Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by > > > linking it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I > > > include it (the source code) in a book as a programming example, > > > and I GPL the whole book. Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I publish that book, will the fact that it is licensed under that GPL > allow others to take my example program, modify it, and redistribute it > under the GPL ? Yep. > If not why not ? > > The example program can be assumed to have been written entirely by > me, as can the book, and we'll assume that it's not cryptographic as > well, so ITAR has nothing to do with the question. > > I also don't care about fair use issues, since I wanted to know if you > thought that the GPL on the book would be sufficient to grant people > the right to use the code, modify it, and distribute their modified > versions under the GPL. Sure, and since no one builds object code from a book and you're not encouraging anyone to to build object code from the book, etc. there's not even any kind of situation where you're trying to defraud anyone. -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: >On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: >>Joseph Carter wrote: >>>It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to >>>link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify >>>their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about >>>it. >>That's what I feared. Bye-bye LyX. >>[flamefest from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] >I hope the situation is not as grim as it may sound. Try talking to other >developers on the LyX list, not to Matthias. Yes, he founded the project, >and is working on KLyX, but I don't think he has any final say on the >matter. I believe that the other LyX Team are a lot nicer and a lot more >reasonable to discuss with. In particular, I think Matthias's interest in KDE means that he is more concerned with making Debian's position over the licensing issues awkward than with making Lyx accessible... -- David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi.2106 |___| "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Consenting Mercrediphile.|___| | | | Or, in Klingon:"nucharghqangbogh chaH DISopchu' 'e' wItIv." | | |
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking > > it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it > > (the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the > > whole book. > > > > Will people be allowed to copy and modify my code under the GPL (say, to > > make it work with GTK), and if not why not? > > Did you write it by taking someone else's GPLed code and modifying? Well, the phrase ``I write a Qt program'' was meant to mean that it was written by me and that it was a program that made use of Qt. Since you failed to provide an answer to the question asked, I'll try again: If I publish that book, will the fact that it is licensed under that GPL allow others to take my example program, modify it, and redistribute it under the GPL ? If not why not ? The example program can be assumed to have been written entirely by me, as can the book, and we'll assume that it's not cryptographic as well, so ITAR has nothing to do with the question. I also don't care about fair use issues, since I wanted to know if you thought that the GPL on the book would be sufficient to grant people the right to use the code, modify it, and distribute their modified versions under the GPL. Cheers, Phil.
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking > it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it > (the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the > whole book. > > Will people be allowed to copy and modify my code under the GPL (say, to > make it work with GTK), and if not why not? Did you write it by taking someone else's GPLed code and modifying? If not, it doesn't matter -- you're the author and you get to determine the license terms. If you did, you shouldn't publish that book. [But because of the way that the GPL is written, I think it's fair to pass your work off to someone else who would do the GTK work.] There's also the concept of "fair use". Copyright law is mostly aimed at large scale copying. If you just pass copies off to someone specifically to do that GTK work I think you'd be fine. The "publish it in a book mechanism" works against the ITAR, because the ITAR classifies cryptography code as a weapon, and books have completely different kinds of rules. But copyright does apply to books, so there's fundamentally different about the law in this case. -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Raul, A question for you: Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it (the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the whole book. Will people be allowed to copy and modify my code under the GPL (say, to make it work with GTK), and if not why not? Cheers, Phil.
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your > > misinterpretation of the GPL. > > Er... could you at least back up your assertions with quotes from the > GPL which support your position? i have done so on numerous occasions over the last few days. you don't seem to get the point. craig -- craig sanders
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your misinterpretation > of the GPL. Er... could you at least back up your assertions with quotes from the GPL which support your position? Thanks, -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to > > the non-free library, and a binary produced. > > Please show me where the GPL says this. > > I'm tired of pointing out this is false, quoting from the GPL to show > you were it says different, and having you ignore that. similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your misinterpretation of the GPL. as i suggested before, lets agree to disagree and stop wasting energy on this argument. you are well within your rights to be as wrong as you please. craig -- craig sanders
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to the > non-free library, and a binary produced. Please show me where the GPL says this. I'm tired of pointing out this is false, quoting from the GPL to show you were it says different, and having you ignore that. -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 09:13:44AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:09:15PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > There's probably plenty of other problematic packages in contrib too, > > as Raul has been telling us for a while. www-mysql, for example, > > although it'll move in to main once I reupload it (since mysql-base > > is in main now). > > I idn't notice that mysql-base made it into main. I take it you need more > than base to set up a database, don't you? The server remains non-DFSG-free, although for most users it is gratis. The client code is all in main. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 12:09:15PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > There's probably plenty of other problematic packages in contrib too, > as Raul has been telling us for a while. www-mysql, for example, > although it'll move in to main once I reupload it (since mysql-base > is in main now). I idn't notice that mysql-base made it into main. I take it you need more than base to set up a database, don't you? 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Shaya Potter wrote: spotte> spotte>-Original Message- spotte>From: John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spotte> spotte>> Lyx is currently in contrib. spotte>> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically spotte>>linked against a non-free library (libforms) . spotte>> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE spotte>>statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of spotte>>Lyx. For instance, these binaries use .h files from libforms. spotte>> Unlike KDE, it may be all original code, so that a single change spotte>>of license from the developers will do. spotte> spotte> spotte>Boy, Mathias Ehtrich is going to think we have something against him. :) spotte> spotte>Shaya I had no idea he worked on both projects when I wrote that. Someone just mentioned something about lyx being under the GPL, and I looked into it. John John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Raul Miller wrote: > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in > > any way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed > > source code. You have the source, you can do what you want with > > it. This is one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by the GPL. > > Correct, as long as you don't distribute the modifications. wrong. The GPL allows you to distribute your modified source as long as you distribute it with a GPL license. the GPL makes no restrictions, nor any comment at all, on the kinds of modifications you may make. as mentioned to you previously, you can modify it to work with a non-free library, you can modify it so that it doesn't work at all, you can modify it in any way that you like. The GPL takes no issue whatsoever with the kinds of modifications you may make. The GPL's only question is: "is all of what you are distributing under the GPL?" > > (as a side note, this is complicated in the case of KDE because KDE > > has re-used some existing GPL code and linked it to Qt. While they > > have every right under the GPL to modify the source to do that, the > > GPL prohibits them from legally distributing binaries until they > > receive permission from the original author(s)) > > The GPL also forbids them from distributing the modified sources. wrong again. the GPL only needs to cover the derived or combined work. there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to the non-free library, and a binary produced. craig -- craig sanders
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Hmm.. did they agree ahead of time that the license could be changed > with a vote? If Mathias is a significant author, and he disagrees with > the license change, he has a right to object. I beg to disagree. Please see my mail with the reply from the lyx list. This reasoning seems to be perfectly okay. And lets us distribute lyx. 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any > way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source > code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is > one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by the GPL. Correct, as long as you don't distribute the modifications. > the problem arises when you compile and link with a non-free library (e.g. > Qt or Xforms). doing that creates a combined work (the binary) which is a > derivative of both GPL-ed code and non-free code. if you don't wish to > distribute this derived work then there is still no problem. Again, correct, as that violates section 3 of the GPL. Note, however, this is not the only form of non-freeness which the GPL forbids you from distributing. > (as a side note, this is complicated in the case of KDE because KDE has > re-used some existing GPL code and linked it to Qt. While they have every > right under the GPL to modify the source to do that, the GPL prohibits > them from legally distributing binaries until they receive permission from > the original author(s)) The GPL also forbids them from distributing the modified sources. Oddly enough, this may go away if some OS makes Qt a part of its standard components. [Note that such a distributor could not then legally distribute KDE, nor any other purely GPLed code which uses Qt, with the its OS.] At the moment, it's up in the air whether all the variant linux distributions qualify as distinct OSes. [This is not defined in the GPL, and would take a court case to resolve -- note that a court would not attempt to come up with some generally useful definition of an operating system but would come up with something specific to the context of the court case.] -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote: > > The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and > > links it against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do > > if they provide an kemacs. :-) > > I guess this is the part which I'm needing a bit more understanding > with (because I've not been the best at interpreting the legalese of > the gpl). > > My understanding is that you *don't* have to ask the original author > of gpl code for permission to use it or modify it, so long as the > modifications are themselves fully published under the GPL. this is mostly correct. the only nit to pick here is that you don't have to publish if you don't want to...but if you do publish, then it MUST be under the terms of the GPL. > Based on the above, if you did publish the modifications in the GPL, > but the modifications required linking to a proprietary library, then > this would be a violation unless the original authors were contacted > and OK'd the publication. Correct ? no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by the GPL. the problem arises when you compile and link with a non-free library (e.g. Qt or Xforms). doing that creates a combined work (the binary) which is a derivative of both GPL-ed code and non-free code. if you don't wish to distribute this derived work then there is still no problem. If you do, however, wish to distribute the work then you have a complication. The GPL says that if you can not distribute the entire source for all parts of the derived or combined work under the terms of the GPL then you may not distribute it at all. this is the key point. the act of compiling and linking creates a derived work. the derived work may ONLY be distributed if ALL parts of it can be distributed under the terms of the GPL. of course, this doesn't affect the author's right to distribute - they are the copyright holder and aren't limited by their own license - but it does affect what third parties can do. unless additional permission is granted (e.g. "this program is licensed under the GPL with the additional permission that you may link with libfoo"), a binary may not be distributed by anyone but the author. (as a side note, this is complicated in the case of KDE because KDE has re-used some existing GPL code and linked it to Qt. While they have every right under the GPL to modify the source to do that, the GPL prohibits them from legally distributing binaries until they receive permission from the original author(s)) BTW, this is not a bug in the GPL. it is a feature. it was deliberately designed this way in order to prevent Free Software from being stolen and made proprietary. this is one of the things which makes the GPL so valuable as a Free Software license. it guarantees that once free, always free. It can complicate things sometimes for free/non-free hybrids but it is a Good Thing. it is there to protect the interests of Free Software programmers and users. > I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various > efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows > environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully > because who knows what proprietary libraries might be linked to get > the port to work. Am I correct in this statement ? i doubt if this would affect windows ports at all. for one thing, there is a special exemption in the GPL which allows linking with libraries which come with the operating system. this was there so that GNU programs could be linked with Motif (which came with Solaris)...it applies equally to the libraries (DLLs) which come with windows. in any case, why would anyone *want* to port stuff to a dying, moribund toy operating system? sounds a bit far-fetched to me. :-) craig -- craig sanders
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 12:46:11PM -0700, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote: > I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various efforts to > port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows environments. Legally, this > would > imply stepping very carefully because who knows what proprietary libraries > might be linked to get the port to work. Am I correct in this statement ? There are exceptions for things that are included was part of the OS (ie, you can link against common dialog, common control, etc on windoze--but not on Linux where those things wouldn't be system libraries) That's a little unclear I know, but the GPL does spell out a special exception to make that possible. It's kosher to link Motif on Solaris, for example but not Linux since Solaris always includes Motif, but Linux does not. pgpquGsWrojvp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Geoffrey L. Brimhall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various > efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows > environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully > because who knows what proprietary libraries might be linked to get > the port to work. Am I correct in this statement ? The GPL contains a special clause so that you get to modify it for use on a proprietary system which someone else provided, as long as all users of that system would have access to that proprietary stuff. You can even distribute object code with proprietary pieces embedded in it, as long they're these essential sorts of pieces and anyone can have a copy. So you have to be careful, but not outrageously so. -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
> The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and links it > against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do if they provide > an kemacs. :-) I guess this is the part which I'm needing a bit more understanding with (because I've not been the best at interpreting the legalese of the gpl). My understanding is that you *don't* have to ask the original author of gpl code for permission to use it or modify it, so long as the modifications are themselves fully published under the GPL. Based on the above, if you did publish the modifications in the GPL, but the modifications required linking to a proprietary library, then this would be a violation unless the original authors were contacted and OK'd the publication. Correct ? I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully because who knows what proprietary libraries might be linked to get the port to work. Am I correct in this statement ?
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 10:43:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx > > project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too > > much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it > > and opt to do the right thing. They may not, however. We'll see. It > > all depends really on who wrote what I suppose. > > Hmm.. did they agree ahead of time that the license could be changed > with a vote? If Mathias is a significant author, and he disagrees with > the license change, he has a right to object. Granted he does.. However, he's going to look like a complete ass if everyone but him wants to do the right thing and he won't. pgpoECkSUgiuT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx > project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too > much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it > and opt to do the right thing. They may not, however. We'll see. It > all depends really on who wrote what I suppose. Hmm.. did they agree ahead of time that the license could be changed with a vote? If Mathias is a significant author, and he disagrees with the license change, he has a right to object. -- Raul
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > > Lyx is currently in contrib. > > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically > >linked against a non-free library (libforms) . > > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE > >statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of > >Lyx. For instance, these binaries use .h files from libforms. > > Unlike KDE, it may be all original code, so that a single change > >of license from the developers will do. > > Boy, Mathias Ehtrich is going to think we have something against him. :) He's going to think that anyway. Do we not do the right thing just because one person is going to think it's personal? pgpxkgq1oikcm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 11:19:19AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > Lyx does not go away just because there is a bug against it. When the bug > is filed the maintainer has reasonable opportunity to fix it, or if not > possible, to forward it upstream and let the upstream maintainers take a > crack at it. There's probably plenty of other problematic packages in contrib too, as Raul has been telling us for a while. www-mysql, for example, although it'll move in to main once I reupload it (since mysql-base is in main now). Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org pgpEHX7s6Ipc6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:16:01PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > >There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give > >permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to > >be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and > >that the KDE people did not want to make the needed changes. Has anyone > yet > >contacted the lyx people? > > I wonder why you are so sure of that, the originall author of Lyx was > Mathias Ehtrich, who also happens to be the head of KDE. Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it and opt to do the right thing. They may not, however. We'll see. It all depends really on who wrote what I suppose. pgpgY6fv8hXrl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
-Original Message- From: Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: >> > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? >> >> Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about >> these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone >> working on a gtk version. Is there anything out there? > >There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give >permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to >be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and >that the KDE people did not want to make the needed changes. Has anyone yet >contacted the lyx people? I wonder why you are so sure of that, the originall author of Lyx was Mathias Ehtrich, who also happens to be the head of KDE. Shaya
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:51:29PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > > Boy, Mathias Ehtrich is going to think we have something against him. :) So it was not only me who get the impression, reading between the lines. Marcus -- "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
-Original Message- From: John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lyx is currently in contrib. > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically >linked against a non-free library (libforms) . > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE >statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of >Lyx. For instance, these binaries use .h files from libforms. > Unlike KDE, it may be all original code, so that a single change >of license from the developers will do. Boy, Mathias Ehtrich is going to think we have something against him. :) Shaya
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Joseph Carter wrote: > > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to > > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify > > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about > > it. > > That's what I feared. Bye-bye LyX. > > [flamefest from Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] I hope the situation is not as grim as it may sound. Try talking to other developers on the LyX list, not to Matthias. Yes, he founded the project, and is working on KLyX, but I don't think he has any final say on the matter. I believe that the other LyX Team are a lot nicer and a lot more reasonable to discuss with. Cheers, Anthony -- Anthony Fok Tung-LingCivil and Environmental Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]University of Alberta, Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep smiling! *^_^* Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://olvc.home.ml.org/ or http://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/OLVC/
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On 10-Oct-98 John Lapeyre wrote: > one) The fltk author says that he is not working towards compatibility > with forms. > I can't get through to the site now to get the exact statement. I remember that when I was going to port a xforms program I have so I could upload it... I didn't want it in contrib or non-free :( Mine won't port. = * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++> P+++$ L++>* * * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* =
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 12:44:35PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > Good, please let us know what you hear back. => Sure will. > If I was able to imply it, the KDE people certainly would have. I don't > want them to have any excuse for twisting words so they read what they want > to read into them. I agree. Should have worded my argument more clearly. 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give > > permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to > > be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and > > that the KDE people did not want to make the needed changes. Has anyone yet > > contacted the lyx people? > > Yes, me. Good, please let us know what you hear back. => > > This is not, I repeat -NOT- about whether or not we can replace KDE with > > Gnome or we can replace lyx with anything else. We should try to convince > > the lyx people to make the changes we need to allow us to keep lyx, just as > > we tried with KDE. > > Please read my statement. I never said this is about replacements. I just > said we should try to keep it because it is important IMO. Not that we > didn't try with KDE though. If I was able to imply it, the KDE people certainly would have. I don't want them to have any excuse for twisting words so they read what they want to read into them. > > I agreed that KDE needed to be removed because of the license problems, NOT > > because it was non-free code or anything so petty. > > No one said that. Good, glad that's clear to most sensable people now. => pgpy6ToVJFJAp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:52:21AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give > permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to > be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and > that the KDE people did not want to make the needed changes. Has anyone yet > contacted the lyx people? Yes, me. > > IMO we should try to keep lyx. Or do we have an alternative to offer? With > > kde we could say try gnome which IMO is much better anyway. > > This is not, I repeat -NOT- about whether or not we can replace KDE with > Gnome or we can replace lyx with anything else. We should try to convince > the lyx people to make the changes we need to allow us to keep lyx, just as > we tried with KDE. Please read my statement. I never said this is about replacements. I just said we should try to keep it because it is important IMO. Not that we didn't try with KDE though. > I agreed that KDE needed to be removed because of the license problems, NOT > because it was non-free code or anything so petty. No one said that. 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to > > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify > > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about > > it. Once again. This won't be able to stand in court. > > Yeah, file the bug report, highest priority level due to the ethical > > implications. Remove almost 4 years hard work of more than 20 people who > > offer > > the (right now) only usable free document processor for unix. Seems he is frustrated isn't he? > > Clearly LyX has been written by scratch but we in the LyX team accepted > > GPL'ed > > patches without signed written permissions of the authors to distribute > > binaries linked to XForms. Shame on us, not LyX has licensing problems! Sorry that one doesn't hold against legal inspections. These authors submitted patches designed to be included into LyX. After all most patches don't have a copyright notice at all. They were made to be put into LyX implicitely accepting LyX copyright. To the best of my knowledge no GPLed code written for completely different programs was included without asking. Once again this is a major difference to KDE. > > I will remove it from my hard disk immediately. Damn, four years hacking > > for me > > and a aresult it's no longer usable for Debian > > > > What a great day! Luckily I have an invitation for dinner to celebrate it > > :-) Why can't this guy be serious. It's so easy to change the copyright. > > It's getting harder and harder to take Debian serious. Sorry, but I've always had problems taking these guys serious. :-) 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has > > > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing... > > > > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to > > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify > > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about > > it. > > That's what I feared. Bye-bye LyX. Possibly, but not just yet, see below... > Matthias Ettrich wrote: > > From: Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?] > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >LyX is in contrib. I don't have it installed, but if it is licensed > > >under the GPL, then you're probably right, and you're free to file a bug > > >report against it. If you don't want to do so, then I'll check it out > > >and file the bug report myself if needed. > > > > LyX is buggy, it has licensing problems (unless you compile it yourself). > > > > Yeah, file the bug report, highest priority level due to the ethical > > implications. Remove almost 4 years hard work of more than 20 people who > > offer > > the (right now) only usable free document processor for unix. > > > > Clearly LyX has been written by scratch but we in the LyX team accepted > > GPL'ed > > patches without signed written permissions of the authors to distribute > > binaries linked to XForms. Shame on us, not LyX has licensing problems! > > > > I will remove it from my hard disk immediately. Damn, four years hacking > > for me > > and a aresult it's no longer usable for Debian > > > > What a great day! Luckily I have an invitation for dinner to celebrate it > > :-) > > > > It's getting harder and harder to take Debian serious. > > > > > > Matthias Lyx does not go away just because there is a bug against it. When the bug is filed the maintainer has reasonable opportunity to fix it, or if not possible, to forward it upstream and let the upstream maintainers take a crack at it. Matthias needs someone to smack him upside with an iron cluebat, several times. We gave KDE a chance to fix their problem. We'll give the same to Lyx. Matthias is TRYING to provoke us. I for one refuse to be. But I'll file the bug against ftp.debian.org to remove lyx if I must myself. It hasn't come to that yet. pgpGFMhL1Fg0f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing... I do and needless to say I have some problems with this person. Just check his mail we got forwarded from the KDE list. But there are different people in charge now. And he's not that very well liked with the lyx team either since his creation of klyx. 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Joseph Carter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Craig Sanders wrote: > > > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a > > > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks > > > rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the > > > request or choose not to change their license then we have to yank the > > > software. > > > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has > > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing... > > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about > it. That's what I feared. Bye-bye LyX. Matthias Ettrich wrote: > From: Matthias Ettrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: LICENSES [was: Re: Have you seen this?] > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >LyX is in contrib. I don't have it installed, but if it is licensed > >under the GPL, then you're probably right, and you're free to file a bug > >report against it. If you don't want to do so, then I'll check it out > >and file the bug report myself if needed. > > LyX is buggy, it has licensing problems (unless you compile it yourself). > > Yeah, file the bug report, highest priority level due to the ethical > implications. Remove almost 4 years hard work of more than 20 people who offer > the (right now) only usable free document processor for unix. > > Clearly LyX has been written by scratch but we in the LyX team accepted GPL'ed > patches without signed written permissions of the authors to distribute > binaries linked to XForms. Shame on us, not LyX has licensing problems! > > I will remove it from my hard disk immediately. Damn, four years hacking for > me > and a aresult it's no longer usable for Debian > > What a great day! Luckily I have an invitation for dinner to celebrate it :-) > > It's getting harder and harder to take Debian serious. > > > Matthias Regards, Joey -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Joseph Carter wrote: > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has > > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing... > > It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to I know. But it may end up in the same flame fest However I don't hope so and since there are others who are actively developing LyX there is a little chance. Let's see what happens. > link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify > their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about > it. Of course, they deserve a chance to correct the license. I would be the last who would try to keep them from doing that. Regards, Joey -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 01:08:28PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > Craig Sanders wrote: > > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a > > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks > > rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the > > request or choose not to change their license then we have to yank the > > software. > > I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has > founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing... It's irrelevant. Lyx is free code using a license that does not allow us to link it with non-free code. We can't distribute it if they won't modify their license. But like KDE, they deserve a chance to do something about it. pgp6zXVig5wlG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote: > > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? > > Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about > these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone > working on a gtk version. Is there anything out there? There has been some talk on gnome-list of a gtk port. When it was last mentioned, a member of the LyX team said that they were working on a toolkit-independent layer. Once that is done, supposedly, it will be ported to other toolkits. There is definitely some interest in porting it to gtk (& probably gnome). This says to me that the LyX folks are at least aware of some toolkit issues. They should still be contacted on the license stuff, I'd say.. I doubt that the toolkit-independence will be done very soon, and they should be notified anyway.. Peter -- Peter Teichman (Parenthetic Me) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, Oct 10, 1998 at 09:20:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? > > Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about > these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone > working on a gtk version. Is there anything out there? There are those possibilities, but the lyx people will probably give permission for linking with libforms since they clearly intend for that to be done. The biggest problem with KDE was outside code that was ported and that the KDE people did not want to make the needed changes. Has anyone yet contacted the lyx people? > IMO we should try to keep lyx. Or do we have an alternative to offer? With > kde we could say try gnome which IMO is much better anyway. This is not, I repeat -NOT- about whether or not we can replace KDE with Gnome or we can replace lyx with anything else. We should try to convince the lyx people to make the changes we need to allow us to keep lyx, just as we tried with KDE. I agreed that KDE needed to be removed because of the license problems, NOT because it was non-free code or anything so petty. pgpkowzbjAC9U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Craig Sanders wrote: > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks > rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the > request or choose not to change their license then we have to yank the > software. I wonder if you know that LyX is founded by the same person who has founded KDE some years later. Not that this has to imply anyghing... Regards, Joey -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 09:35:19PM -0700, John Lapeyre wrote: > Lyx is currently in contrib. > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically > linked against a non-free library (libforms) . > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE > statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of > Lyx. For instance, these binaries use .h files from libforms. Not exactly. The big problem with KDE is not that they use GPL and have no exception for qt. Every judge in the world would see this as a minor mistake by non-laywers. Also this mistake cannot be enforced since it would mean not using the software anymore. Why should they want that? The big problem is that KDE includes GPLed code without asking and links it against qt. That is a not legal. I wonder what RMS would do if they provide an kemacs. :-) Lyx on the other hand does not do that. > Unlike KDE, it may be all original code, so that a single change > of license from the developers will do. Oops, should have read it completely. :-) 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:14:06PM -0700, Darren Benham wrote: > Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? Just try and you see it won't compile. But I have not much knowledge about these toolkits so maybe someone can easily port it. Also I remember someone working on a gtk version. Is there anything out there? IMO we should try to keep lyx. Or do we have an alternative to offer? With kde we could say try gnome which IMO is much better anyway. 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: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Darren Benham wrote: gecko>Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? I haven't tried. But I read the fltk docs on the subject last week, and the upshot was that most large packages would take a good deal of work to port. eg, there is no canvas widget. (I don't know if lyx uses one) The fltk author says that he is not working towards compatibility with forms. I can't get through to the site now to get the exact statement. John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
Has it been verified that lyx can't be linked against fltk? On 10-Oct-98 Craig Sanders wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote: > >> Lyx is currently in contrib. >> Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically >> linked against a non-free library (libforms) . >> According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE >> statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of >> Lyx. For instance, these binaries use .h files from libforms. >> Unlike KDE, it may be all original code, so that a single change >> of license from the developers will do. >> >> Am I missing something ? > > nope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses > concerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and > non-free). > > imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a > request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks > rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the > request or choose not to change their license then we have to yank the > software. > > craig > > -- > craig sanders > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > = * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * * -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- ---* *Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++> P+++$ L++>* * * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+* * * --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- ---* =
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote: cas>nope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses cas>concerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and cas>non-free). libforms is definitely no-source (so its not GPL'd !) /usr/doc/lyx/copyright definitly says that it is distributed under the GPL. John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
Re: KDE gone, Lyx next ?
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, John Lapeyre wrote: > Lyx is currently in contrib. > Lyx is licensed under the GPL (version 2) . It is dynamically > linked against a non-free library (libforms) . > According to the GPL and our interpretation of it in the KDE > statement, this means we should not be distributing (binaries at least) of > Lyx. For instance, these binaries use .h files from libforms. > Unlike KDE, it may be all original code, so that a single change > of license from the developers will do. > > Am I missing something ? nope. sounds right to me (but i haven't looked at the licenses concerned, just going from memory of libxforms being no-source and non-free). imo, we should grant Lyx the same courtesy we did KDE. send them a request to change their license, and give them some time (say a few weeks rather than the months that KDE got) to change. if they ignore the request or choose not to change their license then we have to yank the software. craig -- craig sanders
