From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> see how this can be a problem.
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless of whether
or not any other application uses it, and such copying is simple aggregation.
> Why
> Where would you like the discussion to head?
I'm sorry, but I don't see much sense in carrying it on any longer.
If asked, I'd have to state that there is _not_ a licensing problem with
dpkg and get_it. So far, I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
Thanks
Bruce
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Please keep trying then--but the discussion is headed the wrong way
> > right now.
>
> Where would you like the discussion to head?
Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
--
- Joseph Carter GnuPG
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:19:06PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless
> of whether or not any othe
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Where would you like the discussion to head?
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
How does my interpretation of copyright law make the G
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > > see how this can be a problem.
>
> I understand that this definition of "modifies" is rather technical,
> and thus non-intui
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> not present.
Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is
not present. Loss in functionallity, but parts will still work.
It more critically ceas
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:04:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > So it'd be perfectly okay for Corel to do something like setup their own
> > ftp site, that doesn't contain dpkg, but does contain their frontend,
> > and tell people to include both the Corel and Debian sites in their
> > apt sources
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
> > > > see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I understand that this definition of "modifies" is rather technical,
> > and thus non-i
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> > not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:33:36PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
> Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is not
> present. Loss i
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:55:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Where would you like the discussion to head?
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
>
> How does my interpretation of copyright law
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 11:28:00PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Finally, the reason I'm making an issue of this: I think it's reasonable
> for Ian to talk with Corel about the licensing of the Corel front end,
> while other people have claimed that it's not.
It's perfectly reasonable for Ian to ta
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:55:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > Where would you like the discussion to head?
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make
Raul Miller wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> But it matters for the Corel front end.
>
> What you're basically trying to show, I think, is that the Corel front
> end isn't a derivative work of dpkg.
>
> What I'm trying to show is that it is -- and I've offered two pieces of
> evidence that it is:
>
> (1) I
From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> not present.
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
stops functioning if you remove another component of the system. Copyright
law deals with copying.
You are graspi
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> *anxiously awaiting Brian's URL to the Nintendo v. Galoob thing which will
> hopefully settle this..*
>
Here's a page that explains Galoob V. Nintendo and similar cases. It doesn't
look like it's the same page that I read and base
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:11:12AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:09PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> >
> > *anxiously awaiting Brian's URL to the Nintendo v. Galoob thing which will
> > hopefully settle this..*
> >
>
> Here's a page that explains Galoob V. Nintendo
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:39:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (If this is the case, it might be a worthwhile service to separate main
> into `gpl' and `free', so that the things you can just willfully mix and
> match (the GPL stuff) is more clearly separated from the stuff you have
> to have a d
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Kernel is GPL. Everything is a derivative of the kernel under your
> interpretation. You can argue that Linus has allowed people to abuse the
> GPL of the kernel so it's okay, however I think this would cause the GPL
> to contaminate any distribution wh
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:56:30AM +, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> It's also distributed with bash, the Linux kernel, and so on. Is it a
> derivative of all the software on the CD?
I think this issue has already been discussed. Several times. But
maybe there isn't any sort of concise explanation,
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Should this interpretation of the GPL become dominant I believe we should
> > deprecate the GPL in favor of a license which does not skirt the letter of
> > the DFSG while violating its spirit in favor of some license which
> > d
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
> the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
Netscape owns it. Try combining MPL with MPL' where some other company
owns MPL', then imagine peop
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 07:42:12AM +0100, Gerhard Poul wrote:
>LPRng is distributed under the GNU software license for
>non-commercial use, the Artistic License for limited com
>mercial use. Commerical support and licensing is avail
>able through Patrick Pow
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
> QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
> requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
> you wind up with a b
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
> > QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
> > requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
> > you wind up
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> > not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an
> application stops functioning if you remove another co
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
> > the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
>
> Netscape owns it.
Owns what? Don't confuse the
The DEC Modula 3 compiler, and its descenedents, like the Polytechnique
Modula 3 compiler.
I vaguely remember that this program was non-free and worked with GCC
in some way, but I don't remember the details. I knew more about it
once upon a time, and if I thought at the time that there w
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
> > > the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Netscape owns it.
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at
Richard Stallman writes:
> What front-end is this? I know nothing about it as yet.
>
> If the GPL is being violated for GCC, the FSF needs to take action.
> But we need to know the facts first.
> Would someone please send me a description of the situation?
As I understand it, DEC SRC (now part o
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We're not asserting copyright on that command-line interface. We're
> asserting copyright on a derived work
There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind.
--
Henning Makholm"I stedet for at finde på en bedre plan havde de alle
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:20:43AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marcus> What the hell is "GNU/Debian linux"
>
> The jdk *as it stands* doesn't even support Hurd, so refering to it in
> a licence is pointless.
Of course I s
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't see much sense in carrying it on any longer.
> If asked, I'd have to state that there is _not_ a licensing problem with
> dpkg and get_it. So far, I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.
FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with thi
> Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
> /copy of/ get_it.
Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright law doesn't care
what programs do _when_they_run_ because it has no conce
Gerhard Poul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this is the last part of the lpc man page which is contained in
> debian-stable.=20
Why wasn't this on debian-legal? I'm moving it there.
> [...snip...]
>
>LPRng is distributed under the GNU software license for
>non-commercial use
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Yup. I want to see if he finds a difference where the Modula-3 compiler
is concerned. I think he _will_, because the compiler _must_ be using
GPL headers to work with the GCC back-end.
Thanks
I'd guess that Modula-3 compiler is including GPL headers to work with the
GPL back-end. Is there confirmation of that?
Thanks
Bruce
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yup. I want to see if he finds a difference where the Modula-3 compiler
> is concerned. I think he _will_, because the compiler _must_ be using
> GPL headers to work with the GCC back-end.
I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
push th
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
> push the intermediate code into the gcc backend. You wouldn't need
> headers to do that..
Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
out what the int
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg.
I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this
with gcc.
--
Raul
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I understand it, DEC SRC (now part of Compaq of course) released a
> Modula-3 frontend which uses GCC as a backend, with some kind of funny
> licence.
The backend (which I found at
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/Modula-3/release-3.6/m3cc.tar.gz
)
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
> Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
> out what the intermediate code _is_, and the result, if copied into a non-GPL
> program, would probably be an infringement.
But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 07:58:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
> > /copy of/ get_it.
>
> Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
> it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright l
> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> The Hurd will be able to run Linux binaries, not by
Marcus> emulation, simply by running them (only direct use of
Marcus> kernel syscalls need emulation). As Linux is not a defined
Marcus> term, referring to it d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
> Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
> out what the intermediate code _is_,
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
--
Henning Makholm"Kurt
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
> expressions of facts are.
Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate language?
Wichert.
--
_
/ General
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
> > That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
> > expressions of facts are.
>
> Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate languag=
> e?
No, file formats are not copyrig
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
> No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
> Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
> formats would be in violation of copyright.
We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop this thread, I
think all arguments have been mad
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gerhard Poul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >LPRng is distributed under the GNU software license for
> >non-commercial use, the Artistic License for limited com=AD
> >mercial use. Commerical support and licensing is avail=AD
> >
From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one could make
> a GPL'ed patch for gcc to make inserting intermediate code simple, and then
> write a proprietary tool to generate that code..
No, it'a already easy to insert intermediate code
From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The backend (which I found at
> ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/Modula-3/release-3.6/m3cc.tar.gz
> ) is not pure GCC; they add (=link) in an m3.c which begins with
>
> /* Copyright (C) 1993, Digital Equipment Corporation */
> /*
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
> > not present.
> Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
> stops functioning if you remove another com
52 matches
Mail list logo
