On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:10:51PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
At 09:42 PM 8/6/02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 03:02:59AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
The amount of money to be got from a unknowing non-commercial
infringer is also pretty limited.
The issue isn't how
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links
Psi does work perfectly well without libqssl1 installed. So I wouldn't
say it's linked with libqssl1.
Look at it this way: Psi, without qssl, surely is not a
Hi Grzegorz
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
Hello!
A friend of mine reminded me lately, that libreadline is GPL not LGPL
library so it can only be used in GPL-compatible software.
However AFAIK GPL is incompatible with MPL type licenses like IPL
used by FireBird
Richard Braakman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 08:50:11PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
You can also reason, if a program can cause a general purpose
processor to do the same thing as a dedicated hardware board
can do, and that board does something patentable, then the
program
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 05:00:22PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
No, that's really entirely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant
is whether we're violating IP laws or not, not whether patent holders
think we are, nor whether copyright holders don't really care.
Is it? That's easy: we are
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
Even then (if you could) - the user using such FireBird would be
violating GPL, as he would effectively link GPL-incompatible program to
GPLed library (he won't be able and/or will not want to use empty, stub
lib).
Is this really the case? IANAL, but I was under the
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 13:24:31 +0200, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
Now - I've had a bit of a further read, and from what I've read, it's
probably ok for me to build and to distribute my stuff, since I don't
distribute readline as well, but apparently the debate seems to be if
there is a
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:46:05AM +0200, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:32:35PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
psi uses a library, libqssl1 which is lgpl. However, since it links
Psi does work perfectly well without libqssl1 installed. So I wouldn't
say it's linked with
[sent only to debian-legal. Comments are program-independant]
Steve Langasek wrote:
Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a program.
But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird
that uses libreadline.
On further research,
Grzegorz Prokopski wrote:
I am afraid you're violating GPL this way. It doesn't matter if you
distribute this lib or not. The fact is that you use lib's headers
and use lib itself (while compiling and then linking the program).
Im not a lawyer, it's been intersting looking over the web on
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:01:39PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Ugh. And here I thought the whole point of a patent was to cover
a novel method of achieving something, not to grant a monopoly on
the thing to be achieved.
How naïve you are.
Welcome to the new capitalism.
Monopolies good.
CONFIDENTIAL U.K. FAX NUMBER: 44-870-1309342
Dear Sir,
Pardon me for starting this great proposal this way as it might surprise you.
My name is Yuvraj
Kailash a native of Nepal and attorney to the late king of Nepal who died as a
result of loss in
temper caused by an argument between him and
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
program.
But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a version of FireBird
that uses libreadline.
On further
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 09:17:21AM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
My question is this: some pieces of code have an approximately BSD license
but with a no-advertising clause, such as the following:
* Copyright (c) 1991, Visual Edge Software Ltd.
*
* ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
program.
But it would be illegal for Debian to *ship* a
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:45:32AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 08:53:18AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Users do not violate the GPL: the GPL does not govern use of a
program.
But it would be illegal
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
If a user were to make modifications to a local copy of the library,
then yes, it would have to be done in a way that complies with the
terms of the GPL.
The specific example of FireBird was a program (GPL-incompatible license,
Nick Phillips wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 02:01:31PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
So the user, exercising his right to modify FireBird, makes the 1-line
change (replace -leditline with -lreadline) to use GNU Readline. He
never distributes his modified FireBird++, but is in violation of the
GPL
On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 16:12, Joe Moore wrote:
Linking them doesn't create a combined work? (According to the GPL FAQ, it
does)
Yes, but it's not _creating_ a combined work (or a modified work, or
whatever), but _distributing_ it that is the issue.
--
Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:29:21PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename
anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to
replace this
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=20
I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
Which has been done,
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
Sure!
But why do you need that the TeX that John
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:26:30PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/.
Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the low
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:23:24PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Note that etex, omega and pdftex do not make this claim:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ etex
This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.3.7)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pdftex
This is pdfTeX, Version
26 matches
Mail list logo
