> From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> USC Title 17, Ch.1, Sec. 101, Definitions
>
> A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> reproduc
Maury Markowitz writes:
> if I have written concent from the authors in question to build a GUI
> shell is that OK regardless of the vagrity of the license in this regard?
Yes, of course.
> And who _are_ the authors in the case of GPL'ed code?
Who are the authors of any code? The terms of the l
On 11-Jun-99, 14:03 (CDT), Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing
> a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that
> shell script is not made public? I can see no difference between a
> GUI shell a
Bruce Perens writes:
> The GPL doesn't define guidelines for what is a derived product and what is
> not.
It doesn't need to. The law already does:
USC Title 17, Ch.1, Sec. 101, Definitions
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Even further, if the group (Foo Bar et al) publishes a paper for
> which the modified program was used, can I demand the changes to be
> published, based on the fact I would have evidence (because of the
> "et al") the program was redistributed? (I a
He means well but needs a bit of license education. He should reproduce the
metafont license in a file in his font distribution, he should note that the
font is under the metafont license, and he should add that the _modifications_
he has made are donated to the public domain.
Thanks
Hi,
I've been meaning to ask this for quite a while, but I haven't found
the time to sit down and actually write something.
As part of my research, I'm writing a program that I think will be useful to
other people in the astronomical/astrophysical community. I want to license
this progra
Lots of excellent info, thanks everyone.
So far the basic answer appears to be "no one knows, because the
definition of derived is too vague".
I'm still a little curious about it though. I assume that writing
a shell script that calls GPL'ed code is OK, right? Even if that
shell scr
I am packaging the PS type 1 fonts for TIPA. They are distributed along
with the README file below. The author mentions "public domain" but he
"feels" something about the Metafont license. I think that the licensing
conditions are DFSG compliant. Could someone please confirm it? (Cc: to
me, a
The GPL doesn't define guidelines for what is a derived product and what is
not.
Consider the problem of CORBA. It makes it possible to use a library that is
not tied into your application, and is not in your address space, as if it
were a static or shared library.
I'm hoping that GPL 3 will have
Steve Greenland writes:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
> that would be a derived work?
I would say no. RMS disagrees.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 00:22:37 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Really? If I write a GUI that uses dpkg *only* via
>
> 'system("dpkg --command arg");'
>
> that would be a derived work?
A similar discussion comes up on gnu.misc.discuss regularly regarding
linking against a GPLed library like re
On 10-Jun-99, 21:39 (CDT), Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If YoyoDyne wants to put a GUI wrapper around the dpkg, what then?
> > Does making a GUI wrapper for the product become a case of
> > "incorporating" it into a propietary system?
From: Maury Markowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm curious about using GPL'ed software in a supporting role for
> non-GLP software. Let's say YoyoDyne takes the Debian installer
> verbatum and uses it to install the next version of their propietary
> InternetDestructor 5.x. Is this legally acce
14 matches
Mail list logo
