John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
>> This is good, but it's not true anywhere else; so if the reverse
>> engineering has been done outside the EU, there's a problem.
>
> Reverse-engineering is legal in the USA.
And in Norway.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit.
> ? Also, does it seem legally useful?
Ask a lawyer about that.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...] I just want t
Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>>Wordings like "please" don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
>>>>sup
>
> No. That is almost, but not quite, entirely irrelevant to the issues
> with those licenses.
I thought the advertising clause was just about the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
restrictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be moved to non-free... and after examination I agree. Why
>> then is XMMS still in main?
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/09/msg00123.html
>
> Threads on debian-user don't mean a damn thing.
Especially not when they link to slashdot.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> I know what "please" means. What I fail to understand is what it is
>> that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
>
> Nothing at a
the work in any way.
>
> I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees
> the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
You just defeated yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the
copyright of a program to include output produced when running the
program. Why would this be different when the program sends its
output over a network?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
>> include output produced when running the program.
>
> If no one has tried, it's because it's quite
l function correctly. How the
presence or absence of a particular library at runtime could possibly
change the derivedness of a some program from said library is beyond
my comprehension.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > If your understanding of the license exception requirements were
>> > correct, it would be
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:59:44PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> > I didn't say anything about derived works. Neither does the GPL when
>> > talking about source code.
>> >
>> > The GPL also doe
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> When using dynamic linking that is not necessarily the case. Most
>> dynamic linkers use lazy loading of libraries, such that the openssl
>> libraries would n
ns.
>
> -=-=-=-= cdrecord/cdrecord.c (sorry for linewrapping) =-=-=-=-
I take it someone on this list followed the recent flame war on lkml.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
> [...]
>>>
rong.
Go read some postings by JS and you won't feel any need for
politeness.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Joerg's c
t they did was to clarify their interpretation of the
license, which although highly unusual was not self-contradicting.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t drawing the line in a good
> way is very hard. I believe that. However, what I want to know is, if this
> went to court, would things like the intention and degree of dependency be
> considered in determining if the client was a derivative work or not?
>
> What can I do to prevent the above scenario from happening?
Don't release your code at all.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
written before Mr.
Wontshare writes his. Which one is it then derived from? The only
consistent answer is that it is not derived at all.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Wesley W. Terpstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> > If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
>> > what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it
Jonathan ILIAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving
>> three programs, A, B and C.
>> Scenario 1:
>> 1. A is written.
>> 2. B written, and makes use of A. You ar
is no creative input in typing
>> "make", so the binary can't be a derivative work if the inputs were
>> not.
>>
> What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
> created without creative input?
An anthology, or a compilation, I think.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>>>What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
>>>created without creative input?
>> An anthology,
t; Says who?
>
> Shipping parts can be different from shipping a combination if for
> some reason you are given different rights to ship parts and ship
> combinations. It's just that outside free licenses that never
> happens.
It's perfectly legal to sell all the ingredients fo
#x27;m deliberately being a little extreme here, but I see no
fundamental difference between requiring the user to possess some data
and requiring the user to possess a physical object.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
seless for anyone without some knowledge of electronic circuits,
and Debian does not include any books on that subject, so the gnucap
package depends on non-free "data". Does this mean that gnucap must
be moved to "contrib"?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas,
>procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.
>
> Is that clear enough?
And this is probably the reason we have thousands of (probably
invalid) software patents instead.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" stored in
> flash EEPROMs in devices.
>
>> Without either of those, it does not operate. This is a dependency.
> But then ICQ clients "depend" on non-free ICQ servers...
And every program depends on a computer, most of which is probably
constructed using a design language like VHDL, which is not far from
software. NON-FREE
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMO just copying a tiny bit of code or copying various comments does not
> make something a derivate. I mean, com'on, other people can come up with
> those same comments or tiny bits of code.
This seems to me to be no different from citing a paragraph from a
book, which is perfectly le
book without the copyright holder's permission.
You're right.
>> If a code fragment is used in another program, matters might be
>> different, though.
>
> Why?
Quoting from a book is often done to illustrate something, or
otherwise give an example. I can't see how a code fragment could be
considered an example of something, if it is actually executed as part
of a program.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ayer, which has its OS on
> disk. I'm inclined to say that it's software to the MP3 player, an
> architecture which Debian does not support. It's hardware, a drive,
> to the (Intel?) Debian-supported PC to which it's connected.
Why is this different from the SCSI
t software.
You can pull the chip from the socket, copy the contents to disk, and
open it with any editor you like. The chip can also be rewritten.
Where is the fundamental difference from a device where the firmware
is written with the chip in its socket?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
al question is why you think that
> executable binary data is not software.
A firmware image is not software to the system on which Debian runs.
What it is to another system (e.g. some PCI card) is irrelevant.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
eferences to other classes which the JVM is free to look for
anywhere it pleases. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
of said interface.
This whole discussion is something between ridiculous and hilarious,
definitely not useful.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ight be the original author, Debian or some other
> distributor, or the end-user. If it's anyone but the end-user, then
> that combined work is being distributed.
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? Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
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.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t; That's overstated. It's enough to have to argue the point in court and
> be unsure of the result, which is bad enough that we can't really go
> there.
>
>> Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
>
> They aren't with any degree of certainty.
I
derived from?
>
> You've got the causality backwards here. The program is linked to the
> libraries because it is a derivative of the libraries. Not the other
> way around.
>
> 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? Any other
interpretation invariably leads to contradictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"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]
>>
>
"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
>
s certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
>
> They haven't tried. All Microsoft have done to them so far is send
> them some nastygrams in the mail.
And for some reason you believe Microsoft would be content with that,
if they believed they had any real chance to stop them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"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:
> 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.
&g
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-platfo
e had a Depends: some-non-kaffe-jvm | java-runtime and Kaffe
> a Provides: java-runtime, there would be no conflict with the GPL here.
You're starting to make sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"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:
ason.
> But having glibc purely GPL just doesn't sound good, does it?
It sounds like it would make for a lot of arguing with FSF, nothing
else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Now you stopped making sense. A program includes only references to a
library, not the library itself. A distribution, e.g. Debian, might
include both the program and the library. I don't see a problem with
distributing a collection of programs, where some of them can be
combined in ways that violate some license, as long as all of them
still have legitimate uses.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the first place.
>
> On the other hand, it's also exactly why it's problematic for Debian
> to distribute an Eclipse which incorporates a copy of the GPL'd Kaffe.
Please start using a dictionary with the same definition of "include",
"incorporate" and similar words as everybody else's dictionaries use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
f Kaffe and putting them both on an end-user's
> system such that when I type "eclipse" I get a program made out of
> both.
So what? Eclipse is still only a Java program being interpreted by
Kaffe, which is perfectly within the limits set by the GPL.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ts of files copyrighted by "Monty" or "Xiphophorus". Does
anyone know who they are?
IMHO, it's just silly to not use your real name. What is there to
fear?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what does everyone think? Is there any branch of law which could give
> the person or company that thought up how to play a game a claim against a
> separate, not-otherwise-infringing implementation of such a game?
Yes, a fat wa
quot;; but even if there was
>confusion, it is to be interpreted in a manner which makes sense.
You should read up on some court cases.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nised to be the Berkeley Software Distribution, which you also
My first thought when I read "BSD Protection License", was that it
would have some connection to the usual BSD License. Since there
appears to be no such connection, it is misleading to "BSD" in the
name. Why did you choose that name?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
word "if", as used in the English language, doesn't provide that
distinction by itself. In a legal document, such as a license, care
should be taken to make it clear which of these versions you actually
mean, or the judge/jury/lawyers may well choose the other, if there is
ever a court case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rotocol? Or is the protocol patented or copyrighted in some
way? If such a server is legal, then a non-authorized client would
also have a possible legal use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
would disallow binaries containing those
bits of code. Since the Linux version would only need the GPL parts,
binaries would be allowed there. It could be difficult to prevent
binaries for commercial Unixes that way, though.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
k out what choices of license for my program would allow
distribution of binaries, and also what would be DFSG-free. I'd
appreciate some comments about these matters.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the author of the closed
source plugin doesn't have any GPL'd plugins.
> However, if there are other plugins distributed with GPL-incompatible
> licenses (e.g. something that links to OpenSSL), then it gets more
> complicated.
Hmm, now that I look closer, one plugin uses OpenSSL. How much
trouble does that create?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
n 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 other. Would it make a difference if
the offending (to rms) plugins were distributed separately?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e predefined
interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
BTW, what is the FSF's position on programs communicating using
CORBA-like methods?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a Slackware CD). I downloaded it as an iso file from some ftp
server. Apparently, an iso9660 format filesystem containing tar files
of GPL and GPL incompatible software is allowed. Where is the
fundamental difference if the format of the wrapper is changed from
iso9660 to tar, and the internal files are shared objects instead of
tar files?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ese
> purposes.)
So what prevents two independent plugins, each usable on it's own,
from being distributed together? That the user could possibly load
both at the same time, creating a "derived work"? This derived work
would only exist in the computers memory during the execution of the
program, and would almost certainly not be distributed.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ons are licensed?
> or the plugin is written to a generic interface and thus is a
> derived work of the generic interface as opposed to the
> implementation of that interface.
That is the case.
What about source distributions? Is it allowed to distribute source
code licensed under the X11 license that uses a GPL'd library?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ering all the implications. I'd like to
see a bit more of a discussion on these matters, so people would
realize that the GPL perhaps isn't as "free" as it's advocates want it
to look like.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
igging silly.
>
> I don't believe that is the claim.
Then read the section "Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program?" in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other interpretations of that section, please
enlighten me.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ument? It's easy to
fall into the trap of believing everyday, sensible logic would be
apply in legal matters. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
> Especially when it's the subject of many controversies and FUD.
>
> Now your argument about what constitutes a derived work is worthy of
> consideration.
Does anyone have any pointers to previous discussions on that matter?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
allows distribution of both the main program and
plugins, either separately or bundled. I'll (probably) be licensing
the main program and plugins without third-party dependencies under
the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Is it in any way allowed to distribute those plugins compiled?
>
> Well, if you believe the GPL FAQ, just use the Magic Copyright Barrier:
> fork+exec.
I prefer not to do it that way for technical reasons. Besides, that
FAQ is silly.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
h, I doubt most people using the GPL have thought all
> that much about its consequences and effects, at least from my experience
> of discussing those effects with people ...)
I suspect that might be the case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ing at runtime means derivative
> work before runtime", it follows that the bundle is a derivative
> work of the plugin.
I'd personally like to see that logic put to test. I don't have the
cash to ensure the outcome is what I want, though.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be in multiple volumes --
> is OK. Getting an OpenSSL license exception from all the authors of
> the GPL'd libraries could work. Or you could use the GNUtls package,
> which is LGPL'd (though the OpenSSL compatability layer itself is
> GPL'd).
It's a shame that so much time gets wasted on reimplementing things,
only because of some questionable legalities.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e that can use the modules.
>
> If Måns means the first of these, my understanding is that that would be
> considerably less significant than the latter.
I'm doing the first two of those.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
factor, not technical details of implementation. In
> fact, things like whether there's a well-defined interface are generally
> only relevant because they suggest that the author of the code
> *intended* the work to be separate from the plugins.
While on the subject of intent, was
t OpenSSL?
KDE is distributed as a few huge tar files, obviously intended to be
used together. Someone said that was enough to make the GPL apply to
all of it.
>>> Ask yourself this: is what you're doing in compliance with the wishes
>>> of the authors of the various pieces of software you're using?
>>
>> I don't know what the authors wish, I'll have to ask them.
>
> They've told you in the license.
They haven't told me their intent with choosing that particular
license.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ramework comes along.
But the framework *is* GPL compatible. It's another plugin that's
not.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e legality of obnoxiously
> having to advertise for others, as opposed to the legality of sharing
> and sharing alike. If Eric Young advertised all OpenSSL-using
> software I'd be a lot more tolerant of its license.
I see, it's OK to do tricks to get around things you find obnox
clear that there's no way to meet it. Since you
> can't, you can't distribute.
Once again, we end up at the words "derived work". Where should I
look for precise definitions this term? For the record, I am doing
this work in Sweden and Norway, in case it makes a difference.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*why* they want what
> they want.
In Sweden, there are numerous court discussions about what the actual
intent was with various laws. Apparently, even after vast resources
and lots of time has been spent debating the matter before the law was
passed, still nobody knows why they did it or what they really wanted
to say. How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with the FSF and
their grand scheme.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
;> otherwise incompatible libraries can be used, it's all the better for
>> the users of the program.
>
> Ask yourself this: is what you're doing in compliance with the wishes
> of the authors of the various pieces of software you're using?
I don't know what the authors wish, I'll have to ask them.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
n additional restrictions isn't invoked, and what KDE's
> doing is fine.
And *that* wasn't done just to get around the legalities?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
library.
Names of functions are not normally covered by copyright. If they
were, GnuTLS couldn't have an OpenSSL compatible interface.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
can conclude only that the
>> plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
>
> It is the host that loads the plugin into its memory, not vice
> versa. So it is the host that does the linking.
Yes, and before that linking, there is no derived work. The GPL lets
you do anyth
function, and at some point you won't have
any functionality left. I'll admit, there are a few plugins that are
more or less required, but they have no external dependencies, so it
doesn't matter.
> Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
> one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
True.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hat work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
BTW, what's up with gnu.org?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that just about everything in
> Debian violates a software patent.
Hmm, which one? Is there some patent that covers software in general
now? Not that I'd be surprised.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
used by an application
that also uses OpenSSL. Of course, there are those who do have that
opinion, and it should be respected. In the end, though, what matters
is what the license actually says, and nobody seems to know that for
sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
at any time.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
any version
ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example. Maybe it was
because the author himself actually could figure out the bit about the
license version, but didn't more of a clue than anyone else about the
parts that really matter.
Norwegian copyright law (those are
the ones that apply to me), and I couldn't find the slightest hint of
a definition for anything.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>> what a "d
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
>
>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>> what a "derived
s a problem. In an ongoing thread on linux-kernel, someone
recently emphasized the importance of explaining things to the court
in a non-technical way. If the court doesn't understand you, they are
not likely to rule the case your way. This is bad, because it is
often difficult, if not impossible, to explain some things
non-technically and still be accurate.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
point. What would the equivalent of dynamic linking be? A
book that says on the first page: take chapters 3 and 6 from book Foo
and insert after chapter 4 in this book, then read the result.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
people.
What if they have the same author? If the GPL tries to make
restrictions on what independent works users of GPL'd software can
create, I would definitely not call it a free license. Would such a
restriction even be valid under copyright law (or whatever law
applies)?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
>
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
>>> as subject to copyright in the EU, they do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
>
>> Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
>> it.
>
> You're probably right. I wasn't looking for something that wouldn't be
is there, but exploiting it is hard. People don't normally
> modify machine code.
The dynamic linker modifies machine code. I'll leave resolving
whether that has any implications to copyright/license issues to
someone else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
laiming compensation.
>
> Now try to apply the latter on "playing a DVD with xine using
> libdvdcss2" instead of "copying a CD", I really cannot see which
> damage the DVD manufacturarer could claim compensation for.
Very few people can see that logic. Unfortunately, it seems the MPAA
can. The worst part, their lawyers see it too.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his plugin,
> must have assembled the combination of host+plugin in a persistent
> form.
Yes, but he hasn't necessarily loaded the license incompatible plugin
while testing.
--
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
