Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source?
Hi, Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source? Thanks, Nathan
Re: Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source?
No but you have to look at the licenses for the libraries thay you use. They may have restrictions. David Simon Senior Counsel Phone 408 765 8244 Cell 408 464 2533 Fax 408 765 1621 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat Oct 28 08:24:30 2000 Subject: Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source? Hi, Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source? Thanks, Nathan
Re: Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source?
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source? Absolutely not. Thanks, Nathan -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
revised GPL?
Does anybody have any information on the status of the next version of the GPL that I have been hearing rumors about? (Sorry in advance about the stupid confidentiality banner!) Laura A. Majerus Fenwick West LLP 2 Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: 650-858-7152 Fax:650-494-1417 http://www.fenwick.com ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION: The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential. It is intended only to be read by the individual or entity named above or their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Fenwick West LLP by telephone at (650) 494-0600 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
Re: Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source?
Do programs compiled with a GNU compiler have to be open source? No! There are commercial projects made with GNU compilers which aren't open source. But be careful if you use more than only the plain compiler, some libs, for example, may have different licenses. I hope this response is helpful to you Sven
Nupedia Open Content License
Nupedia Open Content Encyclopedia aims to be a general purpose encyclopedia, a true multi-national effort to generate a high quality, unbiased, and *free* Encyclopedia. I would like to invite people to read and critique the Nupedia Open Content License, which you may read at: http://www.nupedia.com/license.shtml Our goal is to have a license which meets the spirit and letter of the Open Source Definition. We are currently using a hybrid license of the opencontent.org and dmoz.org licenses. As I understand it, many "content" licenses are designed in a non-open fashion, in that that they discriminate against paper publication. You can redistribute freely online, but when you go to print, you have to negotiate a license. The idea seems to be that authors can make money from print versions. Nupedia is envisioned as a resource for everyone in the world. One of my greatest dreams is to see competitive publishers distributing the paper encyclopedia to all the nations of the world for little more than the cost of printing. I have read that something like 1/3 of the population of the world, nearly 2 billion people, do not have access to safe drinking water. Obviously, they don't have computers, either. But I want them to be able to afford a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia. The only restriction on use and reuse that we seek, and I hope that this is consistent with Open Source ideals, is that when people use the content on the web, they are required to provide a hypertext link back to the original project. The idea here is to make the project "viral". When Altavista or Yahoo or someone important like that picks up the content to make their own branded encyclopedia, that's *great*. We want them to do that, and for free. The only thing we ask is that each page derived from our content carry a linkback to us. This system has worked very well for the http://www.dmoz.org/ Open Directory Project. They get a large amount of publicity and new volunteers from links back from the search engines that use their data. I seek any and all input, because I believe that one of the most important determinants of the success of this project is our credibility within the open source movement. Therefore, we want to proceed in a spirit of openness and dialogue with *everyone*. This project is for everyone. --Jimbo
Re: revised GPL?
on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Laura Majerus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Does anybody have any information on the status of the next version of the GPL that I have been hearing rumors about? (Sorry in advance about the stupid confidentiality banner!) The best source of information on this would be Richard Stallman himself. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My understanding is that GPL v.3 has been under discussion for the past couple of years. Red Hat and IBM, among others, have been involved in the discussions, though I don't know of specific contacts at either company, or other participants in the discussion. Progress is slow. This may not be a bad thing. Principle points under consideration, as I understand, are: - Strengthening or weakening scope of GNU GPL transmission to derivative works. Currently this is based on the "link-layer boundary" -- linking to GPL'd code is considered to produce a derivative work. New programming models change some of the fundamental assumptions. - Specific consideration of new/emerging technologies and trends. In particular web-based applications, COM (common object model) software, and embedded systems. - Patent and trademark language. - Dual licensing. Stallman has said that while he won't (and cannot) change the fundamental nature of the GPL, he may make modifications in the spirit of the GPL to accomplish its goals in a changing environment. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: revised GPL?
Your message has engaged my curiosity. Why are discussions about open source/FSF licenses being held in secret? It seems to me that we all should be informed of not only the status of these discussions, but also the folks who are doing 'the discussing.' I know IBM has a license, but it seems odd to hear that they are an insider on an issue as important as this one is for the open source movement. Please enlighten us further. Rod - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 6:32 PM Subject: Re: revised GPL?
Re: revised GPL?
on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 07:18:28PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Your message has engaged my curiosity. Why are discussions about open source/FSF licenses being held in secret? It seems to me that we all should be informed of not only the status of these discussions, but also the folks who are doing 'the discussing.' I know IBM has a license, but it seems odd to hear that they are an insider on an issue as important as this one is for the open source movement. Please enlighten us further. The discussions aren't, AFAIK, secret. I'm not close to the process, so I'm not particularly familiar with what arrangements have been made. Stallman and Eben Moglen (the FSF's attorney) tend to prefer having people come to them to talk rather than the other way around -- it's easier to deal with someone who's convinced that what you're doing is of interest to them, to having to convince them first. The FSF's usual communications channels are their website(s), the gnu.* Usenet discussions. GPL issues are usually announced on gnu.misc.discuss, though RMS doesn't typically get involved in discussions there, and there are a number of long-standing trolls who make conversations somewhat painful. Though the FSF does have a PR firm (Leslie Proctor at Alexadner Ogilvy), I imagine their budget is fairly thin. Discussion of GPL v.3 has been ongoing for several years, and RMS does post occasional updates. Again, he or the FSF would be the best source of additional information. ...and we haven't even mentioned the CLWG ;-P [1] -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/http://www.kuro5hin.org [1] CLWG: The Common Licensing Working Group. Formed after the 1999 O'Reilly Perl / Open Source Conference, as a forum for larger commercial organizations and free software community to discuss licensing issues, with a desired outcome of identifying a set of relatively standard or common licensing terms. Not formally disbanded, but largely inactive for most of this year, with several of the key members announcing dual-licensing initiatives, frequently including the GNU GPL or LGPL among licensing options. The group was, again, not wholly secret, but as I liked to describe it "A shadowy foundation operating on the edge of the law" (OK, all you Knight Rider fans, come out of the closet NOW). Just remember, there *is* no K5 Cabal. PGP signature
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
On Saturday 28 October 2000 01:43 pm, Jimmy Wales wrote: The only restriction on use and reuse that we seek, and I hope that this is consistent with Open Source ideals, is that when people use the content on the web, they are required to provide a hypertext link back to the original project. The idea here is to make the project "viral". When Altavista or Yahoo or someone important like that picks up the content to make their own branded encyclopedia, that's *great*. We want them to do that, and for free. The only thing we ask is that each page derived from our content carry a linkback to us. Okay, some points: "You may not charge a fee for the sole service of providing access to and/or use of the Content via a network" Why not allow someone to charge for the service? Presumably the server upon which the content is based cost some money to operate. The content itself is still free beer. The problem I have with guaranteeing the free beer status of Nupedia is that there will be derivative works. You would be prohibiting authors from making money off of the "cat" article, even though they only quoted Nupedia in the "czar" article. Bob Young can sell Redhat for $80, but could only sell a CD of Nupedia for around $2. "Attribution Requirement" I have nothing againt attribution requirements personally. But I recall decades during which the BSD license had an attribution requirement which the FSF called "obnoxious". And will there be exceptions for schoolchildren doing homework :-) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Content or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole" I am still somewhat disatisfied that the GPL didn't elaborate on this, and I wish you would. If volume C used a sentence from Nupedia, then is volume Z under legal control by Bomis Inc? If all volumes shipped together? What if they were on a monthly subscription service? "Exceptions are made to this requirement to release modified works free of charge under this license only in compliance with Fair Use law where applicable" Fair Use is kept deliberately nebulous in law. It would be good if you explicitely listed some example of Fair Use. How much can I quote in a term paper before the license kicks in? Are there any additional privileges for educational use? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
