On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The end being achieved is a major factor in finding a functional
interface for legal purposes.
We're in violent agreement, here.
The GPL is indeed an offer of contract, but it ties standards of breach
so closely to copyright
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[OK. One past-last message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'll use a verbatim copy of my post to take apart your and Gadek's
claim. Please do not take the heat of the debate as a personal affront.
It's not meant to hurt. I very much appreciate your civility in your
e-mail messages, which are a refreshing change from the pissing
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like linking vs. interpretation
are irrelevant to its legal force; and a judge is unlikely to permit
the GPL to reach across a
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 02:16:37PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Summary: Canadian law has a few interesting differences from US law,
but I reach the same main conclusions -- the GPL is a valid offer of
contract; technical distinctions like linking vs. interpretation
are irrelevant to its
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[Side comment: This is one of the beauty of the GPL: for all those, such
as SCO, that claim that the GPL wouldn't hold up in court, it would mean
that actually they (SCO all) have no right to do anything, let alone
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi All,
I am not subscribed to this mailing-list, so please CC answers to me (if
any).
In this long message I will outline my interpretation of copyright law
and the GNU GPL. I will actually cite the relevant parts (for computer
Software) of the Canadian Copyright Act,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:52:18PM +, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
No, they're not. It's the license
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion is irrelevant to the
huge parts of
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion is
10 matches
Mail list logo
