Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The thing is that the kernel is indeed much like a library, but not
>> like a static one. The kernel is a lot like a shared library in
>> that it exists in memory, and has functions that can be called. It
>> is different mainly in that it stays in memor
* Måns Rullgård:
> The phrase "running the Program" is not directly applicable to a
> library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
> using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
> running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted
>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Måns Rullgård:
>
> > The phrase "running the Program" is not directly applicable to a
> > library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
> > using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
I'm the author of ike-scan, which is a GPL v2 licensed application that can
optionally use the crypto functions in the OpenSSL library. I am the author
and copyright holder of all the ike-scan source files which can use OpenSSL
functions.
The application uses the MD5 and SHA1 hash functions fr
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > > > > These two do not app
Sven Luther schrieb:
> Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
> So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
> it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master respons
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sven Luther schrieb:
>
> > Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> > packages which comes with this clause :
>
> Wrong.
Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at
/usr/
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
> Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
>
> > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
> >.copyright
> >
> > T
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> >packages which comes with this clause :
> >
> >9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The application of the
> >United Nations Conv
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> >
> > > http://packages.debia
Scripsit Roy Hills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[program that links to OpenSSL wants to be GPL'ed]
> The previous debian-legal advice mentioned above says to add the
> following exception text to the GPL announcement in the source code:
> 1. Should this be added to every source file,
It should be added
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Conve
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Dalibor> > The application of the
Dalibor> >United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Dalibor> >of Goods is expressly excluded.
Dalibor>
Dalibor> [snip]
Dalibor>
Dalibor> That's my favourite bit of lawy
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>>> The application of the
>>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
>>>of Goods is expressly excluded.
>> That's my favourite bit of la
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Lionel>
Lionel> >>> The application of the
Lionel> >>>United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Lionel> >>>of Goods is expressly excluded.
Lionel>
Lionel> Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is
** Mark Rafn ::
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
>
> > It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
> > actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact
> > that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program
> > is equivelent to linking the library w
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:20:13AM -0700, seven sins wrote:
> i am looking for information on how the debian teams
> views legal status of faac and xvid. work for a
> company where we use debian, folks on the research
> team want to do use these for some reason. before i
> install these i wanted t
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that
> Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because
> if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it
> in my system ju
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were
> doing, I am not certain.
>
> It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
> upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that link
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
> >
> > > http://packages.debia
** Andrew Suffield ::
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
> wrote:
> > 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
> > that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL.
> > Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
> > > file,
> > > s
** Andrew Suffield ::
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> > While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they
> > were doing, I am not certain.
> >
> > It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
> > actually be upheld in the case of stat
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:22 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> > While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were
> > doing, I am not certain.
> >
> > It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may ac
> Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
> linking against a
> dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:47 am, Humberto Mass Guimarães wrote:
> > Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
> > linking against a
> > dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
>
> s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
Good save The linked work is stil
> Here is the US definition of a derivative:
>
> -
> A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works, such
> as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> fictionalization,
> motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
> abridgment,
>
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> >
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
> > > file, so i am n
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > --cut--
> > >
> > > > Yeah, well, i d
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> But what is clear is that a derivative work requires an act of copying the
> original work of authorship. The caselaw in question is Lee v. A.R.T. Co.
> (125 F.3d 580) where someone took a piece of art they purchased, fused it to
>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:27:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> ** Andrew Suffield ::
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
> > wrote:
> > > 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
> > > that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program
On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a
> single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The MPEG-LA claims to hold all the patents applicable to MPEG, and
> that all these patents are valid, but since it's impossible for them
> to know either of these things they are obviously lying.
They don't claim to do this at all.[1] All they say is
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> The discussions on
> CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
Let's do something about this.
At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
with for a slightly more (informally) directed appr
> > Remember: DERIVATIVE <==> TRANSFORMATION.
>
> Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that "Only the
> verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications,
> can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal".
>
> The rest of your mail just ranted the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:32:26PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> I did _not_ just ranted the same. I did offer you an example of how you
> are simply plain wrong -- as is the GPL FSF FAQ -- when you say that linking
> to a library creates a derivative work.
Argument from authority and a
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's never been seriously tested in court.
>
> What's to test? It's just method of licensing a slew of patents.
The legitimacy of their claimed patents.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.de
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
> GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments
surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is
> If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
> understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
> more than that.
>
> There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
> GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
I can't argue with someone
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
>> GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
>
> Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal argum
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think
> > that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
>
> Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal
> arguments surrounding t
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of
> > a
> > single person here on debian-legal.
> Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is
On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> > cannot make a license non-free.
> Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we
> > should
> > not distribute software with such licence.
> There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> clauses either, but th
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>
>The application of the
> United Nations Convention on Contracts for the In
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
> > clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
> Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
It does not work this way. If you beli
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:53:57AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
> > GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
>
> Based on my readings of law review articles and
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
> > If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
> > understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
> > more than that.
> >
> > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who thi
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
> > > cannot make a license non-free.
51 matches
Mail list logo
