I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific Library.
Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL), this means I
would have to distribute my program under the GPL as well. I have no
problem with this per se; however, the program in question is part of a
larger package,
say there's a GPL'd command line exec "foo" that does some nifty
function
and i've got a program which does something that wants to use what
"foo" can do.
i've not changed any code in "foo", i simply want to use the binary.
can i distribute the original unmodified binary "foo" with my
proprietary s
Hi,
Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
I still dual license the project?
Thanks,
Bahadir
Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version? Also,
how do i install ant on windows?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/m
I am currently developing a closed source application that
is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
(specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm
I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
if necessary.
I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
like to release it under a license that obliges those who build services
on it to also release the source for those services. Applications
* Nicholas R. Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:35:53 -0500):
> I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific Library.
...
> I'm considering some sort of hybrid approach, where the program in
> question is distributed in two ways: on its own, under the GPL; and in the
Nicholas R. Markham writes:
> I'm considering some sort of hybrid approach, where the program in
> question is distributed in two ways: on its own, under the GPL; and in
> the package, under a different license. Would something like this be
> legal?
It isn't necessary. As long as the program tha
"Nicholas R. Markham" wrote:
>
> I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific Library.
> Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL), this means I
> would have to distribute my program under the GPL as well.
Not at all.
To begin with, I suggest you read "Open Sou
Hmm, that seems to be one "no", one "yes" and one "the question doesn't
make sense." Would any of the respondents care to (a) clarify their
positions or (b) flame each other mercilessly? :)
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:35:53 -0500, Nicholas R. Markham wrote:
> I have a program that I'd like to utilize
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:06:29 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> "Nicholas R. Markham" wrote:
>>
>> I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific Library.
>> Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL), this means I
>> would have to distribute my program under the GPL
"Nicholas R. Markham" wrote:
[...]
> A FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL:
>
> Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
>
> A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run incl
"Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific
> Library. Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL),
> this means I would have to distribute my program under the GPL as
> well. I have no problem with this per se; h
"Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, that seems to be one "no", one "yes" and one "the question
> doesn't make sense." Would any of the respondents care to (a)
> clarify their positions or (b) flame each other mercilessly? :)
(b) has already happened. Alexander is a notoriou
"Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific
> Library. Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL),
> this means I would have to distribute my program under the GPL as
> well. I have no problem with this per se; h
Nicholas R. Markham writes:
> It certainly appears that I would have to distribute the program under
> the GPL, or not distribute it at all.
You must distribute the program that is linked to the GPL library under the
GPL. The other programs are unaffected as distributing them together with
the GP
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Nicholas R. Markham writes:
> > It certainly appears that I would have to distribute the program under
> > the GPL, or not distribute it at all.
>
> You must distribute the program that is linked to the GPL library under the
> GPL.
You must not.
> The other progra
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have a program that I'd like to utilize the GNU Scientific
> > Library. Since the GSL is distributed under the GPL (not the LGPL),
> > this means I would have to
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:23:34 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> It all depends on what "part of a larger package means" whether your
>> program and the package form an aggregation or an inseparable whole. If
>> they are i
"Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:23:34 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It all depends on what "part of a larger package means" whether your
>>> program and the package fo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nicholas R. Markham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rest of the package does not, strictly speaking, depend on the program
> I'm considering GPLing; it could certainly be used without that program.
> However, I'm not sure I could make the reverse claim, that the
me writes:
> i've not changed any code in "foo", i simply want to use the binary. can
> i distribute the original unmodified binary "foo" with my proprietary
> software and not become obligated to GPL my software?
Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to
comply with
Uncle Hasler, uncle Hasler,
John Hasler wrote:
>
> me writes:
> > i've not changed any code in "foo", i simply want to use the binary. can
> > i distribute the original unmodified binary "foo" with my proprietary
> > software and not become obligated to GPL my software?
>
> Yes. Note, however,
> Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to
> comply with the terms of its license.
allright how bout if i have the user go and install said tool and i do
NOT include it with my distribution? in my app, say the user invokes
that funtion, i can detect if "foo" is ins
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the
> owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
> title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
> authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the
> possessio
I wrote:
> Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to
> comply with the terms of its license.
me writes:
> allright how bout if i have the user go and install said tool and i do
> NOT include it with my distribution?
Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so
me quotes:
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the
> owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
> title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
> authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the
On Sáb, 2007-03-10 at 14:39 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yes. Note, however, that you will be distributing foo and will have to
> > comply with the terms of its license.
>
>
> allright how bout if i have the user go and install said tool and i do
> NOT include it with my distribution? in
On Sáb, 2007-03-10 at 17:13 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> work. Read the GPL.
And I seriously suggest any and all to be very wary of any Alexander
Terekhov posts. He reacts like a robot to certain keywords by spilling
out pseudo-legal gibberish that totally disregards the law and it's
spirit, as we
> Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license does not
> impinge upon you.
Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL?
What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just,
upon install, as part of the install, just download and install t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3) [17 USC 106(3)], the
> > owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this
> > title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the
> > authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> US law says that if you own a lawfully made copy of a work you can sell it
> or otherwise dispose of it without permission of the copyright owner. Note
> that a copy is a _tangible object_ such as a book, a CD, a floppy, or a
> hard drive. However, this bit of law has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> you can totally blow off the GPL and treat it like LGPL??
--
[...]
sections of the LGPL are an impenetrable maze of technological
babble. They should not be in a general-purpose software license.
[...]
The LGPL concedes that the GPL is a better, more approp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Then you are not copying or distributing foo and so its license
>> does not impinge upon you.
>
> Well, doesn't this just seem like a total legal loophole in the GPL?
> What if i don't even ask the user to press a button, what if i just,
> upon install, as part of the
can we all please stop talking in parables and references to topics we
may not all share the detailed background knowledge of? I'd like a
straight answer with the entire answer within the text.
is the GPL basically not enforceable assuming you "work around" it
technically by the aforementioned me
me writes:
> What I glean is, yes i can, from the user's perspective, "include" a
> GPL'd software within my own proprietary software, and NOT be forced to
> release my source code?
You cannot be forced to release your source code at all.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwo
What I glean is, yes i can, from the user's perspective, "include"
a GPL'd software within my own proprietary software, and NOT be
forced to release my source code? (see previous for what i mean by
"include")
As John said, you cannot be forced; either you accept the GPL or you
don't,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots.
Let's take a look at US appelate court's (panel of three judges)
interetation of the GPL:
Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the
Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> can we all please stop talking in parables and references to topics we
> may not all share the detailed background knowledge of? I'd like a
> straight answer with the entire answer within the text.
>
> is the GPL basically not enforceable assuming you "work around"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi,
>
> Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
> I still dual license the project?
You can't r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
> I still dual license the project?
Your pro
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> > own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> > the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
> > I sti
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> You can't relicense the work of others under any license you like,
> >> period. Regardless how much or little you add to it.
>
> >This begs a question, dear GNUtian dak. How come th
Richard Tobin wrote:
[...]
> consult a legal expert.
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
(DANGEROUS LIAISONS SOFTWARE COMBINATIONS AS DERIVATIVE WORKS?)
And also
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf
(Moot Court Statements of Fact)
http:
> > Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> > own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> > the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of it. Can
> > I still dual license the project?
>
> You can't relice
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [presumably court opinions about derivative works - I have no intention
> of reading them]
>
> So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
> wish to prevent thei
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Because the GNU GPL states so.
http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2007/03/delusions_of_gr.html
Whatever grandiose fantasies the FSF has about itself as a government,
possessed of authority to draft regulations, it is not. FSF is a private
body that has
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
> >> wish to prevent their work from being used in this way?
> >
> >What do you mean?
>
> I have some software.
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You may try to state that under your contract "mere aggregation" (in
> >GNU speak) triggers the same obligations as derivative work and that
> >it encompassing all works in a compilatio
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You can't relicense the work of others under any license you like,
>> period. Regardless how much or little you add to it.
>This begs a question, dear GNUtian dak. How come that Linux kernel "as
>a whole" (in GNU
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your project is a "compilation" (this legal term includes
>"collective works") under copyright law.
Terekhov is not a reliable source of information. Your project may
well be a derivative work rather than a compilat
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[presumably court opinions about derivative works - I have no intention
of reading them]
So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
wish to prevent their work from being used in this way? Or
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
>> wish to prevent their work from being used in this way?
>
>What do you mean?
I have some software. Someone else wants to use my software i
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You may try to state that under your contract "mere aggregation" (in
>GNU speak) triggers the same obligations as derivative work and that
>it encompassing all works in a compilation/aggregation.
I don't want to pre
Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright
for the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of
it. Can I still dual license the project?
No. The 10% is copyrighted by someone els
On May 15, 8:07 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
>own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright
>for the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-trivial %90 of
>it. Can I s
Thanks to all for your comments. I am using others' GPL code in my
project since my intention is to release it also under GPL. Its
just that I also want to have control over the parts that I own the
copyright for (the first that comes to mind is being able to
license it in another li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On May 15, 8:07 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
>>own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright
>>for the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You want to be able to restrict software of others, not only yours.
If they use my code, then yes. Of course, no-one is required to use
my code. It seems a reasonable offer: you use my code, you follow my
rules. Is
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Defined interfaces are not usually considered to create copyrightable
>entities as long as they don't contain sufficient creative content by
>themselves.
This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that
Bahadir writes:
> I don't own the library implementation, but what about any instance of
> symbols I use in my code?
The symbols themselves are not protected by copyright at all.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
g
Richard writes:
> If they use my code, then yes.
No, you do not want to restrict the software of others, nor does the GPL
attempt to do so (such an attempt would be doomed to failure anyway). You
want to restrict derivatives of your software: combinations of your
software and that of someone else
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Defined interfaces are not usually considered to create copyrightable
> >entities as long as they don't contain sufficient creative content by
> >themselves.
>
> This is interesting, because
Sonny! Uncle Hasler Has spoken!!!
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Richard writes:
> > If they use my code, then yes.
>
> No, you do not want to restrict the software of others, nor does the GPL
> attempt to do so (such an attempt would be doomed to failure anyway). You
> want to restrict derivatives of
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You want to be able to restrict software of others, not only yours.
>
> If they use my code, then yes. Of course, no-one is required to use
> my code. It seems a reasonable offer: yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Defined interfaces are not usually considered to create copyrightable
>>entities as long as they don't contain sufficient creative content by
>>themselves.
>
> This is interest
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if
>> I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use
>> their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even
>> if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So you say: "Big deal, I won't link it then. The customer has to do
>>it". Now if the only conceivable use of the software _is_ to link it
>>to a free version of the software,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
>If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
>_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make
>any sense otherwise. In that case,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
>
>>If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
>>_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and do
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the GPL only covers distribution.
>
>And copyright law covers derivatives.
So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I
thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a
licence. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> But the GPL only covers distribution.
>>
>>And copyright law covers derivatives.
>
> So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I
> thought the FSF's vi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
>> distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier
>> example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution
>> of a derivat
Richard Tobin writes:
> But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has
> some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
> in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't
> distribute the derivative work, where does the GPL come into it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
>>> distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier
>>> example - is the distribution of
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I
>> know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface
>> libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of
>> these. So according
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has
>> some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
>> in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't
>> distribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I
>>> know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface
>>> libraries. As far as I know, there is no
I wrote:
> The original author might be found liable for contributory infringement.
Richard writes:
> On the face of it, no-one has distributed a derivative work, so that
> there is no infringement to contribute to.
In the US creation of derivatives is one of the exclusive rights of the
copyright
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not suggesting that Apple does not allow you to do this. What I
>> find surprising is that Apple *could* legally stop people distributing
>> programs for their operating system.
>Could you please refrain from consta
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On the face of it, no-one has distributed a derivative work, so that
>> there is no infringement to contribute to.
>
>In the US creation of derivatives is one of the exclusive rights of the
>copyright owner.
Ok, but the GP
"Programs for their operating system" and "Program linked with
their development libraries for their operating system" are two
different topics.
Their libraries are part of their operating system, so there is no
difference.
___
gnu-misc-discus
David Kastrup writes:
> It actually depends on local laws whether buying an operating system is
> considered to include an automatic license for running arbitrary programs
> as part of "fair use".
In the US I think that would be a matter of implied license, not fair use.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PR
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> In the US creation of derivatives is one of the exclusive rights of the
> copyright owner.
This right is under statutory limitation regarding computer programs.
17 USC 117, stupid.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If you are merely using the system call interface of the kernel, you
Use of ANY interface doesn't create a derivative work, stupid. The AFC
test and all that.
> are not involved with creating a derivative work, and as long as the
> customer has a license for running
On May 14, 4:18 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Hi,
>
> > Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> > own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> > the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-t
Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to
mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if,
say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of
the original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be
distributed in the pack
On May 21, 7:42 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to
>mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if,
>say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of
>the original q
What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two
could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they
occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing,
but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one?
If it depends `vitally' on the GPL pr
On May 21, 2:45 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two
>could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they
>occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing,
>but the non-GPL
And therefore distributing them even separately through different
channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay for the code"
with my own code -- because
On May 15, 9:27 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bahadir writes:
> > I don't own the library implementation, but what about any instance of
> > symbols I use in my code?
>
> The symbols themselves are not protected by copyright at all.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Ho
Bahadir writes:
> Are those kernel headers explicitly declared as "public interface"
> somewhere, or else how do you distinguish a "non-copyrightable public
> interface"?
It is not up to the author to determine whether or not a work or a portion
of a work is protected by copyright. It depends on
On May 22, 1:54 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And therefore distributing them even separately through different
>channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
>whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
>use GPL code in my pr
>And therefore distributing them even separately through
>different channels is considered the same as distributing them
>as a whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I
>decide to use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to "pay
>for the code" wit
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
> else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version?
Yes, as long as you make the source code available (including your
modificatio
On Aug 27, 8:46 pm, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
> > else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version?
>
> Yes,
Mike Cox writes:
> (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
> libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
Software law.
On Oct 10, 7:10 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Cox writes:
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> > present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
> > libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first
On Oct 11, 3:10 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Cox writes:
> > (1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
> > present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
> > libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
>
> Not without first
1 - 100 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
