[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 07.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what they
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what they
put in it.
Although they _can_ restrict you from
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
That is
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
to cygwin32.
Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
Just so you understand why I'm so interested - I'm working on porting dpkg
to cygwin32.
Porting or re-implementing? If it's a port, dpkg is already under
gpl, so cygwin32 being under gpl shouldn't be an issue. [Even if
it wasn't, I don't understand how a gpl'd dll
Hi Jim,
Imagine if Microsoft demanded that everybody had to use a certain
license in order to run on top of their operating system.
Well, they do actually.
Microsoft charges for the licences to use it's ``operating systems''.
If the Freeware community produces software that ends up helping
Well, maybe the GPL is broken when it comes to situations like this. What
I don't understand is, if something doesn't contain any GPL'd code, how
can the GPL force me to put my product under it. So it has the interface
calls to library/.dll, copyrights don't cover how something works,
patents
Mark Eichin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
libdb would be an issue if you used the db interfaces; if you used the
dbm_* interfaces, you'd presumably be ok...
But the original libdb was covered by the BSD copyright; the libc6
copyright states: All code incorporated from 4.4 BSD is under the
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me
to be
Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Cheers,
- Jim
pgp6b75kk1gUm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
I'm not sure from a copyright standpoint how that works. A copyright
means that you are protected from me using your copyrighted
I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Actually, it is different. GPL-ed software
On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
Yep, the copyright file does
On 2 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one
Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
*not* including portions of libc5 in your binary. A replacement libc5
that met the
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
For some more perspective on the interface argument, go back and see
some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU libmp (multiple
precision integer math library.) See also the discussion of just a
week or three ago about a company shipping a
For some more perspective on the interface argument, go back and see
some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU libmp (multiple
precision integer math library.)
Actually, I had a very similar polite argument with RMS via private e-mail
(about linking Java libs with mixed
[ I've not been following this thread too closely,
so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
using it as Cygnus is doing (to make money) goes
On Jun 1, Jim Pick wrote
Actually, I had a very similar polite argument with RMS via private e-mail
(about linking Java libs with mixed GPL/LGPL/proprietary licenses). He
was pretty solid on the fact that run-time linking is the same as
compiled-in linking.
Yep, once the run-time linking has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I really must admit I find the GPL very cryptic, it's hard to say exactly
what it means if you look at very small detail. I do think that it makes
sense however that you should be able to put RCS in a dll and link to
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
For some more perspective on the interface argument, go back and see
some of the flaming a year or two ago about the GNU libmp (multiple
precision integer math library.) See also the discussion of just a
week or three ago about a company shipping a
Buddha Buck wrote:
However, the unique interface issue does exist with regard to gzip,
since that is purely a GPLed product. I think a libgzip or a gzip.dll
would run into the same issues as the libdb did.
The source code to the zlib library has been released together with ssh
with a non-GPL
However, the unique interface issue does exist with regard to gzip,
since that is purely a GPLed product. I think a libgzip or a gzip.dll
would run into the same issues as the libdb did.
Not to distract from the original point (thank you for the clearer
explanation of the libmp issue!) note
[ I've not been following this thread too closely,
so if I've got the wrong idea, please forgive me ]
The GPL is a very restrictive license. In many ways, it is just as
restrictive as the Qt license. Particularily in the case of libraries,
using it as Cygnus is doing (to make
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
The cygwin.dll case in an example where the GPL is being used to restrict the
rights of other people using the code so that they can't do something taboo
such as charge money, while at the same time, reserving the right for the
authors to do the exact same thing. To
On Jun 2, Jim Pick wrote
The cygwin.dll case in an example where the GPL is being used to restrict
the
rights of other people using the code so that they can't do something taboo
such as charge money, while at the same time, reserving the right for the
authors to do the exact same
On Jun 2, Raul Miller wrote
[Note: what RMS is trying to argue against is the stunt
Steve Jobs Co. pulled with Objective C.]
Could you describe what the said 'stunt' was? I'm curious...
Christian
pgpyv2Q82qumI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 2 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
Now, when you link -- statically or dynamically -- you are including
portions of libc5 in your binary. This results in your binary being
Umm, no, actually -- the whole point of dynamic linking is that you're
*not* including portions of libc5 in your
yeah, cygwin32.dll is under the GPL. So? It's a DLL, like libc5 and
libc6 are... [the *only* thing I'm aware of that actually uses the
LGPL is libg++; it was as much of an experiment as anything, and I'm
not aware of any not-otherwise-free software taking advantage of those
terms...] Just
I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Two questions: (1) in what way is
Mark Eichin wrote:
I just brought this up, since it was my understanding that if you
want to write a commercial program (ie. not under the GPL), and
link it against cygwin.dll, you've got to pay Cygnus $$$. Not all
that different than the restrictions on Qt, really.
Two questions:
I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me
to be very limiting of commercial
Two questions: (1) in what way is cygwin32.dll different from libc5.so
in this regard (since the license for both is the same: GPL)
libc5 appears to be under the GPL, while libc6 appears to be under
the LGPL. Weird. Does that mean that anything that is linked
against libc5 has to be GPL'd?
35 matches
Mail list logo
