Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
once.
OK, apache2 depends on Bash to function (/etc/init.d/apache2). This
must mean that Debian cannot distribute Apache 2 and Bash together (at
least we would have to remove Bash from
Kalle Kivimaa writes:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My recollection is that there is no specific exemption - rather, Linus
has said that he believes the syscall layer to be the boundary of
derived works.
The COPYING starts with this:
'NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover
Walter Landry writes:
I meant linking as a shorthand for incorporated as a section of a
whole work. Although Kaffe is actually objecting to being
distributed while linked to Eclipse.
My point is that it has no clear basis for that objection without
violating DFSG #9.
I am talking about a
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 11:53:14PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my attempt at something which hopefully everyone can accept. I've
tried to take into account all the excellent feedback over the past few
weeks, for which I thank all involved.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[OK. One past-last message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash
[3] Debian dependencies. [The GPL doesn't seem to have any requirements
in this area.]
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 09:06:31PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Actually, it does. The GPL says (with some parts elided)
If sections are separate works, then this License does not apply to
those
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:21:23PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
The kernel has an exemption. This has been pointed out more than
once.
Irrelevant:
The kernel supplies kernel-specific #include files which are incorporated
into C program.
Kaffe doesn't supply any such thing -- no one has
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:07:56AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
That is clear about *a* copyright holder. It is not necessarily true
about all of them. There have been times where Linus's interpretation
was not shared by all: Linus has said he has no objection to
distributing binary firmware
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'll use a verbatim copy of my post to take apart your and Gadek's
claim. Please do not take the heat of the debate as a personal affront.
It's not meant to hurt. I very much appreciate your civility in your
e-mail messages, which are a refreshing change from the pissing
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:48:23 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is a license document, and automatically receives is a
license grant. The GPL doesn't need to be law to grant license --
granting license is what copyright licenses do.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:48:55PM
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like linking vs. interpretation
are irrelevant to its legal force; and a judge is unlikely to permit
the GPL to reach across a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:16:37PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like linking vs. interpretation
are irrelevant to its
I wrote:
Suppose the FSF had gone beyond complaining and threatening when KDE
used Qt under the QPL ...
And negotiating effectively too, of course. I'm glad that Qt is now
QPL/GPL dual licensed, and I prefer the GPL. I don't mean to sound
quite so one-sided here; just because I think the
13 matches
Mail list logo
