On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 03:05:20PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to discuss it first with people who have an
> objective view of the matter, instead of going directly to fight the
> dragon?
Which of these is debian?
--
Raul
From: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'll switch from talking about lib-apt to talking about dpkg, because
> that's the case at hand from my POV. Corel are distributing dpkg -
> ie, they are making copies. Making copies is something that copyright
> law says only the copyright holder may give
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henning Makholm writes ("Re: Corel's apt frontend"):
> I have given permission for Corel (and others) to make copies of dpkg
> according to the GPL, which makes the following restriction amongst
> others:
> 2...
> b) You must cause any work that yo
If I'm not mistaken, you are complaining that get_it calls "dpkg" using exec()?
The GPL's terms on use would not give you a claim against Corel in that case.
Thanks
Bruce
(Quick summary - Ian Jackson believes that Corel's new Apt frontend which
links to Qt and calls dpkg as an independent program is violating dpkg's
GPL license. (The violation of Apt's GPL license was solved by the authors
of Apt giving special extension.))
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 07:55:01PM +0100,
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 07:45:43PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I always wondered - if NeXT really had been serious about going
> > what would have stopped them from creating
> > - a proprietary, binary-only Objective-C plug-in?
> RMS argues that
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> Also, as best I know, the only time RSA permits its tecnology to be used is
> in not-for-profit programs compiled with the RSAREF library. Not all the
> programs in non-free do this.
But the programs that use RSA without RSAREF are in non-us, and using the
RSA algorithm
Henning Makholm writes ("Re: Corel's apt frontend"):
> The only way the copyright on lib-apt could become an issue at all
> is if there is something that is derivate of lib-abt.
No, that's not true in this case. Read on.
> "derivitate" is the magic word that makes the copyright holder have
> any
David Starner writes ("Re: Corel's apt frontend"):
> On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 01:58:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > However, of course, lib-apt isn't the only thing that is bound
> > together at run-time with Qt in this program. dpkg is too - the fact
> > that the interface is program call rathe
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 07:45:43PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > (This case seems similar to the one
> > > where Next wanted to ship GCC with their own Objective-C frontend, but
> > > not to release the frontend under the GPL. RMS had his laweyr
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (This case seems similar to the one
> > where Next wanted to ship GCC with their own Objective-C frontend, but
> > not to release the frontend under the GPL. RMS had his laweyrs write
> > to them and Next changed their mind.)
> But the frontend actua
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So the reason why they need a licence exemption isn't that
> their frontend is derivative of lib-apt, but rather that the copyright
> on lib-apt would require the `whole work' - ie, all the things which
> are bound together at runtime - to be licensed unde
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, of course, lib-apt isn't the only thing that is bound
> together at run-time with Qt in this program. dpkg is too - the fact
> that the interface is program call rather than dynamic linking is an
> irrelevant technical detail. (This case seems s
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 01:58:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> However, of course, lib-apt isn't the only thing that is bound
> together at run-time with Qt in this program. dpkg is too - the fact
> that the interface is program call rather than dynamic linking is an
> irrelevant technical detail.
I think there is something that is being forgotten here. Corel are
shipping several things, but presumably they are only dynamically
linked. So the reason why they need a licence exemption isn't that
their frontend is derivative of lib-apt, but rather that the copyright
on lib-apt would require t
15 matches
Mail list logo
