Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote: > Would this be enough for LyX? I think so. > > > [...] > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > with XForms. > [...] I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for LyX ? Greg -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would this be enough for LyX? I think so. > > - Forwarded message from Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > To: lyx@via.ecp.fr > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: copyright problem > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) > Date: 11 Oct 1998 19:17:04 +0200 > > [...] > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > with XForms. > [...] > - End forwarded message - I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all users to link LyX with XForms" does not imply "we have implicitly allowed (re)distribution of the resulting LyX binaries", which I guess is the issue at hand. - Hari -- Raja R Harinath -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "When all else fails, read the instructions." -- Cahn's Axiom "Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing." -- Roy L Ash
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote: > I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all users to > link LyX with XForms" does not imply "we have implicitly allowed > (re)distribution of the resulting LyX binaries", which I guess is the > issue at hand. Because *implicit* permission isn't good enough. By default *nothing* is allowed. So every right the authors grant you had better be written down in a license accompanying the software, otherwise one of the authors (or sometimes even their employers) can later sue you. In this particular case it is important to be explicit about the extra permissions granted, because people might get the mistaken belief that it is thus also ok to import other GPLed code into the project. -- The idea is that the first face shown to people is one they can readily accept - a more traditional logo. The lunacy element is only revealed subsequently, via the LunaDude. [excerpted from the Lunatech Identity Manual]
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > [...] > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > > with XForms. > > [...] > > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for > LyX ? It's not enough for KDE because KDE includes things not written by the KDE people. pgpcyhQQtMrHq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
The main difference is that LyX is THEIR code. The problem w/ KDE is not so much its own code, rather it links other peoples GPL app w/QT and KDE to make Kapp. This is the brunt of the legal issue. The authors of app where not asked if it was ok to link w/QT, nor was the license modified to reflect this. On 11-Oct-98 Gergely Madarasz wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote: > >> Would this be enough for LyX? I think so. >> >> >> [...] >> I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to >> compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx >> with XForms. >> [...] > > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for > LyX ? > > Greg > > -- > Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. > Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. > HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- E-Mail: Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 11-Oct-98 Time: 22:46:46 This message was sent by XFMail --
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 10:52:19PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > > [...] > > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > > > with XForms. > > > [...] > > > > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for > > LyX ? > > It's not enough for KDE because KDE includes things not written by the KDE > people. How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them? And anyway we're not given permission to distribute it. -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote: > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > > with XForms. > > I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all users to > link LyX with XForms" does not imply "we have implicitly allowed > (re)distribution of the resulting LyX binaries", which I guess is the > issue at hand. I'm sorry, but for me this sounds like like nitpicking. But I try to solve this. Boy, I wonder how many problemes with licenses we will find if we examine all packages to that detail. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 11:18:53PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote: > Because *implicit* permission isn't good enough. By default *nothing* is > allowed. So every right the authors grant you had better be written down > in a license accompanying the software, otherwise one of the authors (or > sometimes even their employers) can later sue you. But the default does not hold. After all they said the GPL the code. > In this particular case it is important to be explicit about the extra > permissions granted, because people might get the mistaken belief that > it is thus also ok to import other GPLed code into the project. I try talking them into making it explicit. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 04:07:31PM +, Raja R Harinath wrote: > > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > > > with XForms. > > > > I don't see how it follows. "we have implicitly allowed all users to > > link LyX with XForms" does not imply "we have implicitly allowed > > (re)distribution of the resulting LyX binaries", which I guess is the > > issue at hand. > > I'm sorry, but for me this sounds like like nitpicking. But I try to solve > this. > > Boy, I wonder how many problemes with licenses we will find if we examine > all packages to that detail. A lot. Regards, Joey -- Linux - the choice of a GNU generation
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
>> > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to >> > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx >> > > with XForms. >> > > [...] >> > >> > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for >> > LyX ? >> >> It's not enough for KDE because KDE includes things not written by the KDE >> people. > >How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them? >And anyway we're not given permission to distribute it. Surely if a piece of software is released under a particular license agreement and if you contribute some source code to the maintainer of the software for inclusion in that software then the same license conditions must implicitely apply. If a piece of software is GPL then you can't give some source code to the maintainer and then say "lines 10-20 of file foo.c are commercial and al users must pay me". If things were otherwise then all current GPL projects would be void and all new ones would require written statements explicitely agreeing to the license conditions. Changing a license from one that implies something (may be linked to Xforms) to one which states it directly and clearly is not altering the license conditions merely clarifying them. So my opinion is that the main developers in the LyX project can get together and change the license in this fashion after a quick vote without any problems. Of course I'm not a lawyer and even a lawyers opinion won't mean that much unless a magistrate agrees... -- Got no future, got no past. Here today, built to last.
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them? Wait a moment. Don't let this become ridiculous. How can we be sure that Ulrich Depper didn't include non-GPL stuff in his glibc? You can ask this ofr every single package. Hey, it's not our job to check that. > And anyway we're not given permission to distribute it. Why? Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them? > > Wait a moment. Don't let this become ridiculous. How can we be sure that > Ulrich Depper didn't include non-GPL stuff in his glibc? You can ask this > ofr every single package. Hey, it's not our job to check that. The problem here is that we can't distribute it under the terms of the GPL (read the kde announcement) while they say it is plain GPL, so they say they can include other people's GPL-ed stuff. glibc2 doesnt have a contradictory licence like this. > > And anyway we're not given permission to distribute it. > > Why? Did you see it written down? :) GPL forbits it, unless explicitly stated in the licence. And when we're given permission to distribute it in written form (it should be part of the licence or something) then it will be clear it is not exactly GPL, though it is open source. -- Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry. Egy pingvinre gyakorlatilag lehetetlen haragosan nezni. HuLUG: http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 12:25:12PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to > > > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx > > > > with XForms. > > > > [...] > > > > > > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for > > > LyX ? > > > > It's not enough for KDE because KDE includes things not written by the KDE > > people. > > How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them? > And anyway we're not given permission to distribute it. The intent was there, if clarification is asked for it'll be given. There's no need to be unnecessarily harsh on them because lyx uses xforms. The intent is and always was to use xforms. The klyx package was merely a port from one non-free lib to another and those who complained have in general been more concerned with the forking and duplicated effort than the non-free qt in use. This can all be resolved reasonably if people stay reasonable. (Please note I use none of the software mentioned herein, so this is only an issue for me as it relates to Debian..) pgpW6jRcBOhVD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 08:29:00PM +0200, Gergely Madarasz wrote: > The problem here is that we can't distribute it under the terms of the GPL > (read the kde announcement) while they say it is plain GPL, so they say > they can include other people's GPL-ed stuff. glibc2 doesnt have a > contradictory licence like this. True. But Ulrich could have used code that is copyrighted in a way it doesn't work with GPL. Or let me use another example, how can we be sure the author of nedit, xv, ... did not use some GPLed code? > Did you see it written down? :) GPL forbits it, unless explicitly > stated in the licence. And when we're given permission to distribute it in > written form (it should be part of the licence or something) then it will > be clear it is not exactly GPL, though it is open source. I see what you mean. The have to give that, yes. But a public statement is enough. There is no need to write it down in the same file IMO. Michael -- Dr. Michael Meskes | Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go SF49ers! Senior-Consultant | business: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Go Rhein Fire! Mummert+Partner | private: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Use Debian Unternehmensberatung AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| GNU/Linux!
