On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 09:10, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote:
> > From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial
> > software.
>
> You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may
> charge money for GPL derived program
>>The fact that you got your hands on a packaged software product does not
>>mean you can use it.
>>
> Sure it does. That's what the "First sale doctrine" means. Once I sold
> you a piece of software, I cannot tell you what to do, and what not to
> do, with it.
>
>> if that were the case, then If
"Oded Arbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course there is ! Using the software implies copying - you copy it into
> your harddisk and then you copy it into your computer's dynamic memory
> where it can be run.
GPL specifically says,
"The act of running the Program is not restricted"
--
Ol
Oded Arbel wrote:
Oded Arbel wrote:
While taking it a bit to the extreme (and I don't think anybody would try
to enforce it) with our hypothetic Winw, the user who tries to run Win32
application might be considered infringing on the Winw GPL license just
by
using it. I guess this is one
> Oded Arbel wrote:
>>While taking it a bit to the extreme (and I don't think anybody would try
>>to enforce it) with our hypothetic Winw, the user who tries to run Win32
>>application might be considered infringing on the Winw GPL license just
>> by
>>using it. I guess this is one of the reasons
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you ar
Shachar,
I guess you are still a bit wrong about GPL, but of course IANAL.
IMHO, it's not the black or white world of it's a derived work or
not. Random notes:
* LGPL is GPL compatible, but it does not mean you if you are
not the author of an LGPLed piece of code, you are allowed to
make a de
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Oron Peled wrote:
Its yet to stand up in court though.
What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
against its license terms? You must be drinking.
The only thing a court may n
Oded Arbel wrote:
I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
No, this
>>I certainly agree with you that in this case, the onus of making the
>>code open does not lie with its developers (who have no knowledge of
>>and have never used WINE), but rather with the user who did use WINE,
>>which is a thorny mess I have no idea how to solve ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> No, this is absu
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oron Peled wrote:
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if
As it is clear that I have been misunderstood, I'll try to explain again.
Wine is LGPL. As such, it is not covered by this discussion.
Let's then take the wine code, and fork it. We'll call the new program
"Winw", for "Winw is not Wine". Winw is licensed under the GPL (as the
GPL is LGPL compat
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >>
>
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if li
On Thursday 06 November 2003 10:46, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> LGPL, but for the sake of discussion).
It is LGPL precisely to prevent the legal problems of linking against GPL
code (just like glibc is LGPL'ed for the same reas
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
>>>Its yet to stand up in court though.
>>>
> Merely linking with a library does not make your software derived work
> of that company! How can that be?
>
> Let's take an example. Suppose Wine is distributed under the GPL (It's
> LGPL, but for the sake of discussion). Accordi
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Oron Peled wrote:
>
> >>Its yet to stand up in court though.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
> >against its license terms? You must be drinking.
> >
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if li
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:46:35AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> >The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library
> >makes your software a derived work. As I said before, this case
> >looks clear enough to most people that even infringing companies
> >prefer to release code and
Oron Peled wrote:
Its yet to stand up in court though.
What should stand up in court? The "right" to distribute software
against its license terms? You must be drinking.
The only thing a court may need to decide is if linking a library
makes your software a derived work. As I said before, thi
On Thursday 06 November 2003 01:14, Micha Feigin wrote:
> From you are saying you can't use any GPL toolkit to build commercial
> software.
You seem to confuse commercial with proprietary. A company may
charge money for GPL derived programs but if they distribute them
they must provide access to t
19 matches
Mail list logo
