Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But this new view leads me to other interesting effects: (assuming we
> are talking about a close source driver, coming in binary form, but
> under the GPL, distributed by the copyright holder)
> * The driver is under the GPL, and since I want to u
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cf. the pine/UW attack which interpreted "right to modify and
> > distribute" as: You have the right to modify. You have the right to
> > distribute. You *don't* have the right to do both at once.
> So, you're saying that "and" on its own does
Hi,
Am Do, den 27.11.2003 schrieb Henning Makholm um 09:55:
> Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The GPL is all about what *you* have to do if *you* distribute. It
> does not in any way enable you to demand things from *others* who
> distribute, unless you happen to hold a copyright o
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 05:24:47AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2003, at 11:15, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> >So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
> >and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
> >of such complicated characters
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >1. You have the right to copy, modify, and/or distribute the work.
>
> > I don't know what "and/or" means, but I find it hard to imagine a
> > definition of "and/or" which would make this sentence mean that I have
> > clear and explicit permission to
Hi,
I think this is a reasonable conclusion that I fully agree.
If one is mean, he could try is to mail Atmel, saying them that for a
pretty large setup of WLAN-Cards, his company says that the complete
(i.e. with the firmware) drivers have to be under the GPL, and if they
answer "Yes, get ours,
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > #1 explicitly applies only to "the Program's source code", but #2
> > speaks generally about "the Program", source code or not.
>
> Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
> distributi
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Alex Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >1. You have the right to copy, modify, and/or distribute the work.
> I don't know what "and/or" means, but I find it hard to imagine a
> definition of "and/or" which would make this sentence mean that I
Scripsit Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now compare Atmel: They give me the binary with a note (called GPL),
> that I can get the source code from then,
No, that's not what the note says. The note says that you can
distribute the binary to your neighbour if you also give your
neighbour th
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you are distributing an executable or object code, that
> distribution is subject to Section 3. No other section of the GPL
> gives you rights to distribute executable or object code.
Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation wher
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Now compare Atmel: They give me the binary with a note (called GPL),
> that I can get the source code from then, the next 2 years at the
> expense of the copying (or something like that). If they don't do that,
> they are misleading the customer.
The GPL nowhere says that
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 01:00:17PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Obviously, you can only do this legally if you are, in fact, the author
> of that license.
Uh. the author of the Program, not the license :)
--
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-docu
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> >> Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
> >> why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
>
> > When bin
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 00:27, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
(...)
> > But if I just hand you a floppy disk with two files on it, program.exe
> > and COPYING, and ask nothing in return, what contract could of been
> > formed?
> Ok, your point seems valid here, especially in private business and in
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:42:23AM +0100, Pierre Gambarotto wrote:
> Some questions I have :
> _ is it possible to use the GPL with a modification, like : this code
> is distributed in GPL, but
> can be used with any apache licenced code.
Yes, you can do that. You should add a paragraph to your c
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> #1 explicitly applies only to "the Program's source code", but #2
> speaks generally about "the Program", source code or not.
Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
distribution under #1 (You may modify your copy or copies of the
P
On Nov 25, 2003, at 18:04, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm not sure that Fiest v Rural Telephone can lead us down this road.
It doesn't, not at all.
Assuming the font is a work of authorship (which many large or
relatively large bitmap and TT fonts are) claiming a copyright on it
is an entirely rea
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
> > precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
> > over, those bits must be assumed to be "the Program", and
On Nov 24, 2003, at 11:15, GOTO Masanori wrote:
So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
of such complicated characters.
Well, at the risk of starting a flame war, that says more about how
screwe
Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > 24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
> >> able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
> > Section 2 of the GP
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it has nothing to do with whether a promise is kept, but it does
> have something to do with if a legal promise ( = contract ) is made. A
> contract (at least in many places) needs an offering ("consideration")
> from both sides;
That is true
On Nov 26, 2003, at 21:59, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
binaries.
Section 2 says you may do so "under the terms of Section 1 above."
Section 1 grants rights to "copy and distribute verbatim copies of the
Program's source code"
On Nov 25, 2003, at 18:27, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Ok, your point seems valid here, especially in private business and in
isolated products (yet another text editor). But in this case, we are
talking about something I need to make the hardware run. And though I
didn't pay for the firmware, I p
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:09:15PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:04:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +,
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > [1 ]
> > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:52:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > > At Thu,
Alexander Cherepanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 19-Nov-03 13:25 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> >> Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just
> >> freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> Sounds ridi
Hi,
Am Di, den 25.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 21:27:
> On Nov 25, 2003, at 13:54, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> No, it has nothing to do with whether a promise is kept, but it does
> have something to do with if a legal promise ( = contract ) is made. A
> contract (at least in many places)
Hello everyone
I'm searching for a copyleft licence (to prevent abusive commercial
reuse) compatible
with the apache licence.
From what I've understood, the GPL is not compatible with the Apache
licence, because
of the clause of the Apache licence that force to advertise the Apache
foundatio
27 matches
Mail list logo
