Reading the recent drama regarding RMS' will lecture or won't lecture or may
lecture or must lecture or must not lecture in Israel, I'll try to do some
aftermath (I truly hope we're getting close to the "after". Maybe not. I
still have some popcorn).
1. Whoever reads the thread might reach the con
Could anyone please explain why His Majesty's visit to the holy land matters
at all? This thread sounds like a bunch of teenager girls who want to touch
Justin Bieber.
If you want to see him talking, go to Youtube. If you think his visit will
convince anyone else than the already convinced, put yo
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> I hope it resolves your confusion.
>
> Unfortunately not. I am familiar with the relevant parts, and I agree that
if you read them over and over again, you get kinda convinced that mixing
GPL code with closed-source objects is the work o
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> Someone gave you, i.e., "conveyed", "distributed", that object code
> whose only purpose is to create the browser when linked to some GPLed
> code. Therefore this object code is derivative work of the GPL code.
> Therefore if it is not G
For the sake of fairness, I'll say that the questions I had about my own
little venture are answered, thank you all.
But for pure curiosity, I'm left wondering how effective GPL really is.
Let's leave the microwave for a second, and think about a proprietary web
software browser, for a desktop, u
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> This looks to me (reminder: IANAL) as a rather simplistic attempt to
> circumvent GPL. I cannot believe that this trick is legal.
>
I'm likewise skeptic. But if this is illegal, and I don't understand why,
then there's still an importan
2011/4/10 Oleg Goldshmidt
>
> Another point that I mentioned in an earlier post but not sure if it
> registered. Consider the following hypothetical case.
>
> Vendor A (fits this case, huh) provides a library to Business B for
> evaluation, under GPL. Business B actually needs the library to work
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> What if Google (just a silly hypothetical example) takes that library and
> uses it on their servers, to understand spoken commands sent over the
> network
> by their users?
>
Then I'll proudly add a huge banner on the project page saying "ad
Thanks for your answers. But I feel we're not on the same page. This
demonstrates it best:
I don't know what your library is about, but have you considered other uses
> your library might have? E.g., what if Google, Facebook, or some other
> company
> which builds a million machines for its own us
More clarification is due indeed...
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> I'm writing a function library in C which I want to sell licenses for,
>> targeting a specialized industry. To make my entry point better, I plan to
>> release it under GPL (as opposed to LGPL) so that
Sorry, I should have elaborated a bit more...
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> It is questionable whether merely dynamically linking to a GPL library is
> enough to force your software to be GPL or illegal. As such, I would not
> choose this license for that purpose.
>
>
Hi list,
I know you're not lawyers, but I though you could help me with a GPL issue.
I'm writing a function library in C which I want to sell licenses for,
targeting a specialized industry. To make my entry point better, I plan to
release it under GPL (as opposed to LGPL) so that potential users
12 matches
Mail list logo
