Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
code under the GPL too).
No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely fr
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:09 -0800, Robert Kern wrote:
Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
and certain ill-will from the community?
Huh? What are you talking about?
I'm jus
Arich Chanachai wrote:
> I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you have
made that much money in sales from the software which you created, in
part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a license, but I
have
Robert Kern wrote:
Arich Chanachai wrote:
> I have never seen a commercial license for a library
which stated that you did not have to pay the license fee until you
have made that much money in sales from the software which you
created, in part, from that library. I would be in favor of such a
Jorge Luiz Godoy Filho wrote:
Max M wrote:
GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
bad idea.
If you're earning money, why
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:09 -0800, Robert Kern wrote:
> Until such matters are unequivocally determined in a court that has
> jurisdiction over you, do you really want to open yourself to legal risk
> and certain ill-will from the community?
Huh? What are you talking about?
I'm just pointing out
Max M wrote:
> GPL is not suitable for all kinds of software. It's nice if you are
> sharing code with others, but if you are developing something like a
> desktop application that you want to sell for money, using the GPL is a
> bad idea.
If you're earning money, why not pay for the libraries th
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:24:22 +0100, Damjan wrote:
> What you described is not ok according to the GPL - since you distributed
> a binary thats derived from GPL software (and you didn't publish it source
> code under the GPL too).
No you didn't. You distributed a binary completely free of any GPL c
> The problem with this is what I've called the "patch hole" in another
> context [1]. The problem with this definition is that I can *always*
> distribute GPL'ed parts separately and re-combine them arbitrarily upon
> execution, and it's not even particularly hard. Write your code with the
> GPL'e
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:57:47 +0100, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
> You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make the
> sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test: if your
> program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you have to
> licence your prog
Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distri
You can distribute GPL'ed code in binary form, you just have to make
the sources available as well. And, yes I would use this as a test:
if your program needs gpl-ed code for some of it's functionality, you
have to licence your program according to the GPL - unless you
distribute the GPL'ed parts
Alex Martelli wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
that this is an impersonal/generic "you" I reference) might be able to
argue an exemption
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >It should also be pointed out that the FSF's interpretation of the GPL
> >with respect to Qt means absolutely zero.
>
> Indeed. It would be the court that would have to decide what the
> language of the GPL means, given the substantial body of case
>
Damjan wrote:
> > For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more
interesting.
> > Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows
under
> > the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more
popular
> > option in the near future.
>
> This applies to QT-4 only.
Luke Skywalker wrote:
OK, so according to Linus, the GPL allows a proprietary program to
make calls to the kernel,
As I understand things, it's not the GPL which allows
this, it's Linus himself who allows it. If Linus
hadn't explicitly said that, the GPL might be interpreted
as disallowing it.
--
G
>It should also be pointed out that the FSF's interpretation of the GPL
>with respect to Qt means absolutely zero.
Indeed. It would be the court that would have to decide what the
language of the GPL means, given the substantial body of case
law as the court sees it.
>... but it establishes tha
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:56:44 -0800, Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>OK, so according to Linus, the GPL allows
>
>No. Pay attention. Linus has his own revised version, to clarify
>this point, and in fact /overruling/ the GPL if the point is
>clarified differently by RMS or others.
>
Title: RE: Big development in the GUI realm
[Carlos Ribeiro]
#- 'onegui' to rule them all...
I would really love to use a GUI made by elves...
. Facundo
Bitácora De Vuelo: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog
PyAr - Python Argentina: http://pyar.dec
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:44:10 +0100, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
> > whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
> > that this is an im
Francis Girard schreef:
> Did some law court, over the past
> decade, had to make a decision about GPL on some real issue ?
netfilter vs. Sitecom ?
--
JanC
"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
--
http://mail.
Jeremy Bowers schreef:
> Copyright-based models can't handle modern computer programs,
Most countries have computer program specific parts in their copyright
laws...
--
JanC
"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
"Gabriel B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
>> >>version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
>> >>standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
>> >>this use would be valid.
>> >>
>> >>
Kent Johnson wrote:
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in
Heinlein's _Time Enough For Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
Amazon.com "search inside the book" finds no hits for "malice" in this
book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/rea
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:19:58PM -0200, Gabriel B. wrote:
> > However, imagine simple situation:
> > 1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
> > itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
> > GPL-ed code.
>
> No need to continue. You writ
> However, imagine simple situation:
> 1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
> itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
> GPL-ed code.
No need to continue. You write something that uses a plugin, Eolas
sues you. Don't have to mind about
Maciej Mróz wrote:
However, imagine simple situation:
1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
GPL-ed code.
2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
is GPL compatibl
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Tim Churches wrote:
except that if *you* set things up so the code is combined when run, *you* are
copying, distributing, and/or modifying the program in order to mix, include
and/or
combine your work with the GPL:ed work.
if you leave all that to the user, you're clear.
> However, imagine simple situation:
> 1. I write proprietary program with open plugin api. I even make the api
> itself public domain. Program works by itself, does not contain any
> GPL-ed code.
> 2. Later someone writes plugin using the api (which is public domain so
> is GPL compatible), plugin
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:55:01 +0100, Maciej MrÃz wrote:
> Unfortunately, GPL faq is extremely vague on such border cases, instead
> of simple "yes/no" answers faq is filled with some advocacy talks ...
To re-iterate a point I made on a thread last week, nobody really knows
what the GPL says and me
Grant Edwards wrote:
My understanding is that what you propose is not valid. An EXE
that uses a GPL'd DLL must be distributed according to the
terms of the GPL. Were that not the case, the LGPL would not
have been needed.
I believe this is the case only in simple situation where gpl-ed dll is
_r
> >>Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
> >>version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
> >>standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
> >>this use would be valid.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.
Tim Churches wrote:
>>except that if *you* set things up so the code is combined when run, *you* are
>>copying, distributing, and/or modifying the program in order to mix, include
>>and/or
>>combine your work with the GPL:ed work.
>>
>>if you leave all that to the user, you're clear.
>>
> Yes, th
> > users. For example, from their FAQ, it seems that no precompiled
> > binaries will be provided. Support for comercial compilers will not be
> > built in, only for gcc (through Cygwin?).
>
> Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
> an available distribution for
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Tim Churches wrote:
and how exactly are you going to load a DLL from an EXE file with-
out "mixing, including, or combining" the two?
You can't, but as long as that "mixing, including, or combining" only occurs at
runtime,
the GPL itself specifically says that is out
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in Heinlein's _Time Enough For
Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
Amazon.com "search inside the book" finds no hits for "malice" in this book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0441810764/102-763
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:01:51 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>except that if *you* set things up so the code is combined when run, *you* are
>copying, distributing, and/or modifying the program in order to mix, include
>and/or
>combine your work with the GPL:ed work.
>
>if you lea
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in Heinlein's _Time Enough For
Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
if that's true, it would seem that it predates the Hanlon reference by a
couple of years:
http://www.statusq.org/archives/
Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hassle to code, but if your application could dynamically select from
> whatever toolkit is available on the machine, you (and I should emphasis
> that this is an impersonal/generic "you" I reference) might be able to
> argue an exemption from the QT
Robert Kern wrote:
> Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in Heinlein's
> _Time Enough For
> Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
if that's true, it would seem that it predates the Hanlon reference by a
couple of years:
http://www.statusq.org/archives/2001/12/04
o
Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said :
>> that's Hanlon, not Heinlein. to be on the safe side, I won't attempt
>> to attribute your mistake to anything.
>
> Fair enough. The only time I've seen it in dead-tree print was in
> Heinlein's _Time Enough For Love_, unattributed to anyone else.
> Goo
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up. However, I think it's best to
follow Robert Heinlein's maxim:
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
that's Hanlon, not Heinlein. to be on the safe s
Tim Churches wrote:
>> and how exactly are you going to load a DLL from an EXE file with-
>> out "mixing, including, or combining" the two?
>
> You can't, but as long as that "mixing, including, or combining" only occurs
> at runtime,
> the GPL itself specifically says that is out of scope and th
Robert Kern wrote:
> Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up. However,
> I think it's best to
> follow Robert Heinlein's maxim:
>
> "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."
that's Hanlon, not Heinlein. to be on the safe side, I won
Francis Girard wrote:
[I wrote:]
In any case, he may be right, and the FSF, Trolltech, and you could all
be wrong. Your intention when you use the GPL may be moot if a judge
determines that the text itself and copyright law does not support your
interpretation.
I'm sorry to jump into this thread w
> In any case, he may be right, and the FSF, Trolltech, and you could all
> be wrong. Your intention when you use the GPL may be moot if a judge
> determines that the text itself and copyright law does not support your
> interpretation.
I'm sorry to jump into this thread without any knowledge of
>OK, so according to Linus, the GPL allows
No. Pay attention. Linus has his own revised version, to clarify
this point, and in fact /overruling/ the GPL if the point is
clarified differently by RMS or others.
That's the right of their community, it's /their/ code.
>make calls to the kernel
>Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation of
>the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably
>wager that the court would hold that only static linking would force the
>program as a whole to follow the GPL terms.
I just wrote and deleted a long
On 2005-02-08, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up.
> However, I think it's best to follow Robert Heinlein's maxim:
>
> "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained
> by stupidity."
Of course you are right
Grant Edwards wrote:
Sorry if I was a bit blunt, but I'm sick of people trying to
weasle their way around a license by creative interpretation of
the license terms when the licensors made their intentions as
clear as possible.
Believe me, I share your frustration every time this issue comes up.
Ho
On 2005-02-08, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> Spare us your clueless, junior-high legal analyses
>
> [etc.]
>
> Hey! There's no need for name-calling. This is a tricky legal area that
> can be very confusing even to the most legal-minded of us. While I think
>
Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:24:35 +1100, Tim Churches
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> >: services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal
> use
> >: of the kernel, an
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:24:35 +1100, Tim Churches
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
>: services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
>: of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
OK
"Kartic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a "GPL for Dummies" out there??? :-)
>
> Sorry if I am asking a question that has already been asked/answered in
> another form.
>
> In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
> some module that is GPL. So what are my opti
Grant Edwards wrote:
Spare us your clueless, junior-high legal analyses
[etc.]
Hey! There's no need for name-calling. This is a tricky legal area that
can be very confusing even to the most legal-minded of us. While I think
"Luke" is incorrect in several respects and is somewhat uninformed about
On 2005-02-08, Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their
>>interpretation of the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on
>>an outcome, I'd probably wager that the court would hold that
>>only static linking would force the program as a whole
Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:47:30 -0800, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation
> of
> >the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably
> >wager that the cour
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:47:30 -0800, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Now, that's not to say that they are correct in their interpretation of
>the GPL's terms. In fact, if I had to bet on an outcome, I'd probably
>wager that the court would hold that only static linking would force the
>pr
Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program contained in
the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as a
derivative work in local copyright
>If dynamic, then, it doesn't make sense that an EXE that builds on Qt
>should also be GPLed.
I'm hoping you're referring to the owners choice of license. For example,
if someone, owning rights to a thing that was a dynamic library, decided
to have a license akin to the GPL, it would easily quali
Kartic schreef:
> In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
> some module that is GPL. So what are my options?
For your own personal use: doesn't mather.
If you want to distribute it, your application must be GPL'ed, so *all*
source code must be made available for t
Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program
> contained in
> >the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as
> defined as
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:47:25 +1100, Tim Churches
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So there you have it: there must be some portion of the GPLed Program
>contained in
>the other work for it to fall under the scope of the GPL, and/or as defined as
>a
>derivative work in local copyright law (local beca
> Isn't this just the same thing with a different spin. There was always
> an available distribution for linux for non-commercial use. Windows was
> always the problem. You still can't use it for windows without knowing
> how to compile the thing on windows.
There'll be people that know how to co
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tim Churches wrote:
>
> > Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
> (note the scope of the advice
> > was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code
> is mixed, included or
> > combined with non-G
Tim Churches wrote:
> Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought (note
> the scope of the advice
> was Australian law only) that provided no GLPed source or object code is
> mixed, included or
> combined with non-GPLed code
and how exactly are you going to load a DLL
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:57:51 +1100, Tim Churches
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thus, it seems to me, and to the expert legal advice which we sought
>(note the scope of the advice was Australian law only) that provided no
>GLPed source or object code is mixed, included or combined with
>non-GPLed c
Is there a "GPL for Dummies" out there??? :-)
Sorry if I am asking a question that has already been asked/answered in
another form.
In any case, let's say I use Python to create an application that uses
some module that is GPL. So what are my options?
1. Distribute my app as closed source but wit
RM wrote:
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the commer
Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:30:18 +0100, Michael Goettsche.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not 100% right. Only drivers for commercial databases will not be included,
mysql and co. are available.
What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
you must give back an
> For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
> Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
> the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
> option in the near future.
This applies to QT-4 only.
I wonder how much of P
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:
Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
this use would be valid.
http://www.gnu.org/
On 2005-02-07, Luke Skywalker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:41:11 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Am I totally off-target?
>>
>>yes. for details, see the "Combining work with code released under the
>>GPL" section on this page:
>
> Mmmm.. The FAQ isn't v
Luke Skywalker wrote:
> Considering the fact that the Qt DLL exist by themselves, that the
> version used is the one provided by Qt, and that the EXE uses a
> standard, open way to communicate with it, the above does seem to say
> this use would be valid.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.h
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:41:11 +0100, "Fredrik Lundh"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Am I totally off-target?
>
>yes. for details, see the "Combining work with code released under the
>GPL" section on this page:
Mmmm.. The FAQ isn't very clear about whether it's allowed to write a
proprietary EXE tha
"Luke Skywalker" wrote:
> What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
> you must give back any contribution you made to the source code of the
> GPLed code, but not if you're just using either a binary distribution
> (eg. a DLL) or if you copy/pasted the code as is, with no
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:30:18 +0100, Michael Goettsche
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not 100% right. Only drivers for commercial databases will not be included,
>mysql and co. are available.
What I find weird, is that I always understood the GPL meaning that
you must give back any contribution you ma
On Monday 07 February 2005 17:52, RM wrote:
> For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
> Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
> the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
> option in the near future. Unfortuna
For all you GUI developers, things just got a little more interesting.
Trolltech will soon be offering the QT GUI toolkit for Windows under
the GPL license. That means that PyQt may become a much more popular
option in the near future. Unfortunately, some things available for
the commercial custo
79 matches
Mail list logo
