On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:52:24AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The definition of source is the preferred form of the work for making
modifications, selected from those forms which are available to you.
No. Where is that last clause in the GPL? Hint: it isn't, as
indicated by your
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 04:52:24AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The definition of source is the preferred form of the work for making
modifications, selected from those forms which are available to you.
No. Where is that last clause in
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:52PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Consider the case where a GPLed program is distributed with .o files
that are linked in at link time. The author could say, under the same
logic and with a straight face, that the .o is the preferred form for
modification.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 05:54:07PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it,
You omitted #3, which amends #1, and we're not obviously fine there.
I don't know how you can possibly argue that the source we've
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 00:54, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:31:52PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Please point out exactly which section of the GPL would grant us such
rights. Remember, rights not explicitly granted are withheld under
default copyright law.
1. You may
If you took the obfuscated code, did your best to unobfuscate it by
applying both automatic reformating and manual editing, and then made
some functional changes in it, or even non-functional changes, such as
adding comments, I think you could then claim that what you have
created is now the
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You're the one amending selected from those forms which are available
to you. The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.
I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonable
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 10:18, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
If you took the obfuscated code, did your best to unobfuscate it by
applying both automatic reformating and manual editing, and then made
some functional changes in it, or even non-functional changes, such as
adding comments, I think you
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 02:08, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 02:27:29AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You're the one amending selected from those forms which are available
to you. The GPL *doesn't say that*. Maybe it's your definition of
source, but it's not the GPL's.
I
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 07:08:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
I knew someone would come up with that. There is however no other reasonable
interpretation of the GPL possible.
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then I can immediately
prevent you from distributing, say, gcc
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:54:19AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
As I said, I think all those who are saying otherwise are guilty of
confusing what we're allowed to do with what we want to do.
Or, possibly, you're not seeing a crucial aspect of the whole debate.
That's my opinion, anyway.
This is a public discussion, and I'm not interested in having it in
private.
(as such, replies to other portions omitted)
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:36:24PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
It's moot really, as we almost certainly don't *want* to distribute it as
'free' anyway.
I think the real
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it,
See, we're fine.
Having received no source code, we can distribute that empty set.
This does not allow us to distribute object code.
The permission
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They could, and we'd laugh at them. The point is that we would be perfectly
within our rights to distribute it, and that whether or not we chose to do
so would be an entirely separate question.
No. If you distribute your own files under the GPL, but
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:19:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
VCG is currently in main, but is it distributable at all? The GPL doesn't
consider this source, IIRC.
Yeah. I don't think it is distributable, and therefore not DFSG-free.
While the copyright holder can certainly
I think you're a little over-zealous in your interpretation. The original
distributor is clearly the only entity not distributing what for them is
the preferred form for modification, and that's their prerogative. Whilst
we may not like it, I don't think it in any way makes it undistributable;
as
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 18:44, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:19:35AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
While the copyright holder can certainly distribute obfuscated source
and no one can tell him not to, the GNU GPL by which the licensees
(i.e., we, and our users) are bound
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:05:41PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can a company release a binary - or the disassembled source to one - under
the GPL? Does that make it DFSG-free? By your argument it would.
They could certainly release the disassembled source under the GPL. Whether
or not it
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:57:50PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Consider the case where a GPLed program is distributed with .o files
that are linked in at link time. The author could say, under the same
logic and with a straight face, that the .o is the preferred form for
modification.
They
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 20:42, Nick Phillips wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:57:50PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
Consider the case where a GPLed program is distributed with .o files
that are linked in at link time. The author could say, under the same
logic and with a straight face, that
The Readme for VCG says:
LICENSE CONDITIONS
Copyright (C) 1993--1995 by Iris Lemke, Georg Sander, and
the Compare Consortium
This work is supported by the ESPRIT project 5399 Compare.
We thank the Compare Consortium for the permission to
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:31:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Readme for VCG says:
[...]
We thank the Compare Consortium for the permission to distribute
this software and documentation freely. You can redistribute
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
22 matches
Mail list logo
