me position we are now in: where you say THIS IS WHAT I WANT
> TO USE FOR THE NEXT N YEARS AND I DON'T CARE WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ANYBODY ELSE
> MAKES I JUST WANT TO GET ON WITH MY REAL WORK AND IT'S FINE IF OTHER PEOPLE
> WISH TO MAKE SYSTEMS THEY LIKE BETTER AS LONG AS I DON
n't the remind copyright legally void?
(So maybe the copyright might have restricted copying to machines running M$
software, which would then create interesting problems like: what about
copying on a PC running GNU/Linux, but to a VFAT partition, then rebooting...)
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
ink one should be clearer about the means needed to make the
distinction (file names, --version flag, ...).
Marc van Leeuwen
just an exercise for the lawyers; it means for instance that Debian should
immediately stop distributing "remind", even in non-free, since they obviously
lack the right to do that!
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
he
copyright, they cannot enforce their measures, provided I make sure that
everything publically distributed is based on copied made before the transfer?
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
I'm not sure whether that has been edited by the debian maintainer, or is
stated like that in the original (which I sincerely hope). In any case note
that "the rest of" is really a very inacurate description.
> Marc van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> &g
e GPL, the question becomes important what constitutes a
"work". If one considers anything distributed or published as a coherent
ensemble, such as a Debian distribution, to be a work, then anyone can see
that one get into serious trouble!
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
s emphasised that
"the author has complete control of the product files produced", so one can
never be sure). Nevertheless, it would avoid confusion if the author stated
somewhere explicitly that, despite all the advantages it advertises, FunnelWeb
is itself not a literate program.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
L release with distribution
of the artwork and sounds, since users are free to trash the former after
reception anyway. Let Ambrosia specify whatever licence they want, and based
on that one can decide do distribute artwork and sounds in main, non-free, or
not at all, but this kind of making one p
thin strict confines), I think
I would be less offended though. But then you might be offended more...
How about the Free Gates Bill?
I am not a lawyer; I am just trying to apply common sense, which
I realise may be dangerous in legal matters
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
Ross N. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 1:33 PM +0100 11/1/2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> >For instance, since when do I need a copyright licence to receive and retain
> >a
> >copy of whatever? If somebody gives me a copy of some work then maybe he h
By ftp I think this would be more difficult still. I
don't like the idea of saying the download is illegal but the user will be
forgiven if he opens up the file, reads the notice, and then destroys the copy
before trying to compile it. But I guess there is no real choice if you want
to allow distribution on the Internet, yet invoke copyright law to prevent
execution on non-free platforms.
Marc van Leeuwen
ts that are
(in the terms of US law) "original works of authorship" produced by that
person. Doing so would not however affect the original version in any way.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
A ''useful article''
if the changes are only GPL'ed - it's still free software.
I don't think people can forget about the original BSD code altogether; the
original Berkeley copyright is still attached to the derived work. I'm not
sure if that has any practical consequences though, given that the
restrictions placed by the BSD licence are so minimal.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
agree
by granting explicit permission as an exception (Debian would probably insist
that this explicit permission be granted to the general public, not just to
them, but why should that be a problem). In case an author should agree with
the reading of the GPL _and_ in fact object to distribution of his code in
KDE/Qt, then it can be considered to actually sue RedHat/Corel/SuSe/... on
this issue. After all, if you are claiming copyrights, you should at least
consider the possibility of defending them when you feel they are violated,
lest there be no point in claiming the rights in the first place. I guess it
would be wise though to consult the FSF before proceeding to such actions. But
really, if there is an obvious violation of the GPL going on it is in
everybody's interest that appropriate action be taken.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
because binary and full sources are public, and licensed at no cost
for modification and redistribution to third parties (Qt's viral clause is
easier that GPL's). The second point is what blocks: third parties who receive
the full sources, with permissions for the Qt part defined by its
copyrights over that page containing the link. And of course by extension
to any page linking to that page, etc. Well I'm pretty sure it would mean I
have copyrights over the entire WWW (and so would you). Yet it remains even
more true than for function calls that one cannot determine the meaning
Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > So we must "cause the App and X sources to be licensed as a whole at no
> > charge
> > to all third parties under the terms of this License". I've already
> > commented
> >
required? I honestly
don't know, but I would bet it is the second possibilty. Does anybody have
more definite information on such issues?
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > And run-time is post-distribution while compile-time is
> > pre-distribution, in the case of distribution of dynamically linked
> > binaries. And no copyright-based licence has anything to say about
>
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 05:49:10PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > By the way, I assume that Microsoft does not forbid distribution of binaries
> > for programs that run under MS Windows (that would certainly decrease the
&g
ns when distributing
executables. The fact that you may not grant any additional permissions either
(e.g., by removing restriction 3b on modifications) is simply a consequence of
the fact that as Troll owns copyright on the executables, you cannot lift the
conditions they place on distributing them. So 3b alone gives your conflict.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
hich under the above definition would include the
sources for the Mathematica program (which moreover is not an OS component),
effectively making distribution impossible. That would be quite a stretch
however, and easily mended by making clear that section 3 does not apply when
executable code coincides with the source code. So I am at a loss why GPL does
not employ such a broader definition, if that meaning is what the FSF intends.
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 12:38:51PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > I maintain that unless the distribution of dynamically linked binaries
> > itself is considered a copyright infringement, there's no vicarious
> > liabi
the
shadows, and wields the powers bestowed on it by QPL3b to mercilessly rip an
originally GPL-ed piece of kghostscript (or Gimp) out of this software for
abuse in its own proprietary software, while enjoying immunity from being sued
by the respective authors for copyright infringement. Maybe somebody else can
continue?
Marc van Leeuwen
tion? On the one hand your
analysis of the situation hinges on an interpretation of one clause of the
GPL, but you object to changing that clause to more unambiguously support that
interpretation. This leaves me a bit puzzled.
Marc van Leeuwen
stributed separately (assuming permission from Sun) but not
together. So please don't suggest any more that people are trying to evade
copyright law when in fact they are trying (maybe by jumping through hoops) to
abide by the conditions put forth in the licence(s).
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:34:29 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:26:47PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > Nobody in this "discussion" is claiming (as far as I can see) that
> > by some subtle shuffling of pieces you can get a
the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the
software in the executable aside from Qt.
You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the program. Add
it in the source files, after the notice that says the program is covered by
the GNU GPL.
Marc van Leeuwen
am)
{ if (Program<=1) then return Program;
else
{ int t=GPL(Program-1); /* But the meaning of `Program' does not change!! */
return Program+t;
}
}
Do you see my point?
--
Marc van Leeuwen
Universite de Poitiers
http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:03:38 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Are you now claiming that it's legal to distribute kghostscript?
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:21:44PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > Yes,
> definitely, if you are distribut
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > However, the main point seems to be that you want to apply the requirement
> > of GPL 3a that "the complete source code must be distributed under the
> > term
, not for the purpose of
literary enjoyment of reading the sources, and in practical absence of any
alternatives for libqt, would be equally illegal as distributing binaries,
even without automated building of exectables?
Marc van Leeuwen
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500
> From: Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 06:52:00 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
t;Program" to mean the part
> > that was actually used in the binary).
>
> If you modify the Program, you don't have to distribute the entire Program.
> Where does it say that?
It doesn't. But you oppose to restricting the meaning of "Program" to the part
actually used, so I thought I needed to incorporate the whole to get the
meaning you want. Probably I did not succeed.
> > In particular your formulation is not clear about what to do
> > about modifications that are simply additions of code copyrighted by
> > somebody
> > else (but with a sufficiently permissive licence to allow this); you cannot
> > simply replace its licence by GPL (I know how strongly you feel about this).
>
> Then you couldn't redistribute it. My clause is truly "viral". The GPL, as
> written, is not. The clause would require all authors to license under the
> GPL
> (of course they could license under other licenses as well, but the GPL would
> have to be one of them).
So under your formulation, one couldn't use any X or BSD code.
I have to go now!
Marc van Leeuwen
I'll just finish my round of quick shots and then _really_ be gone.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> > By contrast GPL (as I read it) simply requires that the all permissions to
> > third parties set
36 matches
Mail list logo
