If I write a program that links to a GPL'ed library, what licenses may I use?
Am I "stuck" with the GPL?
On 10-May-2000 Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 12:05:06AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>> If I write a program that links to a GPL'ed library, what licenses may I
>> use?
>> Am I "stuck" with the GPL?
>
> You can use anything
>
> You can license your code under BSD, but the app will be GPL until you
> replace it with BSD.
>
thank you for clearing this up
> Remember, however, that the only freedom BSD permits which GPL does not
> is the freedom for the app to become proprietary. [But I do understand
> that this lead
>
> Therefore I'm going to package Python 2.0 in a way that it can be installed
> parallel to the old Python 1.5.2 packages. The Python 2.0 packages won't
> include Readline support though (as well as other things that are covered by
> the GPL).
>
seeing how 2.0 does break some python, and will
>>
>> seeing how 2.0 does break some python, and will continue to do so in the
>> future, it makes sense to support either version of python. Some python C
>> modules may not compile etc.
>
>>From what I've heard, it's not that bad generally. Do you have specific
> examples of things that break
>
> Anyway, something else: Could somebody please comment if the following is
> correct:
>
> - Linking GPL C code with Python2.0 license C code violates the GPL.
>
> + Linking LGPL C code with Python2.0 license C code is no problem.
> (since the LGPL doesn't infect a greater work)
>
both sou
> The question is, does the below meet the DFSG? Particularly since it
> is:
> 2. Requires you to give them the source (although it does say
> "please" at the site listed, so "requires" may be a bit harsh).
This is ok, it essentially states what the GPL implies, you have to release the
source, a
basically what this says is: if you write code on company time, they own it not
you. They get copyright. So if you write a new program, you have to have your
boss' (or someone higher) to GPL, BSD, or otherwise license it because it is
NOT yours.
So, if you write code for the FSF, they require yo
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 06:45:36AM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
> I am intending to package LAME (mp3 encoder). There are some patent
> limitations on lame's use in Germany/USA so I am proposing
>
> Section: non-free/sound.
>
Please see the various debian archives (bugs, mentors, devel). Someone
> Could you please comment on this, or point me to other locations
> where I could ask?
>
> You can find a copy of the original license at
> http://www.copyleft.de/pub/author/fabian/debian/prag/Copyright
>
sounds like yet another BSD license (tm).
The wording on the first item:
1) Source code
On 01-May-2001 Branden Robinson wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,43470,00.html
>
> There is not a decision yet, but it's looking grim.
>
> The U.S. 2nd Circuit court of appeals looks disinclined to regard compiled
> code as speech. They also seem to feel that fair use does not
>
> I'm inclined to say that we need explicit permission to modify and to
> distribute modified versions. Apart from that, though, what do you think
> about the last clause? Is it equivalent to "... must reproduce the above
> copyright notice ... in the documentation and/or other materials
> provi
>
> Cthugha is (still) a non-free package, that i maintain for Debian and
> want to become the upstream maintainer also, as the oriinal author is
> not going to develop it any further. I mailed him in february this year
> and last 5 minutes ago to convince him to provide a last archive with
>
>
>> The remainder of the source (not already public domain, no explicit
>> author's copyright notice) is Copyright 1995-97 by Harald
>> Deischinger.
>> The source code may be copied freely and may be used in other
>
> I think this may remain? While this has to be changed:
>
yes public domain
On 12-Oct-2001 Erich Schubert wrote:
> Please CC: me on replys, i'm not subscribed to the list.
>
> I asked the author of some Freeware fonts, if he could licence them
> under an open source licence.
> This is his reply, please check the Licence below, if this classifies
> them open source for De
>> The main fear with artists is that they won't be given credit for their
>> work, i think.
>
> I'm not sure that being free or not will make any difference. Virtually
> every free license demands credit, at least in fact that your name may
> not be removed.
>
>> Third, his additions did not fit
On 13-Oct-2001 Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 02:23:54PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>> The problem is that it is hard to associate a name to a font. In Debian we
>> have the copyright file, but elsewhere there is no such requirement. This
>
On 11-Dec-2001 David Coe wrote:
> Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright
> (compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute).
>
> This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that
> "must" to a "should," would it then be DFSG-compliant? If not, wha
On 24-Dec-2001 Erich Schubert wrote:
> Please CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; i'm not subscribed to the legal list!
>
> I'd like to package this game, but i fear that there are copyright
> problems, as it's very similar to a board game (RoboRally) from 1994.
> Updated with expansion sets in the following
> Surely you have to explicitly say that you're applying the OPL's options
> before anybody needs to worry about them? The OPL says:
>
> The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document
> may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or
> copy of
On 27-Mar-2002 Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I'm thinking about packaging the Java-based Open Card Framework
> for use in accessing "smart cards". It's freely available from
> www.opencard.org. I'm using it with a Java-based iButton
> (www.ibutton.org). The license is enclosed below, unchanged
> except fo
>
> Yes. However, it is not necessary to act in panic; there should be
> time to ask the translator to remove his constraint instead.
>
and if this is truly the translator's license and not the original author's
someone else can always translate the work ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
On 22-Apr-2002 Mikael Hedin wrote:
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry writes:
> > and if this is truly the translator's license and not the original
> author's
> > someone else can always translate the work ...
>
> Do we have a volunteer?-)
>
sorry, I
On 14-May-2002 Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
>> Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not
>> limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and
>> backends for an Apple Operating Sys
On 08-Jun-2002 Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [Please Cc: to me because I am not subscribed to the list.]
>
> I took over the upstream of xsoldier (I am not the original author,
> so I don't have the copyright). It was under GPL version 2
> or later. Can I put it under GPL exactly version 2, that is,
>
On 26-Jun-2002 Bdale Garbee wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> As you will note at http://lwn.net/Articles/3467/, during my presentation to
> the Linux kernel developer's summit in Ottawa yesterday morning on behalf of
> HP, I "switched hats" and on behalf of Debian rais
To take Chris Lawrence's post a step further, what is the difference between
having a pound-bang line for a non-free interpreter and executing a GPL binary
on a closed source system? It is permissible for libc to be non-free and a
program to use it. The closed system's kernel is for all intents a
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 12:17, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> So, they took the DES code from the ssh 1.2.26 source code (note that
> that version of ssh was non-free as a whole; openbsd chose an earlier
> version to fork). They rewrote it in java, but it is still presumably a
> derivative work.
>
> I thin
On Tuesday 03 September 2002 06:29, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I would like to package dumpasn1 for Debian, dowloaded from
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/. It has no license, except
> for this sentence in the source:
>
> --*snip*--
> You can use this code in whatever way you want, as
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 08:30, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> I somehow seem to have received this on debian-legal though the list
> is not in the To or Cc lines. Does "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" forward to
> debian-legal, or was it just Bcc'ed to -legal?
dunno, i replied to this message myself a day o
On Monday 28 October 2002 07:03, Bennett Todd wrote:
>
>The term "redistribution" in the Berkeley DB public license means
>your application is distributed to more than a single physical
>location. Installing copies of an application at different
>physical locations, whether they are
On Monday 28 October 2002 09:24, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > the DFSG demands that the license must allow free redistribution
> > and use, ignorant of any specific circumstances. That's imho
> > covered by clause 6 of the rules.
>
> It seems that this new claus
On Thursday 31 October 2002 09:57, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2002-10-28-12:24:21 Alan Shutko:
> > It seems that this new clause makes the license similar to the GPL.
> > You can redistribute BDB alone however you want. If you are
> > redistributing it with an application, the app has to be open
> > so
On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:35, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2002-10-31-13:18:24 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
> > You only have to give the source to the recipient of a binary.
>
> That sounds like a nice interpretation, but I don't see that on
> their site. I think you'
On Thursday 31 October 2002 10:58, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2002-10-31-13:53:24 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
> > right. Now, the GPL *only* applies to the recipient of a binary. If
> > that binary never leaves my company no one outside my company has the
> > right to t
On Saturday 09 November 2002 10:05, Andrea Borgia wrote:
>
> I did and I did not, and still do not, understand why, say, RedHat can
> distribute pine in binary form and Debian cannot. Or anyone making prebuilt
> debs available, for that matter.
>
RedHat read the license and made the choice to dist
On Sunday 10 November 2002 02:25, Andrea Borgia wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
>
> SSP>RH can also afford to be sued.
>
> IMHO, you're kidding yourself if you do believe they're consciously trying
> to get sued by systematical
On Thursday 16 January 2003 02:50, Shaul Karl wrote:
> Can someone explain what is the problem with the following situation?
> In particular, why it is important here to have the OpenSSL layer
> relicense under the LGPL?
>
>
According to the FSF, linking a GPL library is the equivalent of prepar
On Saturday 18 January 2003 10:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 12:32:34PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > > Perhaps not directly. Who knows how many people who would otherwise be
> > > spending time on GPL software will instead be stuck porting
> > > free-but-GPL-incompatible so
On Monday 03 February 2003 11:35, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What exactly must be done when trying to package an academic piece of
> software, which typically has no copyright but mentions such as :
>
> - The program is provided "as is." There is no warranty.
> - may be used without
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:13, you wrote:
> On Monday 03 February 2003 07:46 pm, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > On Monday 03 February 2003 11:35, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> > > - The program is provided "as is." There is no warranty.
>
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:06, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> >>"may be used without restriction" does not give you the right to
> >> distribute or modify. Use clauses only govern actual use.
> >>
> >>I guess the bottom line is this software is probably not to be treated as
> >> free software unless/u
On Monday 03 February 2003 20:21, Antoine Mathys wrote:
> What IS the real difference between a licence and a copyright?
> I am a bit confused at this point, especially because I hear the
> copyright is what gives (or doesn't) give you freedom to use, modify,
> distribute, etc.
>
the license is th
On Thursday 06 February 2003 23:55, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> > It [Perl's copyright holders] can't retroactively change licenses.
> > There will always be a free Perl.
>
> It is my understanding that licensees (generally) haven't been given any
> consideration in exchange fo
On Thursday 13 February 2003 07:03, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The Koynacity blue theme (which is part of the spheres-and-crystals
> bundle) includes the following statement :
>
> You are fully authorized to use, modify, and redistribute this theme.
>
> If you are planning to make a color variat
>
> For those who would prefer paragraph a), please consider the fact that
> a CD that consists 3/4 of only source code may not be a very popular
> thing for the majority of potential users, and also CD-magazines and
> FTP mirrors try to avoid stuff that is not likely to EVER being used
> or downlo
> > > According to the DFSG this makes every mp3 decoder non-free or even
> > > undistributable.
> >
> > It doesn't, actually. Although it might make it non-distributable
> > under US law, and some other countries which honour the relevant
> > patents.
>
> As I said above
>
the decision made s
On Monday 02 June 2003 13:16, Joey Hess wrote:
> This is a new one to me. It's the license of elfutils, which is included
> in rpm 4.2.
>
> The Open Software License
> v. 1.0
>
sounds like a fairly straightforward BSD like license with a little m
> >
> > Whee! I haven't changed my mind since the Affero discussion. I
> > personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that "deliver
> > content to anyone other than You" is equivalent to distribution of the
> > software.
>
> I agree strongly; in a networked world all software pot
Hi, below is a mail from an upstream regarding portsentry. This package
currently has a non-free license. http://www.psionic.com/abacus/portsentry/ is
its home page.
The license currently has two faults:
a) you must ask his permission to modify the code
b) portsentry may not be sold along w/ oth
>
>> Perhaps the person from Debian who is responsible for
>> this decision can write me so we can chat?
>
He is referring to me here. I refused to help the maintainer unless it was
free software. So he started mailing the upstream.
On 21-Sep-99 Craig Brozefsky wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> I concur. The license should stipulate something like this: If you modify
>> the program, you must change its name and indicate clearly that it's not
>> the official version of Sean Perry, and you must give an explanation of
>>
>
> So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by:
>
> A: Downloading Corel Linux
> B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and
> C: Replacing them.
>
> then...
>
> D: Publicizing this heavily.
>
>
See stormix.com and several others. Stormix has stated they are in
On 09-Dec-1999 Masayuki Hatta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now I'm talking with the author of jcode.pl(libjcode-perl, currently in
> non-free) about changing its license. Recently he gave me the draft of new
> license for it. It goes like:
>
> ;# Use and redistribution for ANY PURPOSE are granted as lon
>
> I'd like to upgrade jcode.pl in fml, requesting to upstream author of fml
> and closes Bug#52108 (and maybe Bug#52109, both are release critical).
> Is there any problem?
>
there are 3 copies of jcode.pl in Debian, one in fml, one in another package,
and finally and actual libjcode-perl pa
The author needs to get the statement from Scandia cleared up. If it truly is
public domain w/ no strings attached, that is DFSG free. However, the way the
document reads it states the author may not have the right to his own code.
On 04-Mar-2000 Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> Hi. I suck at legalese, even with my native language
> and local laws. This is not free in any case, but can
> it be included in non-free? Please Cc: me, I'm not
> subscribed.
>
this seems like the standard "free for non commercial u
On 08-May-2000 Mark Brown wrote:
> ChkTeX is in non-free, but AFAICT from the license it's just GPL
> together with a non-binding request for dontations to the author.
> If the request were binding it would be a different matter, but as
> it stands it seems that the license is OK for main.
>
> Am
58 matches
Mail list logo
