Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> No, I don't think they can do that. The permission grant in QPL#3b
> says "provided such versions remain available under these terms in
> addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer", which only
> seems to allow them to release it un
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> What's in a normal Debian install doesn't matter, because it all gets
> distributed together on mirrors and in cd-packs. There's a very
> specific phrase used to keep MS and Sun from shipping Emacs with their
> proprietary libc: "unless tha
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> So, if we were to compile it against a curl-nossl, that'd be fine. But
> if we then distribute with curl-ssl, that suddenly changes things?
curl-ssl might even be GPL-free if distributed with GnuTLS' OpenSSL-
emulation.
IMO, this is a clear
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Huh? Whether such a library is "normally distributed with the major
> components of the operating system" isn't related to the existance of
> emulation libraries.
Well, if you have different choices even on a single operating system,
this is an
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
>> an closed source OS with GPL tools. IMO, this was not the intention of
>> the GPL authors. If you have to distribute the component with the GPL
>> software, this is a
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> For one thing, it's absolutely not possible to run the binary in
> such a way that openssl is not part of the process image.
You can use an alternative implementation (of libcurl *or* OpenSSL) that
offers the same ABI without pulling in OpenSSL.
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>>>> If we follow this interpretation, this means that you can't distribute
>>>
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:07:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
>> Of course, in such simple cases, they can be thought of having given
>> implicit permission to link against OpenSSL.
> There is no such thing as implicit permission in copyright la
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Ok, you're right -- while copyright law makes no specific provisions
> about how the copy arrives,...
That's plain wrong. Copyright law restricts actions related to a
copyrighted work, not results.
> the copyright license can [and often does] make
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 08:56:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
>> Well, if you have different choices even on a single operating
>> system, this is an *indication* that it's not a part of the software
>> distributed
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>>> Ok, you're right -- while copyright law makes no specific provisions
>>> about how the copy arrives,...
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:27:00PM +020
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
>> "c) rename any non-standard [-executables-] {+types and functions+}
>> so the names do not conflict with [-standard executables,-]
>> {+Standard Version,+} which must also be provided, and provide a
>> separate [-manual page-] {+documentation+} fo
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> * Raul Miller:
>> I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
>> which have been left out of the program being required.
> The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications to
> the font.
You don't distribu
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or
> this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there.
The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered
design (called "design patent" in the US). Even
Hallo,
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 shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
> So there seems to be pre
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a c
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> The only "manpower" required should be a clause that allows converting
> the document to be under the GPL, much like the clause used in the LGPL.
> This would result in the most possible restrictions while still being
> GPL compatible.
That would
Brian T. Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> But since Debian distributes only software, and Invariants must be
> Secondary... actually, isn't the GNU Manifesto non-secondary when
> distributed as part of Debian GNU/Whatever?
There are even some immutable files in base-files that are obvi
Branden Robinson schrieb/wrote:
> Yes, though it should be kept in mind that the GPL-incompatibility
> problem remains. We *still* won't be able to drop hunks of these
> manuals into their corresponding programs as on-line documentation,
> unless the same text happens to already exist somewhere e
Peter S Galbraith schrieb/wrote:
> Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry, but that's plain wrong. For a GPL program including an online
>> help viewer or calling an external help viewer, the online help is
>> just "data" that does not have to
Peter S Galbraith schrieb/wrote:
> Claus Färber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It can be a seperate XML (or whatever) file that's only read by the
>> software.
> But that's not what he meant! Please don't change what he said to fit
> your view.
That
Rick Moen schrieb/wrote:
> You're saying there are _no_ other required elements of contract
> formation under German law? That seems very difficult to believe.
...
> Are you saying that parties to German contracts aren't required to have
> the legal capacity to enter into contracts? Are they bin
Anthony DeRobertis schrieb/wrote:
> I think the way that the GFDL currently attempts to prohibit DRM is
> non-free. I can't think of a wording that would prohibit DRM and still
> be free. However, I don't think DFSG 1 says DRM must be allowed.
DRM is incompatible with the goal of DFSG 1: It's jus
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Sorry, but that's not totally true. There was substantial distribution
> via modem networks before (e.g. Fido). IMHO this is equivalent to
> distribution over internet.
According to German law, a distribution method is only "known" when its
econom
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Contrawise, if 'illegal' means only 'illegal in your locality' it
> isn't a useage restriction.
It still is. People sometimes want to do something illegal. A licence
that forbids that results in an additonal breach of copyright law.
Depending on
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> For what it's worth, there have been a lot of vague mumblings about
> authors of "joint works" being able to license the work without
> requiring permission from other authors. However, I've yet to see
> confirmation of this from a copyright lawye
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Sadly, your "invariant section"-inspired changes to the GPL cause
> other problems, which seem similar to combining an ad-clause licence
> with the GPL.
Rememer that an "ad-clause" usually does not render a work non-free,
just incompatible with the GPL.
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
> here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
argument isn't.
The argument, simplified, basically
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote:
>> So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
> The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been
> saying that all along.
You were also saying that C is "pr
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Your entire argument is based on the fact that it's nonsense for
> dynamic linking because replacing one external run-time library with
> another shouldn't change the copyright status of the program using it.
> Yes, it's nonsense - but you're the
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> @ 26/09/2005 05:28 : wrote Florent Bayle :
...
>> provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file
>> stating how and when you changed that file, and provided that you
>> do at least ONE of the following:
>>
>> a. place your mo
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> [blobs] From the point of view of the GPL work called the Linux
> kernel, they're just data.
Apart from the fact that the data is meant to be executed by some
computing device, it does not matter if you call it a program or just
data. The GPL requi
Pedro A.D.Rezende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> No. But this one is enough to expose the incompetence of
> self-aggrandizing, sophist, self-serving lawyers and lawmakers.
Maybe it also exposes the linguistic incompetence of those who try to
impose the meaning of technical terms from their s
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
>
> * depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed,
> which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that
> authors upload Makefiles, since usually
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> What I should have said is the final authority on the meaning of a
> license is the highest court in the jurisdiction in which you are
> being sued over it. So, yes, for you the final authority is a Belgian
> court, for me its the Supreme Cour
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> I'd gather that most of -legal isn't worried about the copyright
> statement, license, or author's statement (which is the same thing as
> the copyright statement) being immutable. Most of those can't be
> modified under the applicable copyright la
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Please substantiate this. UK law explicitly says that computer programs
> are literary works with the exception that moral rights do not subsist.
It is common to define coputer programs as literary works. This is done
in order to get them covered by the
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> The setence is ambigous if broken down sufficiently. However, if the
> Anthony's language is sufficient, it strikes me that the GPL is way
> too verbose. All you would need the GPL to say to require such a
> limited changelog would be "provide a n
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> I think the most practical solution would be to write an offer saying
> "To obtain the source code for the software on your system, send $5 to
> cover postage and media costs to Michael Bode, . You
> can also obtain the source code online... downloading sources
John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
> GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
> the GPL.
Actually, the later is not completly true.
The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate
Miriam Ruiz schrieb:
GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its
scope."
In the latest spanish law, distribution now legally means just using a
physical support [2]. Thus, GPLv2 might not be providing permission t
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Nobody will think that General Motors has endorsed this package or
> this OS because there's a picture of a Humvee in there.
The Hummer might actually be a problem if its shape is a registered
design (called "design patent" in the US). Even
Hallo,
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 shakes.
Are you sure they are allowed?
> So there seems to be pre
Hallo,
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote:
> Gervase Markham has claimed[1] that command names must also be
> changed. That's well beyond DFSG#4, since it impacts compatibility.
DFSG#4 was probably introduced to allow the distribution of LaTeX, whose
license explicitly requires a c
44 matches
Mail list logo
