On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:24:29PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > Could you give an example of something that would "contradict the AFL",
> > that isn't allowed? (If I'm allowed to distribute the work under the X11
> > license, then it seems like anything is allowed, except for obvious things
> > li
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> It seems that this license is actually doing two fundamentally distinct
> things: granting a license to people to do stuff, and making promises
> from the distributor/licensor.
Correct.
> I think this combination is what makes it
> so confusing: it looks like it require
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:03:49PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The AFL's restrictions are intended to protect the licensor and his
> original licensees. Other persons (including said licensees if they
> choose to become licensors as well) can undertake whatever obligations
> they wish to.
It seems
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> Watch out: it only says "if you sue me for patent infringement, you lose
> your license", not "you can't sue me for patent infringement".
Of course. I was oversimplifying.
> General (but not unanimous) feeling on d-legal is that choice of venue is
> not free. (This
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:30:42PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > but I can distribute it under the X11
> > license, so the person I send it to is no longer forced to include source
> > (or to grant patent licenses, and so on).
>
> Just so. AFL original and derivative works may be redistributed und
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> This also implies that, for example, "Licensor hereby agrees to provide
> a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work ..."
> means "if you distribute this, you're the licensor, so *you* agree to
> provide ...". This clause reads as if it says "the ori
You can post to d-legal even if you're not subscribed.
(reply separate)
--
Glenn Maynard
--- Begin Message ---
(Please forward to debian-legal; I don't seem to be able to sign up for it
successfully.)
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
> This also implies that, for example, "Licensor hereby agrees to pro
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Or else, his is a derivative work of whichever one he makes use of.
> > If he ships with one of them, his intention seems to be clear.
> >
> > I don't see how that is logically inconsistent.
>
> It's all about causality. Consider
"Wesley W. Terpstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> > If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
>> > what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
>> > not is irrelevant.
>>
>> Mr.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
> > what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
> > not is irrelevant.
>
> Mr. Wontshare's program *uses* the GPL program, but isn't de
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:30:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Given that Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a small investment of
> effort, "refuses to port" doesn't sound like much of a problem.
I meant to say relatively small investment; sorry.
Even simple applications can be hard to rewrit
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:00:54PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
> > Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
> > To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
> > Without my library, Mr. Wontsh
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
>
> Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
> To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
> Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
>> Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
>> To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
>> Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work
* "Wesley W. Terpstra"
| What can I do to prevent the above scenario from happening?
I don't think you can, at least not while keeping the library DFSG
free. (I guess it would be fairly trivial to write up a similar
application which would not be affected by your license for the
application, on
"Wesley W. Terpstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good evening!
>
> I'm developing an error-correcting code library which works on a lot of data
> at once. Since the API is quite simple and the cost of process creation
> relatively insignificant, I would like to provide a command-line API.
>
> I
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
> Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
> To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
> Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
> Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:59:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > Sublicensing means that you are still bound by the original licence,
> > but you can offer any licence in the specified range to those you
> > distribute to.
>
> Quite so, and I should have clarified that point. If Alice licenses
>
Good evening!
I'm developing an error-correcting code library which works on a lot of data
at once. Since the API is quite simple and the cost of process creation
relatively insignificant, I would like to provide a command-line API.
I feel this has several engineering advantages:
1) it's easier t
19 matches
Mail list logo
