On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 09:04:02PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
I have been researching your comments. Especially the thread containing this
mail:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0002/msg00133.html
Am I correct in stating that under your interpretation of the GPL the
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 (composite) program
from A to B without requiring permissions from all copyright owners.
It seems to me that
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:51:03PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
Readline, it
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
Readline
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If the program is being distributed with the BSDish readline, and
not the GPLed readline, then there's no issue. But if the program is
distributed with the GPLed readline, and not the BSDish readline,
then it's pretty obvious
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:34:52PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Ah, you were talking about executables, not source. Sorry about that.
Of course.
There's no requirement that you consider the program as a whole if you're
not dealing with executables/object code.
--
Raul
This is an expanded version of my original response to this
message. Andreas indicated that he didn't understand why
what I was saying was significant.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
this
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:08:16AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right. And those are distributed in source form.
Not under terms which satisfy the GPL.
The GPL requires that there be no proprietary
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the
definition of what the complete source code is. This is provided in
the second sentence of the ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
For an executable work,
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:02:29PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Then again, the above issue has been pointed out to you many times,
yet you choose to ignore that particular issue whenever you feel like it.
I don't ignore it, I disagree with it. I have spent lots of e-mails
explaining why.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
So don't put the binary in main :-); it's not so hard to have users
compile the 2-3 apps that fall within the KDE developers borrowed GPL
code from another project category.
We're not putting it in main.
What does it mean for a
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 12:04:52AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
If you insist... I hope I get the details right though.
So the scenario is: kghoststript is being distributed as executable of a
GPL-ed source dynamically linked against the Qt object library; the
distributors read all the
On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 12:39:51AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Making that change under the scenario described by Marc would violate
the GPL, but so would lots of other things, such as linking a GPL
program with a proprietary libc.
Nope, because there's a special exception in the GPL that
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers to
the
executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time).
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript
b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers to
the
executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time).
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript
that the executing
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with
kghostscript that the executing program doesn't contain Qt?
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:17:56PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Well, this is funny indeed. When it suits your desired interpretation,
you can change words rather freely;
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:14:15PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Where does it say that (in the GPL, that is). It only says you have to make
available the complete source code to what you are in fact distributing.
I don't think we're disagreeing on this point.
However, I think that you are
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:31:48AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
That point is: why does GPL section 3 not say something like the
following?
For object code or other kinds of executable work, complete source code
means the full source text for all executable code that will be executed
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:52:31PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
If your point is that a distribution that in itself is not infringing on
anybody's copyright, could be considered vicariously liable of such
infringement because, after tweaking the makefile a bit, and then using it to
create an
Apparently, some people think that the introduction of some new
distribution mechanism will confuse the people who enforce copyright
law think that distribution isn't happening.
So, let's say that I come up with a new way of distributing text:
I'll send all the vowels in one file (it will be
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 09:08:21PM +0100, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
many people pointed out, that kde uses code (other than qt) from third
sources.
i thought so, too. at the time of kde beta 3 i read every single file of kde
to ensure there are no problems, and there were very few programs
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
liability either. And to come back to the static/dynamic distinction:
an obvious and
I can think of three potential solutions to the GPL/QPL license conflict:
(1) rewrite from scratch all KDE programs so that they don't use GPL.
(2) contact all the authors of the existing KDE GPLed programs, and
get appropriate permissions.
(3) write a GPLed Qt workalike (that
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 08:16:36PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
While I could respect your different reading of the GPL, I cannot see
how your reading of the GPL allows linking with XFree code but not Qt
code. To date, nobody has explained this to me, except by claiming
that the XFree code can
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:06:13PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
Would you accept a QPLd bugfix to a LGPL library?
No more than I'd accept a Qt support patch to a GPLed program.
The KDE/Qt situation is much different. Qt is outside of KDE. They have
distinct copyright holders. They only make
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:38:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Everything was going so well until you hit this point. In particular, the
statement since [the X license] includes all permissions given in the GPL,
and
not . . . stricter conditions, we may conclude that third parties receive
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license in any
copies you
redistribute.
So does the GPL, for the cases where a GPLed program includes XFree licensed
code.
--
Raul
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 06:21:07AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Well, there certainly is no case law reference that Qt is incompatible
with GPL, is there? I thought the uncertainly is what bothers Debian.
Looks like at best we have thick uncertainty here.
The problem isn't uncertainty so much as
, which they can under
the X
license (which you agreed applies to the X code).
Raul Miller wrote:
The license allows everything that the GPL requires.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 10:20:01AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Which would be what?
Unless you're concerned about some specific issue, I'd have
So? When the program is running, both the GPLed code and the Qt code
exist together in the same virtual memory image.
Ultimately, there's no difference between run-time linking and
compile-time linking except that run-time linking happens at run
time while compile-time linking happens
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
The XFree license also says you have to include the XFree license
in any copies you redistribute.
Raul Miller wrote:
So does the GPL, for the cases where a GPLed program includes XFree
licensed code.
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 06:23:05PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
excuse me, i meant part 4 of the license. part 3 is fine.
From section 4 of the DFSG:
The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
version number from the original software.
Here's part 4 of the Sphinx
Raul Miller wrote:
If all the relevant authors sign off on the statement, there would be no
problem. But if some authors don't sign off then that would be a problem.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:14:56PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
But this doesn't explain why kdelibs
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 07:16:40PM -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
i was going by the Open Source Definition
(www.opensource.org/osd.html). i wonder why the debian definition is
different.
Because when the open-source definition was originally being defined
some changes were introduced so it
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:07:37AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies
to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and
only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy
if they ask. The
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 02:22:58PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Adding terms is changing the license.
Depending on context, this may be completely legal -- or not.
Otherwise I can add a provision to the GPL which says,
Notwithstanding anything in this License to the contrary, if the
On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 10:44:27AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
But I have a nagging suspicion that even if all the KDE source files had
this additional clarification (or redundancy, depending on point of
view) that there would still be other reasons not to include it in
contrib or main.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:01:32AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Now, if you truly mean what you said below -- namely
Debian doesn't have millions of IPO dollars to finance a legal fight.
And our actions can affect our distributors as well. Therefore, we
have to be careful.
--
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:34:23PM -0600, Jeff Licquia wrote:
If you want to allow either total BSD-like freedom or complete
proprietariness, you should write a license that forbids any middle
ground. It strikes me as odd that someone would be pissed about the
GPL's restrictions yet be
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 06:19:12PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
To be fair, people were offended by the Debian statement that
distributing KDE is unlawful and to a lesser extent by the tirades
offered by *some* Debian developers.
Being offended isn't going to solve any real problem.
The
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 05:01:54AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Seriously, it's the contrast between a meritless lawsuit and no
lawsuit at all. Meritless lawsuits are expensive; we'll get back to
you after we IPO. Ask the css-auth victims...
It's not just the lawsuit threat. It's also the
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:22:52PM -0500, Joe Drew wrote:
Non-commercial, royalty or revenue free - the end user shall not use the
computer code for revenue-bearing purposes. Well, that qualifies it for
non-free, but we can distribute it, right?
Right.
--
Raul
Second place, we're taking the safe route. No one can sue us for not
having KDE in Debian.
On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 03:25:14PM -0600, David Welton wrote:
I think this is a straw man argument. Think about it, Redhat
distributes KDE, Debian distributes KDE, Redhat has a market cap of 15
On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 08:27:56PM +, David Coe wrote:
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the wordlists in this package
can also be freely copied, distributed, modified, and used for
personal, educational, and research purposes. (Use of these files
in commercial products may
Why not just hack a pine-style main menu, configuration screen, imap, and
keyboard cheat-sheet onto mutt. They've already got a config file floating
around that makes it emulate all the PINE keystrokes, and it's already a
fully functional mailer.
On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at
On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Marketa Ceplova wrote:
1) Consideration is defined by my old Emanuel Outlines for Contracts
as detriment to promisee bargained for, which certainly is nothing
which author of free software receives.
Why? [I'm interested in seeing if you can come up
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 01:58:44PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The license contained in the copy is just bits. Can bits make legal
promises in American law? They certainly can't over here.
American copyright law says nothing specific about bits, though it does
have quite a bit to say about
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 05:03:00PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It's a license which offers terms for those who wish to redistribute
the software. The terms are not contractual (though in many respects
the *interpretation* of the words follows similar rules to the rules
for interpreting
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
We have an owner who authored the software and holds the copypright
for something distributed under GPL, and a copier who has made a
copy of it.
Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the author. Why
choose
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the author. Why
choose different terminology, here?
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Because copyright rights can be transferred, and it's the current
owner who has
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't
bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
what? What would he sue FOR?
That's an interesting claim.
It's not a claim,
The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't
bound himself by contract
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that
people pay big money for.
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 09:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm
On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 03:00:12PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The GPL is also not a contract, it's a public license.
It's a license which offers contractual terms for those who wish to
redistribute the software. In exchange for restricting yourself to the
conditions of the license you
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:21:51PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
I know, this will be highly controversive :
SERIOUS SUGGESTION FOR WOODY :
we should get rid of all gif-making packages except 1 package
a2gif in non-free, which will allow you to convert other images to gifs if
you REALLY
On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 01:57:24AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
I'm including the full text below. What I find particularly odious is
not the exclusion of minors (though it is odious), but the contention (as
usual in purported EULAs) that Corel still retains title to the copy of
the
On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 02:36:29AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
This is a test. Some day there will be even bigger companies with even
more investment in free software (no offense intended, Corel). Some of
those companies will have multi-million-dollar law firms (or bigger) with
lots of
On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 12:08:00AM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
What bothers me with Corel is not them using Debian, but rather they fact that
they gave nothing back to us or the community. Not code, time, or money.
But they did.
--
Raul
On Sat, Nov 27, 1999 at 12:12:16AM -0500, Gavriel State wrote:
I'm not sure whether I should be posting this message. Spokesperson isn't
my real job (I'm an engineer), but the people whose real job it is may not
be able to respond on debian.devel in time to avert the weekend flamefest
I'm
On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:56:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
You are free to mix the code with other code, though. All DFSG free
licenses allow modification, which is exactly that. The only licenses
which allows you to freely mix the code with any other code regardless
of license are the
rationale :
4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
^^ ^
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand your point.
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 06:31:03PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
Could the point be Free software
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:13:25PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
It's DFSG-compliant as far as I can tell. I went through several passes with
them.
it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
Also, it effectively requires a fee for use, unless you consider the
time of the
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 07:56:29PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
1. The IBM and Apple licenses also ask for you to have a URL where your
modifications can be found. I suspect things under those licenses are
already accepted
On Nov 22, Raul Miller wrote:
it discriminates against people without regular internet access.
Also, it effectively requires a fee for use, unless you consider the
time of the person who uses it to have no value. [same issue.]
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 09:50:36PM -0600, Chris Lawrence
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 05:06:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's a lot easier to put some stuff up on a website once you've made some
changes than it is to `regularly monitor the webiste for any notices'. The
former requires you to give the code to a friend to stick up somewhere,
the
From: Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But now the author of the package, or a contributor, can sue Baz for
_copyright infringement_ for exporting the package illegally, because
this violates the license terms and so infringes copyright!
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 12:10:18AM -0800, Bruce
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:20:43AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second
opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning:
http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/
By accessing and using the
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:41:33PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
The recent source release for the Voodoo3 cards includes two components
which are MIT licensed and one part which is under Yet Another Public
License(tm) which resembles the GPL and LGPL in several noticable ways.
It's attached for
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
development environments'
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:33:53PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
http://www.compuserve.de/recht/gesetze/urhg/
This is one I'm too ignorant to understand.
[I don't understand German.]
--
Raul
I've put up a page detailing the copyright law references that
have been posted so far. I should add a berne convention link.
Also, note that I can't tell whether the non-english law references
are specific to copyright law or whether they're references to
all law for that country.
Finally, I
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 07:06:40PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
You should put a link to the unofficial English translation of Finnish
Copyright Act. I posted the URL earlier.
I never got your original, I extracted the finnish link from a
followup.
If it's convenient, could you
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
What Raul seems to be getting at is that dpkg is presently the only
existing implementation og the command-line interface in question.
His arguments apparently lead to a general principle: if, for some
protocol (a command line
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:29:00AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
allows,...
The GPL places no restrictions on reverse engineering.
--
Raul
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
sentence would be too
Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the
header file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:56:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable
speaker on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also
an attorney
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 03:16:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind.
This is a personal statement, not a technical one.
Please confine your discussion to the technical issues.
--
Raul
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
development environments'
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:19:06PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless
of whether or not any other
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Where would you like the discussion to head?
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
How does my interpretation of copyright law make the GPL
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I understand that this definition of modifies is rather technical,
and thus non-intuitive
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:33:36PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is not
present. Loss
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:39:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(If this is the case, it might be a worthwhile service to separate main
into `gpl' and `free', so that the things you can just willfully mix and
match (the GPL stuff) is more clearly separated from the stuff you have
to have a
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:56:30AM +, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
It's also distributed with bash, the Linux kernel, and so on. Is it a
derivative of all the software on the CD?
I think this issue has already been discussed. Several times. But
maybe there isn't any sort of concise explanation,
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
Netscape owns it. Try combining MPL with MPL' where some other company
owns MPL', then imagine
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
you wind up
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an
application stops functioning if you remove another component
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg.
I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this
with gcc.
--
Raul
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 07:58:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
/copy of/ get_it.
Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright law
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you
take out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front
end can't happen.
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 12:16:40PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Well, I'd like the law to agree
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The difference between mere reference and derivation, in this case, is
the difference between treating the computer program as a static work
(like a book) and a dynamic work (like a screen play or music score).
On Sun, Oct 31
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 11:40:16PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I really can't even see the point of forbidding non-free programs from
calling dpkg... either (a) they'll reimplement dpkg as non-free
software (reimplementing dpkg might be a good idea in and of itself,
but a non-free dpkg is
Hmmm. I also suspect that the performance of a play would constitute
a derived work
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 11:27:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
You can also perform a computer program, it's generally called _use_.
The program's output may be derivative.
It's not the output that's the
, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
As I understand it, Corel would be distributing their front end with
dpkg -- this conflicts with the distinction you're trying to raise.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:32:45AM -0600, David Starner wrote:
Okay, you sell the other CD
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:46:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Once again, this isn't an issue of use, it's an issue of definition.
The combination of dpkg plus the front end is an example of what the
GPL defines as a program.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:17:01AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:41:52AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
And if the apache module in question calls /bin/bash specifically?
Or if /bin/bash calls apache?
I'm having trouble imagining a work which involves apache and bash where
bash is an inseperable aspect of the whole. Bashisms are
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's true that the GPL was written for programs, not music. However,
many countries have a legal concept of a moral right of integrity for a
copyrighted work, to prevent its mutilation. The U.S. doesn't recognize
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:19:30AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
The copying that's relevant here is the copying which goes into the
production of the cdroms. That's the same whether dpkg is in the same
file as corel's front end or a different file.
But that can not possibly be relevant,
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you take
out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front end
can't happen.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
A front end is a front end
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My argument is that since the corel front end enhances dpkg it counts
as a derivative work based on dpkg for the purpose of copyright law,
just as editorial notations on a screen play create a derivative work
even though the text of the screen play
1001 - 1100 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
