Michael K. Edwards wrote:
What part of "normally distributed ... with ... the operating system"
is confusing?
The license requires that the source code all of the pieces that
constitute a derivative work of some original piece of GPL code
must be provided. This would be the original GPL
Hopefully this continues to be interesting to debian-devel readers.
Perhaps replies should go to debian-legal; GMail doesn't seem to let
me set Followup-To, but feel free to do so if you think best.
I have copied Eben Moglen (General Counsel to the FSF) at Bruce's
suggestion. Mr. Moglen, I am
On re-reading the sequence of events, it looks like I was the one who
switched the context of the hypothetical reproducible build tools
obligation from GPL to LGPL. Bruce, my apologies for implying that
you were the one who switched contexts. So we seem to agree that the
support for this
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Hopefully this continues to be interesting to debian-devel readers.
It's not even interesting to me, and I hope that someone of greater
legal competence sets you right and ends the discussion.
The LGPL requires that the creator of a derivative work provide
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:26:01 -0800, Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The LGPL requires that the creator of a derivative work provide the object
code for relinking, and not prohibit relinking and reverse engineering. It
does not, however, require that creator to take other necessary steps
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Is that really JPEG? Or JTAG?
That's all we need, lossy ROM image compression :-) Yes, JTAG.
Thanks
Bruce
I'll try to address the Specht case and summarize, and we can call
this an end to the discussion if that's what you want.
Bruce You can read a case on the nature of consent such as Specht v. Netscape,
Bruce which might convince you that we don't necessarily get
sufficient consent on
Bruce the
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Agreed there needn't be development tools on the target system. But
the development system itself needs to be fully and accurately
specified, both among the participating distros and to the end users.
That's what it takes to satisfy the letter of the GPL, at
This probably belongs on debian-legal, but let's go one more round on
debian-devel given the scope of the LCC's potential impact on Debian.
(Personally, I'm more interested in the question of whether agreeing
to consecrate particular binaries contravenes a distro's commitment to
the Four Freedoms
9 matches
Mail list logo
