On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:23:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
As a rough idea, imagine if gcc were made to support
special keywords or control files to make it easier to build
programs which use palladium's proprietary encryption and
digital rights management facilities object model
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:05:47PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
(Note: The license blurb is actually required to be maintained by copyright
law, not by the license itself.)
The license itself also explicitly states this as a requirement.
Only if the resulting work (including the implementation of
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 05:44:05PM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
keep intact does not mean the same as unmodified.
But we're still talking about a case where not all derived works are
allowed.
And the terms of Section 1 are that you must conspicuously and
appropriately publish notices of the
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 07:02, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 04:19:26PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I believe you are mistaken. I can make that combination, but the
result is not distributable.
If you can show me how making such copies is permitted, I'd be very
The GPL specifically disallows creation of copies with changes -- no
matter how functional -- which include restrictions on the rights of
other users of derivatives.
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:35:02PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
No.
Eh?
It disallows changes to the *license terms* under
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:21:53AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
I was not proposing make gcc work on that OS, I was proposing functional
modifications to GCC to make it integrate better with that environment.
There is nothing in the GPL that forbids functional modifications to
GCC to make
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
No. If I create any variation of the context, then the statement
immediately stops being true when placed in the variated context.
Except that you can easily create varied contexts where the
statement is true.
Here's another
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:13:05AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It could also be Cover Texts. The documentation currently distributed
by the FSF require the cover
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:15:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is a factual accuracy that my derivate is a GNU manual.
The key word here seems to be is.
Your derivative would *contain* a part of a gnu manual.
It is a factual accuracy that FSF makes money by selling hardcopies of
my
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document), you
must put the covers
Just scratching the surface, ...
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:15:40AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
You eagerly imagine problems where there are none. mkreiserfs does not
specify any font or color, it lets bash do that. Adhere to the spirit of
the license and you will be ok.
I'm thinking about
Richard Stallman wrote:
You are focusing on the definition of derived work, but that is not
really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
larger combined work.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Your silly claims like If a.o is under
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Joe Moore wrote:
Some of the inaccuracies I recall from the last GFDL debate included the
address of the FSF in the GNU Emacs manual's Invariant sections, if the FSF
moves.
...
While not forbidding additional invariant sections, the only way to
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Unless the derived document falls under section 7, AGGREGATION WITH
INDEPENDENT WORKS (which requires that more than half of the document
consists of independent work not derived from the GFDLed document
On May 9, 2004, at 13:40, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
How so?
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:10:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
**The library itself would be GPL.**
...
But only if those are non-commercial... I think I understand what you
want, some of the extra LGPL freedoms, but in a narrower way. You can
make it a GPL'd with exceptions, like:
topics (or, at least makes their status
*very* unclear if they do cover those topics).
On May 9, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote:
Huh? This would be true if the rules about secondary sections applied
to the document as a whole.
But they don't.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:32:36PM -0400
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:36:27PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Even worse, at some point this becomes a Lanham Act violation,
rendering the document undistributable.
If a work uses trademarks illegally, we can't distribute that work.
But that's not a DFSG issue.
--
Raul
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Quite a few of us actually have thought stuff through a bit, and even
indicated what GR 2004-003 was going to do to ajt.[1][2]
...
[Not that anyone was expecting the reaction that it got, but we knew
what it was going to do
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:32:32PM -0400, I wrote:
In retrospect, the biggest problem with that proposal was that it made
no provisions for release management.
Or, more properly, transition management.
--
Raul
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 02:38:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
But if you are forced to include certain text in modified documents, and
that text violates a trademark unless the document is unmodified, then
the work is DFSG-non-free.
And we have the same problem with patches-only licenses.
--
I'm tying a number of loose quasi-threads together here.
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 08:22:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
(I think we must understand DFSG broadly, not narrowly, otherwise it'd
allow things like 'you can change this software only for localization
purposes')
I agree that
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:33:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
I think you're agreeing with me. I can't make it a simple red circle
or green square. I have to spit out the credits _and_ the
circle/square.
No, the point here is that this is a bad example.
It's more contrived than extreme
They are not exempt.
They are also not programs. So, the additional constraints the DFSG
puts on programs do not apply to licenses.
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:13:24AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:30:28AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Well, making a copy in RAM is making a copy, legally; this is apparently the
caselaw in the US. I'm sorry that I don't have the reference.
Loading a register might also also constitute copying, but in the
U.S. that's already
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:01:54AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The exception is in 17 USC 117(a); it allows copying by the _owner of
a copy_ if it is either an essential step in the utilization of the
computer program or a backup copy.
Which, in the context of the GFDL covers a lot of ground
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 03:32:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The latter (clauses 4b and 4i) fails the Chinese Dissident test.
Here's the language in question:
B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:08:56PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
The GFDL could requires us not to fix factual inaccuracies.
How so?
[A] These would have to be factual inaccuracies in a secondary section
(which rather limits the scope of any such inaccuracy).
[B] Nothing in the GFDL
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:57:41AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Now, again, some restrictions on creating derived works are generally
considered acceptable. But required inclusion of arbitrary lumps of text
in a particular manner certainly isn't one of them (even with the
oft-ignored
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 10:25:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Nor does it say all derived works.
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You're free to offer alternate interpretations, but showing that they're
valid interpretations does not make them Debian's
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 05:52:16PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(I'm also not convinced that DFSG#10 talks about the text of the license
rather than the terms. I tend to find that as DFSG#10 is so vague, doesn't
actually place any requirements on freedom, and that there is nothing
approaching
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:36:24PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
DFSG#10 explicitly states that the GPL is an example of a license we
consider free. This true, even though the GPL contains the following
statements:
On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 07:56:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The importance
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 06:29:58AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
The short of the long is that Reiser would have a significant chance
(although not complete certaincy) of winning a suit against a user who
modified the software in the way that Reiser does not like - even if
the user had
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 09:38:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Copyrights restrict the right to make copies, period. Not just the right to
distribute them. Legally, they always have, at least in the US. (They
just aren't enforced terribly often against people who don't distribute,
On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
main; I do not see why license texts should be exempt from the current
DFSG.
They are not exempt.
They are also not programs. So, the additional constraints the DFSG
puts on programs do not apply to licenses.
--
Raul
feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software
Which is what the whole issue is about. FSF says `documentation is not
software'. Debian says `whatever we carry in our CDs is software'.
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 11:57:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
In a nutshell, ignoring the
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:59:23AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
The kernel portion is GPL V2, this is the progs license.
Does this mean that the reiser progs are merely aggregated with the
kernel, and that there is no functional relationship?
[Because the GPL does provide an explicit exception
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 03:28:27PM -0500, Alex Roitman wrote:
Now that I read the Draft Debian Position Statement put together on the
page of Manoj Srivastava, I think we'd like to change the way our docs
are licensed.
What would the debain-legal people suggest we use for the documentation
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:56:23AM +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
Indeed, that's what I tought but it is strange to obfuscate script code
and I don't think that be encouraged. Someone using moosic is not
running out of space.
Note that reducing the amount of space required at runtime tends to
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:12:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Make or distribute is the biggest problem here. If it said make and
distribute, you might be correct. As it is actually written, it requires
that you not place specific technical obstacles in the way of people
reading or
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed
binaries.
Where the GFDL is used to license programs, it's not something that we
can distribute under the DFSG. [As this could require us to not fix
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:06:37AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Really? How does that give any rights regarding the GFDL file? You may
have the limited right, under copyright law, to make the copies which are
necessary to run chmod, but that doesn't help you when it comes to the
copyright
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[you seem to have attributed my words to Manoj -- but we are different
people]
On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
you make or
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:18:51PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
You really need to look at an as amended copy of the act. One such
copy is at http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htm
Thanks, that's a good reference, and the changes from the version I was
looking at were... rather extensive.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:39:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I thought someone had said that we might reject programs which violate
the spirit of the DFSG even if they seem to comply with the letter?
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:31:38AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You seem to be contesting
that the different interpretation is meaningful. (I think the
lack of one is why this is somewhat difficult to discuss.)
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:57:14AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Sure -- imagine that there exists a clause in the terms of some copyright
which prohibited the distribution of some
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:41:30PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
A dominant market player could use the GPL in an abusive way.
For example, consider Microsoft licensing its standard libraries
under GPL.
After thinking about a number of scenarios, I don't think that this
would work as a form
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:59:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[Raul: As I assume you're not subscribed to -legal, I'm taking the
liberty of Cc:'ing you.]
Thanks.
I should be subscribed now, but I was not previously. I appreciate
the attention.
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote:
any
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which
rely upon such a concept generally are not free.
Ah, this is key.
I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer
programs in such a
In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't think this is a useful interpretation. The only modification
which may be
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 10:27:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and
derived
works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't think
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must
be
renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?
On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
We probably don't have
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The restrictions that come into force under the GNU FDL in the Copying
in Quantity section, and the restrictions that are always in force for
standard (paper) book form under the OPL look very, very similar to
me.
copying in
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul Look at the situation this way: the GPL restricts the
Raul distribution of emacs, not that of independently written
Raul code. The question asked was whether it was legal to
Raul distribute some non-gpled elisp code
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +, Sunnanvind wrote:
When I read the usage terms for the Open Use Logo, it seems to me that a
part of it may be used to refer to Debian (and no explicit permission
given for ANY other usage) could be interpreted as breaking DFSG
8, License can't be
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:16:19AM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Raul, why are you so quick to dismiss this? You state it like it
was a matter of fact. Is this documented anywhere?
I didn't dismiss it. [And, what is it that you want documentation on?]
Look at the situation this way: the
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 02:30:42PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
You said:
Anyways: it's legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license.
However, it's not legal to distribute GPLed emacs with such code if that
code is intended to be used with emacs to implement some program.
However, even if there are no non-GPLed implementations of the interfaces,
a trivial call to buffer-substring would not be worth worrying about.
If the code in question falls under fair use, copyright isn't an issue:
you need something substantial enough to be considered a copyrightable
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:42:29PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Years ago when I satrted coding elisp and wasn't concerned about
licensing issues, I thought I was okay as long as I didn't load
anything via 'require'. But obviously I was using other people's
copyrighted code way before
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 08:43:44PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
Is it even legal for elisp code to have a GPL-incompatible license?
Any elisp code uses the emacs builtin functions extensively. These are
protected by the GPL. The concept of linking gets very blurry here,
too.
Why is this even
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 03:18:43PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Well, bash at least is on the CD with the C library.
I asked RMS about this, last time you brought it up.
He said he wanted to check with his lawyers, to be sure he was answering
correctly, and hadn't gotten back to me.
I've asked
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others may have
been private),
that it is OK to license the software GPL as long as the used APL libraries
are part of the
distribution on which it is installed,
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
What i understood from the replies it (among which this one, others
may have been private), that it is OK to license the software GPL as
long as the used APL libraries are part of the distribution on which
it is installed,
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:04:47AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
Is it legal to have (I am thinking Java here):
- A GPL-ed program that uses
a LPGL-ed libraries that uses
a Apache Public License-ed library
The be precise, i am considering packaging a GPL-ed tool that uses the
Please supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 07:54:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I don't know a reference off the top of my head, but there are some.
One case I recall involved a book of forms for wills. Despite these
being legal
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:49:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The operant rule is simple.
If we distribute it, it's software.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:32:47PM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
Sorry, but the even the GPL itself (meaning the license text) isn't
DFSG-free,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson wrote:
A copyright license is a copyrightable work.
Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please.
Anyone is free to take the text of the GPL and modify it for their
own use -- in contexts where they own
If the terms of the license disallow modification and
redistribution then that's a problem.
Mind pointing out how that applies to this case?
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 02:19:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
1. I think everyone agrees that to pass DFSG #1, the licence must
have terms
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 09:25:16AM -0400, I wrote:
In the example we're talking about, the the license terms are the same
for both cases. There are conditions which kick in when the sources
are modified which are irrelevant if no modifications are made, but the
terms are the same.
I should
On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 08:11:08AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
I'd like to see justification for this. I've seen justification for
particular versions of this clause under fields of endeavor but all
the justifications I saw rested on some non-generic aspect of the
clause currently under
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:25:37PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote:
Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they
form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the
GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if
you can't, or won't,
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 12:27:42PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Wookey == Wookey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wookey 1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author
Wookey for inclusion in a later release of the tools.
Ask the author for what he means by should. If he
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 11:26:42AM +0200, Dennis Schoen wrote:
GDChart is free for use in your applications and for chart
generation. YOU MAY NOT represent or re-distribute the source
code as your own. Any redistribution of the source code
MUST reference the author, and include any and all
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
It isn't. But the DFSG don't state that every bit of a package must be
modifiable, either. I take it that every functional part must be
modifyable at least.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 05:21:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
(3)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 04:52:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I keep hearing, though I have not had the opportunity to verify this
with a Real Lawyer(tm), that public domain has one drawback; you can't
attach a no-warranty statement to it.
US Geological Survey seems to have no problem
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:31:25PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
So the situation would be something like:
1. A writes software, contributes it to the public domain and
distributes it with a warranty disclaimer.
2. B downloads software from A's site, strips off the warranty
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:44:50PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
So, are there any other packages that specifically mention Debian?
ines.
crafty has something comparable.
But I'm not sure why an example is needed. non-free is for
software which we can legally distribute but which doesn't
meet
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:28:05AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Are there packages in non-free that have special permission for
Debian? Do you know any of their names? I was worried about some
practical problems, but am willing to be swayed by precedent.
I believe so, yes.
However, I'm not
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:39:43PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
However, you said that the author is resposive. At a minimum, I think
that the paragraph
The tool set can be distributed as part of other non-commercial program
packages, but only in its original, unadapted form. If anybody
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 09:16:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
A spouse might have some kind of special authority, but a random
descendent can't claim to have a more authoritative knowledge of the
author's intentions than anyone else in the world, so there's no
reason anyone should take
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:45:49AM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
Now we have to go on and discuss whether ZPL 1.0 is free according to
the DFSG.
...
I.e. the ZPL 1.0 is a FSF-free license.
So?
The question isn't whether we can distribute or use the software,
the question is whether it's
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:20:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, and like most of the other hacks the author of this license cobbled
onto the BSD terms, what is meant by packaged is not specified
anywhere.
...
That's what I think the author means to say; that isn't what the license
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:14:44PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Does Debian have any kind of policy on patents at all?
Debian's policy on patents has been to deal with them on a
case-by-case basis.
[1] It's not possible for any software vendor anywhere to
avoid infringing patents. That
On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:31:37AM +, Jeff Prescot wrote:
You either have something interesting to say, or YOU are off-topic.
http://lists.debian.org/misc.html says about debian-legal
Copyright, licensing and patent issues.
It doesn't explicitly say relevant to Debian activities.
Do we
Most of Jeff Prescot's letter was off-topic for this mailing list.
I'm replying here on the slight chance that some of this is
actually relevant to this list.
Please send replies to me, personally, instead of to the list,
unless it's really something that's relevant to the list.
The DMCA is
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:09:42AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
* Mail-Followup-To isn't standard either.
The draft which was sent to drums got lost, the closest thing to an
rfc is http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html.
FYI,
--
Raul
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:04:22PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
Anyway, mutt disregards that header as well. I use Mail-Followup-To:
instead (for exactly the opposite purpose, but it can be used for yours),
which mutt does recognize.
Note that Branden had Mail-Followup-To:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:08:02PM +0200, Jochen R?hrig wrote:
I assume you are referring to this part of the license agreement:
You will ensure that anyone who uses the Program does so only in
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
If we force the user to read the license
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 12:41:53PM +0200, Martin Waitz wrote:
so my question is:
is there any chance we can force the vendor to publish the source
of his driver?
Perhaps -- get the authors of the GPL/MPL'd code to take up
the issue.
However, it would probably be better to simply ask the
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 09:37:18AM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Let's be specific here. If the program can use multiple databases, one
of which is MySQL, then the distribution of that program can include
MySQL so long as MySQL itself is still distributed under the GPL
(meaning, source code
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:26:14AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The mysql server is GPL. The proprietary program implements its own
mysql client to connect to the server; it doesn't link against the
mysql client code (which is also GPL).
The mysql.com web site says you require a commercial
On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 11:52:46AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
The application is to be distributed (sold) under a proprietary license.
I suppose an application is linked to the database server a bit more
than a compiler/kernel or an editor/shell as in the GPL FAQ's examples.
Sounds like
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 10:01:32AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
I was mostly talking about binding on the developers. If a license
isn't binding on the copyright owner, licensing is a non-issue,
because the result is undistributable by definition.
What are you talking about?
However you seem to
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 12:57:51PM +0200, guenter geiger wrote:
I don't have a permission from MIT.
Clearly makes it not distributable ?
Yep.
Though if you get permission we can distribute it in non-free.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:39:03PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
I need an advice about library license.
If I develop a library L1 that links to another library L2 which is
GPL'd, could I release L1 under the LGPL, or am I forced to release L1
under the GPL?
You're not forced to release
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
4) incorporate (some places incorporation requires some small number
[anywhere from 1 to 5] of incorporators, and a few bucks to the state:
Idaho requires one and $30, for example).
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 03:29:58AM -0700, Joseph
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 06:06:54AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Well supposedly SPI already exists for this purpose, however SPI and
Debian both cower in fear from the mere potential of a cease-and-desist
letter because someone got the bright idea that one might be possible
under a silly US
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:46:19AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
The group name would be as if a partnership filed a Does Business As.
For the case of Oregon (the only state where I've mucked with this stuff),
you have to file for a partnership with the commerce department, just
like you'd have to
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 04:17:46AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
Please note that if the source code is given with a program, as provided
for above, and section B is not toggled, the license is NOT perpetual: it
is time limited to a reasonable time, and may be revoked with
seasonable notice.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 03:56:10PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
The license doesn't say ADDITIONAL restriction, it simply says
restrictions. Adding words that are not there to make it free is not only
dishonest, it's stupid.
DFSG doesn't require that we be able to combine material under
different
701 - 800 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
