Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Mark W. Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The motif code in emacs is relatively new, and totally cosmetic. Hm... in that case, I'm surprised it's there at all. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> emacs needed to work with motif to run on proprietary operating systems Uhh, that's deep into fantasy land. Emacs didn't use *any* widget set until emacs19, and emacs18 worked all over the place (and the problems it had on newer platforms had far more to do with memory allocation than window system.) The motif code in emacs is relatively new, and totally cosmetic. I'll try and find out from some FSF people if there was anything that specifically made Motif fit in that extension class [which, as I recall, was specifically written to let you link against *libc* on a proprietary system!] or if it was just availability combined with people actually writing GPLed code that used it... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 14:17 28/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, >> but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the box for >> Motif. They would never do that for Qt, which would be "free" to compile >> with, but Motif, which would cost each compiler $$$, they do it with. > >emacs needed to work with motif to run on proprietary operating systems ? It's seems to run fine with normal athena widgets on linux. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, > but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the box for > Motif. They would never do that for Qt, which would be "free" to compile > with, but Motif, which would cost each compiler $$$, they do it with. emacs needed to work with motif to run on proprietary operating systems (before linux, the concept of a non-proprietary operating system was just an FSF fantasy). -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 13:09 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Richard Braakman wrote: >> >The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the >> >shipped-with-the-OS clause. (This closes a large loophole). >> >So if Motif is considered a standard part of the Red Hat OS, then >> >everyone *except* Red Hat can distribute such a program. > >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I apologize in advance for anyone who thinks I'm trolling, but wouldn't that >> fail the discrimination part of the DFSG? > >Richard has oversimplified that clause. It really says that you can't >distribute such a binary with the "commonly available" non-free >component. > >In any event, the discrimination isn't on who gets to use the software, >but on what exceptions are being made to the "source code availability >is required when you distribute binaries" clause. In all cases where >it's ok to distribute, you can distribute to anyone. > >The discrimination part of the DFSG is about making sure that you can >distribute to anyone. oh, Ok. > >[If you already understood that then, yes, you were trolling.] No I didn't know that, I read through the GPL once, 2 summers ago, so I don't have a clear recollection of it. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 13:04 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But you did need a special license to compile for Motif. > >Good point. which is my point on, the fact that it's a little hypocritical (not very, but a little), for the FSF to make emacs compilable out of the box for Motif. They would never do that for Qt, which would be "free" to compile with, but Motif, which would cost each compiler $$$, they do it with. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 13:04 27/04/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, >> >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared >> >> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone >> >> would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it >> >> would stand up. > >At 04:14 PM 4/26/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> >FUD. > >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why is this FUD? > >Only the courts get to decide what would stand up in court. [And >then usually in a limited context.] > >"Giving up on the GPL before it's been tested because you don't know if >it would stand up in court" is explicitly based on doubt, uncertainty >and/or fear. Actually, IMO, if I would be the author of a piece of a code, a license I have a doubt in, is not a good license. When I license my software, I want their to be no doubts on what's legal and not legal to do with it. I license that causes doubts, IMO, has problems. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Richard Braakman wrote: > >The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the > >shipped-with-the-OS clause. (This closes a large loophole). > >So if Motif is considered a standard part of the Red Hat OS, then > >everyone *except* Red Hat can distribute such a program. Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I apologize in advance for anyone who thinks I'm trolling, but wouldn't that > fail the discrimination part of the DFSG? Richard has oversimplified that clause. It really says that you can't distribute such a binary with the "commonly available" non-free component. In any event, the discrimination isn't on who gets to use the software, but on what exceptions are being made to the "source code availability is required when you distribute binaries" clause. In all cases where it's ok to distribute, you can distribute to anyone. The discrimination part of the DFSG is about making sure that you can distribute to anyone. [If you already understood that then, yes, you were trolling.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But you did need a special license to compile for Motif. Good point. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, > >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared > >> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone > >> would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it > >> would stand up. At 04:14 PM 4/26/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > >FUD. Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is this FUD? Only the courts get to decide what would stand up in court. [And then usually in a limited context.] "Giving up on the GPL before it's been tested because you don't know if it would stand up in court" is explicitly based on doubt, uncertainty and/or fear. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Richard Braakman wrote: >Shaya Potter wrote: >> What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's >> own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a >> GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? > >The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the >shipped-with-the-OS clause. (This closes a large loophole). >So if Motif is considered a standard part of the Red Hat OS, then >everyone *except* Red Hat can distribute such a program. I apologize in advance for anyone who thinks I'm trolling, but wouldn't that fail the discrimination part of the DFSG? Shaya (who likes what the GPL is trying to do, but thinks it has some problems) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 04:14 PM 4/26/98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, >> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared >> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone >> would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it >> would stand up. > >FUD. Why is this FUD? Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 12:08 26-04-98 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You're probably thinking of xemacs. > >[Or, as other people have pointed out, emacs for systems where you >don't need a special license to be legally entitled to use motif.] But you did need a special license to compile for Motif. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, GPL or less restrictive as far as source code redistribution is > concerned. Right? Unless you want to discuss the particulars of license details, yes. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> There were really two issues brought up in this thread:
>
> (1) That the GPL required that other linked in software also
> be GPL licensed. This is false.
Well, GPL or less restrictive as far as source code redistribution is
concerned. Right?
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > > > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > > > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > > > > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > > > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of > > > Sections > > > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software > > > interchange; > > > > Note that Sections 1 and 2 do NOT require that all the source be > > licensed under the same terms. > > So what? You can't pick just the parts of the license you like. Please read what you just quoted. See where it says "or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"? That's where it's talking about the license required. Most of the rest is talking about the source disclosure requirement. In other words, I didn't pick just the parts of the license I like. The license explicitly refers to the definitions presented in sections 1 and 2. Or did you have some other point? > > I don't see any requirement that all code be relicensed under the > > GPL, only a "source code available" requirement (and even then > > not always, for proprietary operating systems). > > > > [I've taken the liberty of not quoting the rest of the stuff which > > basically just re-makes this point.] > > Ah, no. That was the part that made the point that > > *if you distribute binaries*, > > you have additional obligations. And Motif only fits if it's part of the > OS. Which, for Debian, it isn't. The additional obligation is that you be wiling to redistribute the source. There is *NO* obligation that you re-license Motif under the GPL. Any license which allows unrestricted access to the Motif source is fine. Thus, any DFSG compliant license is fine. Yes, there is a special exception to this rule, to make it legal for someone to distribute binaries for proprietary OSes. And, yes, it's clear that Motif on linux doesn't qualify. And, yes, I had earlier made a mistake and said that I thought it would be ok to distribute an emacs linked against Motif statically. There were really two issues brought up in this thread: (1) That the GPL required that other linked in software also be GPL licensed. This is false. (2) That the GPL prohibitted distribution of emacs binaries linked against Motif, with the current Motif license. This is true. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of > > Sections > > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software > > interchange; > > Note that Sections 1 and 2 do NOT require that all the source be > licensed under the same terms. So what? You can't pick just the parts of the license you like. > I don't see any requirement that all code be relicensed under the > GPL, only a "source code available" requirement (and even then > not always, for proprietary operating systems). > > [I've taken the liberty of not quoting the rest of the stuff which > basically just re-makes this point.] Ah, no. That was the part that made the point that *if you distribute binaries*, you have additional obligations. And Motif only fits if it's part of the OS. Which, for Debian, it isn't. MfG Kai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software > interchange; Note that Sections 1 and 2 do NOT require that all the source be licensed under the same terms. I don't see any requirement that all code be relicensed under the GPL, only a "source code available" requirement (and even then not always, for proprietary operating systems). [I've taken the liberty of not quoting the rest of the stuff which basically just re-makes this point.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> Please quote the relevant section.
With pleasure :)
> Meanwhile, here's an extract from the GPL that might interest you:
>
>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
>distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
>on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
>of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
>entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
>it.
The quote above is at the end of section 2 of GPL and applies only to section
2, while the following is a quote from section 3:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange;
and followed by
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
^^^
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
Thanks.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not exactly. GPL says that I can distribute a binary if it's source code > of it and all of it parts (and libraries used) is available under GPL. Please quote the relevant section. Meanwhile, here's an extract from the GPL that might interest you: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic
> > linkage from either Motif license or GPL point of view. (Well,
> > actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically
> > linked _shared_libraries_, for quite obvious reason - to prevent the
> > distribution of simple wrappers).
>
> The GPL has a clause that says you can only distribute a binary
> you got from compiling the program if you can do so in a fashion that
> all third parties can be licensed to do so at no charge. Because
> dynamically linked motif doesn't give you a license to use the program
> unless you own a motif library, this is a distinction.
Not exactly. GPL says that I can distribute a binary if it's source code
of it and all of it parts (and libraries used) is available under GPL.
(With well-known exception for the OS code and parts shipped with OS as an
essential part)
Since Motif source is not available under GPL, whether it is dynamic and
static linkage doesn't matter.
Thanks.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic > linkage from either Motif license or GPL point of view. (Well, > actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically > linked _shared_libraries_, for quite obvious reason - to prevent the > distribution of simple wrappers). The GPL has a clause that says you can only distribute a binary you got from compiling the program if you can do so in a fashion that all third parties can be licensed to do so at no charge. Because dynamically linked motif doesn't give you a license to use the program unless you own a motif library, this is a distinction. > Second, GPL prohibits distribution of emacs Linux binaries linked > with Motif either way. (And if it allowed, emacs-?motif would go to > contrib, not non-free). If Motif were commonly distributed to debian linux users, we could put it in contrib. [Except, with the current Motif license we couldn't ship a motif package and an emacs package together. Then again, with the current Motif license we can't ship a motif package.] But, now that I think about it, we'd be hard pressed to even put it in non-free. The "commonly available" exception wouldn't really apply to emacs-smotif.deb. However, if "red-hat linux" were considered an operating system which was distinct from "debian linux", we could probably distribute an emacs-smotif.rpm for "red-hat", but that's getting way outside our normal scope of operations. The existence of the alien package only underlies this lack of distinction. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif
> > > license for Linux.
> >
> > Looking...
> > And so???
> >
> > Way less restrictive as far as linking with the library is concerned.
>
> You're talking about dynamic linking or static linking? Debian can
> ship emacs if it's statically linked against Motif, but by our own
> policies it would have to go in non-free.
>
> If anyone could be licensed to use an emacs which is dynamically linked
> against Motif, then Debian could also ship this flavor of emacs.
Stop.
I am totally confused at this point. Are you sure in what you just said?
First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic linkage
from either Motif license or GPL point of view.
(Well, actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically linked
_shared_libraries_, for quite obvious reason - to prevent the distribution of
simple wrappers).
Second, GPL prohibits distribution of emacs Linux binaries linked with Motif
either way. (And if it allowed, emacs-?motif would go to contrib, not non-free).
Thanks.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif > > license for Linux. > > Looking... > And so??? > > Way less restrictive as far as linking with the library is concerned. You're talking about dynamic linking or static linking? Debian can ship emacs if it's statically linked against Motif, but by our own policies it would have to go in non-free. If anyone could be licensed to use an emacs which is dynamically linked against Motif, then Debian could also ship this flavor of emacs. I consider these to be Motif restrictions, not GPL restrictions, which is why I made my "If you think the GPL is wierd" comment. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif
> license for Linux.
Looking...
And so???
Way less restrictive as far as linking with the library is concerned.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality > is it's own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to > distribute a GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? Only if the result can "be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of" the GPL. > Essentially, I think that this part of the GPL is very vauge, and when > comes down to real legal terms is on the shaky side. If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif license for Linux. > As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, > from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared > libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone > would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it > would stand up. FUD. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter wrote: > What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's > own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a > GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? The GPL specifically forbids the OS vendor from making use of the shipped-with-the-OS clause. (This closes a large loophole). So if Motif is considered a standard part of the Red Hat OS, then everyone *except* Red Hat can distribute such a program. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, from a
> legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared libraries,
> "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone would really try to
> challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it would stand up.
>
> Shaya
Very good point!
Me too :)
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 09:40 26-04-98 -0600, James LewisMoss wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > >> components of a program being free, what with the large quantity > >> of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? > > Shaya> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute > Shaya> emacs linked or with the ability to link out of the box > Shaya> against Motif? > >Motif (and other 'normally distributed' libraries) on a system are an >exception to this rule else no glped program could be linked on a >system that uses it's standard libc (not gpled of course). Motif is >considered a standard part of many Unix installations, so linking with >Motif in that case is perfectly OK. (though of dubious legality on a >Linux installation actually (since Linux does not distribute Motif as >a standard part of the OS)). What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality is it's own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to distribute a GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian? Essentially, I think that this part of the GPL is very vauge, and when comes down to real legal terms is on the shaky side. As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license, from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it would stand up. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 09:28 26-04-98 -0400, Avery Pennarun wrote: >On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:06:56AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > >> Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems >> which get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). >> Which means that linking with Motif on Linux is not allowed. (I asked RMS >> directly about that and received the above response). > >Note that the GPL only restricts copying and redistribution. Once you have >a legal copy of the source, you can do whatever you want with it "in the >privacy of your own home." > >So you can make yourself an emacs-motif, if you own Motif, but Debian >couldn't distribute it. IANAL. > Does the FSF distribute a binary version of emacs for suns, linked against Motif? Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
At 09:06 26-04-98 -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: >> >My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the >> >components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of >> >programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? >> >> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or >> with the ability to link out of the box against Motif? >> >> Shaya > >Hi. > >Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems which >get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). Which means >that linking with Motif on Linux is not allowed. (I asked RMS directly >about that and received the above response). This leads to some kind of >discrimination, IMHO, which prefered to be ignored by our DFSG zealots. > However, those systems, I believe, don't come with a Motif development system out of the box (at least on HP-UX, cause a few years ago, I had problems compiling mosaic, had to install the special Motif tape to each system, after I installed the development environment). So it can also be viewed as, that they include the ability to link with Motif out of their tarball, but most people can't compile/link the program with Motif out of the box on their system. Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're probably thinking of xemacs. [Or, as other people have pointed out, emacs for systems where you don't need a special license to be legally entitled to use motif.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or > with the ability to link out of the box against Motif? You're probably thinking of xemacs. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:52:32 +0300 (IDT), Shaya Potter <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: >> My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the >> components of a program being free, what with the large quantity >> of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? Shaya> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute Shaya> emacs linked or with the ability to link out of the box Shaya> against Motif? Motif (and other 'normally distributed' libraries) on a system are an exception to this rule else no glped program could be linked on a system that uses it's standard libc (not gpled of course). Motif is considered a standard part of many Unix installations, so linking with Motif in that case is perfectly OK. (though of dubious legality on a Linux installation actually (since Linux does not distribute Motif as a standard part of the OS)). Qt, however, is _not_ a standard part of any Unix installation (except maybe a couple of Linux ones? SuSE?), so it doesn't fall under the 'normally distributed' clause (quoted below for fun). -- The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. -- The however part here is the important one. As to why we haven't seen any action: I'd bet none of the programs being Qtized are owned by the FSF and the authors haven't been informed for the programs (or they don't have a problem with it). Dres -- @James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Blessed Be! @http://www.dimensional.com/~dres | Linux is kewl! @"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:06:56AM -0400, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems > which get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). > Which means that linking with Motif on Linux is not allowed. (I asked RMS > directly about that and received the above response). Note that the GPL only restricts copying and redistribution. Once you have a legal copy of the source, you can do whatever you want with it "in the privacy of your own home." So you can make yourself an emacs-motif, if you own Motif, but Debian couldn't distribute it. IANAL. Have fun, Avery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
> >My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the
> >components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of
> >programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action?
>
> Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or
> with the ability to link out of the box against Motif?
>
> Shaya
Hi.
Linking with Motif of GPL'd software only allowed on operating systems which
get shipped with Motif as an essential part of it (like Solaris). Which means
that linking with Motif on Linux is not allowed. (I asked RMS directly
about that and received the above response). This leads to some kind of
discrimination, IMHO, which prefered to be ignored by our DFSG zealots.
Thanks.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 09:52:32AM +0300, Shaya Potter wrote: > Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or > with the ability to link out of the box against Motif? "linked or with the ability to be linked" -- perhaps that's the critical difference. I don't think FSF distributes binaries of emacs (do they?). They only release the source. Source is just data, and whether you need Motif to compile it into binary or not is your own problem. This is why I don't think the author of ncftp had any real legal problems allowing ncftp to be linked with readline (or even perhaps requiring it; I don't remember). If you don't distribute binaries of ncftp, you haven't used readline, and therefore you haven't upset the readline license. Similarly, if you don't distribute binaries of emacs-Motif or the (theoretical) kemacs, you haven't violated the emacs license. This puts Debian in a rather awkward position, since that's exactly what we want to do: distribute binaries of these programs. I still question anyway whether linking with a shared library makes a program a "derived work" but I don't feel like watching that argument again. Have fun, Avery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: >> David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? >> > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like >> > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that >> > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF's protection. So are >> > we missing something? >> >> If you'd manage to read the copyright on rpm, you'd see: >> >> (1) It's written by redhat, not fsf, > >I know, it was just an example. > >> (2) It's available both under GPL and LGPL. > >Bad example, apparently. There are plenty of others, I would assume. >Just popped into my head on the way out the door.. > >I guess I have learned my lesson about doing that:-( > >My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the >components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of >programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? Probably because it's allowed, doesn't the FSF distribute emacs linked or with the ability to link out of the box against Motif? Shaya -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the > components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of > programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? I don't know. Where are these large quantity of programs? Most likely, either: (a) they comply with the license terms for those programs, or (b) they don't, but the license holders haven't noticed, yet. Without specific cases it's hard to say. Every example I've seen so far fits in (a). -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 11:49:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF's protection. So are > > we missing something? > > If you'd manage to read the copyright on rpm, you'd see: > > (1) It's written by redhat, not fsf, I know, it was just an example. > (2) It's available both under GPL and LGPL. Bad example, apparently. There are plenty of others, I would assume. Just popped into my head on the way out the door.. I guess I have learned my lesson about doing that:-( My main point was this: if the GPL has this clause about the components of a program being free, what with the large quantity of programs being Qtized, why haven't we seen any action? Ciao, -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was, for those of you who are not mind readers, of course referring > to the Qt stuff. My mind was half out the door...:-> Oh.. er... I still don't understand what you were trying to say. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF's protection. So are > we missing something? If you'd manage to read the copyright on rpm, you'd see: (1) It's written by redhat, not fsf, (2) It's available both under GPL and LGPL. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing, was elvis package
On Fri, Apr 24, 1998 at 08:16:58PM -0700, David Welton wrote: > > So why haven't we seen this enforced, or has it happend but quietly? > I do note that there is no kemacs.., but there are things like > krpm.. hrm.. I'd have to look at the list, but... one would think that > at least RMS would enforce things under the FSF's protection. So are > we missing something? I was, for those of you who are not mind readers, of course referring to the Qt stuff. My mind was half out the door...:-> -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
