On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
First off, I made up this example quickly to try and illustrate that
looking at the end result is not enough; that we need to examine the
steps that got us there.
Hopefully, -legal will consider and respond to the other point made in
my
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:08:47AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
One piece of the resulting binary--OpenSSL--is not.
This seems to clearly violate the spirit of the GPL.
It might, but the GPL does have the normal components of an OS
exception, for example. And only GPL (3), not (1) or
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one to
take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long as
OpenSSL doesn't accompany it.
In the U.S., at least, linking it against OpenSSL
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:15:04PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one to
take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long as
OpenSSL doesn't
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:15:04PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one to
take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long as
OpenSSL doesn't
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase accompanies the
executable would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
contrary to the intent of this part of the license.
Under copyright law, the precise details of how
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
GPL-incompatible system libraries?
It's meaningless to ask that question without specifying who is doing
the linking and who provided those libraries. The
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:13:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase accompanies the
executable would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
contrary to the intent of this part
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Huh? There is no copyright infringement here because *the GPL
explicitly allows this form of distribution*.
I was talking about the relationship of copyright law to some distribution
mechanics.
The GPL allows distribution under
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:50:28PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:38:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Huh? There is no copyright infringement here because *the GPL
explicitly allows this form of distribution*.
I was talking about the relationship of copyright law to
I certainly don't see the GPL talking about the issue of shipping some
bits of a program on one day through distributor A and other bits of the
program on another day through distributor B.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 03:58:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
If distributor A is distributing an
* Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09/09/04, 05:03:24]:
Is there a particular work under this license that you would like Debian
to include, or do you just want a review of the license?
I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the
package sear-media and another media
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09/09/04, 13:31:40]:
It's very poorly worded; the body of the clause is All the elements
of this work of art must remain free, which is vague and meaningless.
The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion
from the vague
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:16:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
GPL-incompatible system libraries?
It's meaningless to ask that question without specifying
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:40:00PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Huh? Are you claiming that the OS exception doesn't allow linking against
GPL-incompatible system libraries?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:16:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
It's meaningless to ask that question without
I need to revist this response.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one to
take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long as
OpenSSL doesn't accompany it.
On Fri, Sep 10,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:31:13PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 06:53:49PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Microsoft creates a system library, MSVCRT (Microsoft Visual C runtime),
which is used by almost all binaries which run on Windows. It's GPL-
incompatible.[1]
This
This case is largely irrelevant unless we'll distribute a version of
emacs with MSVCRT in its depend tree.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:11:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If you build in Windows, you link against MSVCRT; it's libc. This is
very relevant to what users do with the software.
On Sep 10, 2004, at 09:08, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sep 9, 2004, at 23:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The GPL requires that all derived works be entirely available under
the
terms of the GPL.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:35:59AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Yes, but OpenSSL wouldn't be a derived
On Sep 10, 2004, at 17:15, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:38:04PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
So, you don't need an extreme example. It's perfectly valid for one
to
take Emacs, link it against OpenSSL, and distribute binaries, as long
as
OpenSSL doesn't accompany it.
In the
On Sep 10, 2004, at 18:13, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:46:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Why? The plain-English meaning of the phrase accompanies the
executable would imply no such thing, and would in fact appear to be
contrary to the intent of this part of the license.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 07:31:13PM -0400, I wrote:
In the context of that exception, a distinction has already been drawn
to distinguish between stuff that comes with the system and the rest of
the program.
It's a mistake to claim that the exception applies to the rest of the
license just
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:36:23PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Please read the start of this subthread; the point was about
distributing as _source_ and compiling on the user's machine. The
program in source form does not include OpenSSL.
In which case there would be no mention of
On Sep 10, 2004, at 18:13, Raul Miller wrote:
Under copyright law, the precise details of how the copy arrives
doesn't matter.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 08:48:54PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Yes it does. Consider the difference between a copy of Windows arriving
by being downloaded
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
Under copyright law, the precise details of how the copy arrives doesn't
matter. What matters is that the copy arrives.
Under many circumstances it doesn't matter. However, if the license prohibits
one method of arrival but not another method of
25 matches
Mail list logo
