously relevant) legal cases:
Hundreds of lawyers have looked at the GPL, both those attempting to get
around it, those defending it for ideological reasons, and those
defending it because their businesses rely on it. Do you really belive
you alone hav
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That's the *point* of the GPL: to create a set of software available for
>>use by GPLed applications, giving those applications an advantage. If
>>GPLed components make it easier to develop F
Hi,
please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
didn't find it in the archives.
Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not
part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort),
is licensed under GPL, with an additional text s
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 12:47:21PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Good luck proving your replacement isn't a derived work after you've
> studied the GPLed work you are replacing.
Actually, he has a point there. There has to be significantly more going
on than "read the GPLed work" for some other w
[I seem to have missed responding to one of your important points.
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:35 -0800, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>That's the *point* of the GPL: to create a set of software available for
>>>use by GPLed application
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:49:08PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not
> part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort),
> is licensed under GPL, with an additional text stating what the
> preferred form for modif
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I
> didn't find it in the archives.
Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first?
I'll answer because I doubt the hard-pressed FSF enquiry service
wil
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He has now posted this at his website at
> http://www.scannedinavian.org/~pesco/, frmo where the code is
> downloaded:
Put a snap of it in the copyright and yes, I'd probably take those odds. ;-)
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The author is well-meaning, but I think current law says his work is
> copyright and all rights reserved unless he does something about it.
> In the worst case, I doubt comments on IRC from someone claimed to be
> the author are much protec
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Kaffe does not require Eclipse to run. So by this heuristic,
> > > Eclipse is not a part of Kaffe.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:56:34PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> > You missed the part about Eclipse requiring Kaffe to run.
>
> The license on Ecli
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> >Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> There is an aggregate work which is also being distributed which includes
> >> both Kaffe and Eclipse, but the GPL allows that.
> >
> >They are not an aggregate work, they are a who
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> Once again, the only relations between Eclipse and Kaffe are "Eclipse
> is aggregated with Kaffe" and "Eclipse is run by Kaffe".
> >>>
> >>>And once again, you miss the point
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD, I haven't been actively engaged with
debian-legal for very long, and my interpretation of the meaning of
"derivative work" and its consequences for the scope of the GPL
appears to contrast rather strongly with the FSF's and with some other
debian-legal participants'. Bu
> > You and Brian keep on claiming that. Do you actually have anything
> > solid on which to base this assertion?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:56:13PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> The GPL mentions whole works, and I have given my criteria of a whole
> work: Requires to run.
Both of these statement
> > The license on Eclipse doesn't make an issue of this.
> >
> > The license on Kaffe explicitly says that running Kaffe is not restricted.
> >
> > So you have no plausible reason for believing that this matters.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:55:10PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Ok. One more tim
Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Get him to put your IRC log in a LICENSE file in the tarball. That should
> > be enough for most people, if you're comfortable with it.
> The LICENSE file in a tarball being more reliable than an
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 07:44:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Any given country's implementation of the Berne Convention may vary
> somewhat, but the US statute (at least as of 1986) and the case law I
> have seen are consistent with the interpretation that "compilations"
> (or the subset "
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:56:25PM -0500, I wrote:
> The Berne Convention does not appear to use the term "derivative"
> at all. The only place I can find that uses related worde
> (derived, and collection) is Article 14 and 14ter, in reference
> to ("derived") cinematographic production based on
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:56:25 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 07:44:38PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> > Any given country's implementation of the Berne Convention may vary
> > somewhat, but the US statute (at least as of 1986) and the case law I
> > have
I'll respond to most of this later (I'll be traveling for a few days),
but I just had to say:
> How is the technical issue of your inability to build a piece of
> software on a particular proprietary OS remotely relevant? The license
> certainly doesn't stop you from doing so.
I'm on an older Ma
28 matches
Mail list logo
