Le lundi 03 septembre 2007 à 12:19 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived
> > work.
>
> Er, presumably the application can work with any database that's in the
> right format?
Yes, but if there is only one existing database in
Ben Finney wrote:
> Yes. Without explicit grant from the copyright holder to the recipient
> of a particular work, the default situation is "all rights reserved
> (to the copyright holder)".
>
Ok. So the only way to settle this issue will be to contact all upstream
authors and ask them to inclu
Tobi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about the GPL3 vs. GPL2 issue? If the main program is GPL3 and
> the plug-ins are "GPL2 or any later", does this match? I think it
> doesn't.
Sure it does; that's the intent of the "or any later version"
clause. As you describe it, all the works have been l
>> Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
>> presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
>> saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
>> library?
>
> That is not at all what he said. The test for whether work A is a
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes, but if there is only one existing database in this format, I don't
>think that changes much. It would be pretty much like a program
>requiring a GPL library to work properly, but that would dlopen() it at
>startup.
The criteria is still the "derived work" one. Not "a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is a very common situation. Most people crating works of
>authorship find copyright to be a huge hassle to even think about
>(because it is). Those who do think about it will usually take
>whatever appears to be the path of least resistance -- such as tossing
>in a L
Peter S Galbraith writes:
>>> Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
>>> presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
>>> saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
>>> library?
>>
>> That is not at all what he said. T
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Sure, the code is fine with older Emacs. We simply shouldn't install it
> and set it up for GPL v3 versions of Emacs.
*If* there is a violation (and I'm still not convinced), this isn't a
solution, at least not for Debian.
The GPL is all about distribution and modifica
> > If it explicitely calls the interface...
>
> ... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
can do whatever we want so it doesn't matter.
>>> In this case, there are older emacsen -- distributed und
I wrote:
> > > If it explicitely calls the interface...
> >
> > ... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
>
> So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
> can do whatever we want so it doesn't matter.
If I follow the advice from the FSF's
Peter S Galbraith writes:
>> > If it explicitely calls the interface...
>>
>> ... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
>
> So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
> can do whatever we want so it doesn't matter.
When there is only one im
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
>
> >> > If it explicitely calls the interface...
> >>
> >> ... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
> >
> > So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
> > can do whateve
Peter S Galbraith writes:
> So I'm fine using GPL-v2 code with GPL-v3 libraries as long as (1)
> there's a GPL-v2 version of the libraries with the same interface, such
> that (2) the GPL-v2 code does not need to be modified to run on the
> GPL-v3 version of the libraries?
That is my conclusion a
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith writes:
>
> > So I'm fine using GPL-v2 code with GPL-v3 libraries as long as (1)
> > there's a GPL-v2 version of the libraries with the same interface, such
> > that (2) the GPL-v2 code does not need to be modified to run on the
> > GPL
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> While explicit licensing terms in every source file are a good idea,
> I think that Debian has always considered acceptable distributing a
> copy of the license along with the code.
>
That's how we've handled this so far.
Ben, Marco... thanks for discussing this!
To draw
Hi all,
I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is
actually used to impose specific restrictions.
PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development.
It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
Its licensing page[2] states:
| Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require
On 9/6/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can logos be considered "reasonable legal notices" or "author
> attributions"?
> What do you think?
A logo definitely isn't a legal notice, but it *could* be an author
attribution (although to me it seems more a project attribution or
even an
Francesco Poli wrote:
Shriramana, which category does the database you need belong to?
I do not understand which "category" you mean. It's a database of
latitude/longitude/elevation data for places around the globe. See
geonames.org.
P.S.: I am a debian-legal subscriber, so please do not
18 matches
Mail list logo
