Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
>> mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
>> INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:28:18AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 09:49, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> >Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
> >one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
>
> There is a more than plausible argument that just about
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
> mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
> INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that script, there might be a
> problem. But tha
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:00, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> > I will
> > point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
> > INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
> > though it is under the MIT/X
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They had to receive it under the terms of the GPL. They also received
> AIE under the terms of the MIT X11 license. The work is sort-of
> dual-licensed, in the sense that the X11 license is compatible with
> the GPL.
Yes, but they can't distribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
>>> INVERT license.
>>>
>>> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that script
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >>That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
> >>derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
> >>plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
> >
> >It is the host t
On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:00, Måns Rullgård wrote:
There is a more than plausible argument that just about everything in
Debian violates a software patent.
Hmm, which one?
Plop a few random but recent patent numbers into the uspto web site.
See what comes up. Weep.
Is there some patent that
On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
>> INVERT license.
>>
>> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
>> mentioned before? If someone were to
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 09:49, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
>> Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
>> one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
>
> There is a more than plausible argument that just about everything in
> Debian
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
>>> derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
>>> plugin is a derivative work of the plugin h
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
> INVERT license.
>
> Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
> mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
> INVERT and STENOG, an
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:36:46PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> The KDE folks have, from what I've seen,
>> been quite careful with licensing issues.
>
> That sentence made me snarf. Do people not remember the history of KDE
> and Debian?
Of cour
On Dec 9, 2003, at 09:49, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
There is a more than plausible argument that just about everything in
Debian violates a software patent. Debian's lawyers (us?), AFAIK
On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
It is the host that loads the plugin into its memory, no
On Dec 8, 2003, at 10:00, Måns Rullgård wrote:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
GPL-incompatible).
As long as its really a plugin
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
The only problem is when you start loading both GPL plugins and
GPL-incompatible plugins. Here, your license is irrelevant; it's the
plugin licenses that are in conflict. A permissive license shouldn't
add any new problems, at least.
There is
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>>
>> No package containing both was created in the above!
>>
>> Even if one were, it'd be a compilation --- not a derivative wo
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>
> >Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
> >>following, in chronological order:
> >>
> >> 1. I create a program,
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> >If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
>> >containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
>> >work of the 'barnitz' plugin.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is the host that loads the plugin into its memory, not vice
>> versa. So it is the host that does the linking.
>
> Yes, and before that linking, there is no derived work. The GPL lets
> you do anything
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin
API.
I release my program under the MI
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are perl plugins for OpenSSL. There are perl plugins for all
> kinds of GPL stuff. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes. But there's a spectrum there, between something like perl where
the plugins/libraries are most reasonably considered co
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> >If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
> >containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
> >work of the 'barnitz' plugin.
>
> No package containing both was created in the above!
25 matches
Mail list logo
