Ok I have said some things that weren't true. This was not my intent I was just
trying really hard to understand the license, maybe too hard.
> Consider section 1. It says "you may copy and distribute verbatim copies of
> the
> Program's source code provided that you ...". I interpret this as say
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> 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
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 forth in the GPL (but not
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
...
> > > It is not until Section 3 is reached where under your interpretation (but
> > > not
> > > mine) the Program is redefined to be the complete source code that there
> > > is a
> > > problem.
> >
> > I disagree with this point.
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
> > decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
> > appreciated.
> ...
> >> If you defin
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> The problem with reading the GPL this way is that it systematically uses this
> phrase when the rest of the GPL (or the designated part) does NOT explicitly
> treat the subject of "under the terms" (in some cases: explicitly not). This
> is most clear
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 08:39:29AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> But either way I think we agree the binary isn't licensed under the GPL.
I believe I already stated this in another message, but: without a license
you're not allowed to distribute the binary.
--
Raul
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:30:31AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> Personally I think that it is theoretically possible to license a binary under
> the GPL, but I don't think it make much sense to do so, (it's equivalent to
> applying the GPL to say a file of raw binary data of rainfall measurements).
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:07:28AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
> decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
> appreciated.
...
> If you define the work as I have then reading through the terms o
Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> > > source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> > > distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 deals only with sourc
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Don Sanders wrote:
> > GNU e?grep, version 1.6
>
> Grep (the binary) does contain the following:
I see this message in grep 2.3 but not 1.6. (At the time I was logged into a
stable machine that doesn't get upgraded very often).
But either way I think we
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
[ . . . ]
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When I read "under the terms of Sections 1 and 2", I interpret that as "in
> > compliance with". "Under the terms of" is often used in legal documents to
> > mean
> > "in complia
Excuse the previous message, I hit ^C ^C in emacs where I meant ^X ^X !
I'm ging to try to keep this short and then shut up definitely. I just aint
got the time to go on like this.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 12:02:31 -0500 Andreas Pour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I read "under the terms of Sectio
Don Sanders wrote:
> Personally I think that it is theoretically possible to license a binary under
> the GPL, but I don't think it make much sense to do so, (it's equivalent to
> applying the GPL to say a file of raw binary data of rainfall measurements).
>
> For instance Section 0 of the GPL req
> 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]> wrote:
> >
> > > Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Personally I think that it is theoretically possible to license a binary under
the GPL, but I don't think it make much sense to do so, (it's equivalent to
applying the GPL to say a file of raw binary data of rainfall measurements).
For instance Section 0 of the GPL requires that in order to apply
I just want to prefix this message by saying the issue I am concerned with is
whether I can apply the GPL to a KDE application.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clea
Ok I screwed up in a few places in recent mails
> Is applicable and the complete source is not under the scope of the license.
Could have been clearer:
Is applicable and none of the complete source except for the Program is under
the scope of the license.
> If the complete sources do not contain
After thinking about the the work based on the Program issue some more I've
decided everything I wrote originally is correct. Any response would be
appreciated.
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Heart of the debate
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:19:41 +1100
From: Don Sa
I hope you don't mind me replying to this too.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> 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 t
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> > source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> > distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 deals only with source
> > c
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:02:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> I think this is where you went off-track. Section 2 only refers to
> source code distributions (as it requires the modifications to be
> distributed under Section 1 and Section 1 deals only with source
> code).
I disagree.
Section
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> 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
> > > ter
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
> > terms of GPL 1 and 2" without having, i
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> > meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined
> > by a copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the a
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> > meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined by a
> > copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL use
Don Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Raul I think your interpretation of the GPL is wrong. It contradicts the
> meaning of "distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2" as defined by a
> copyright lawyer, it requires believing that the author of the GPL used
> inconsistent language in Secti
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Don Sanders wrote:
> > > I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> > > based on the Program".
> >
> > Because it contains the Program yes.
>
> Hmm I need to think about this more, the complete source code is aggregated
> with the Program but i
> > I think you agree that the complete source code is an example of a "work
> > based on the Program".
>
> Because it contains the Program yes.
Hmm I need to think about this more, the complete source code is aggregated
with the Program but it may be considered a collection of works none of whic
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:53:34PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > In this specific case I want to determine if I can apply the GPL to
> > all the files in a particular kdepackage/application directory (I call
> > this work the KDE application, I'm assuming I
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 05:03:59PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> I just noticed my remark in parenthesis is irrelevant, 2b clearly talks
> about licensing under the terms of this License, it's very clear derivative
> works must be licensed under the GPL.
Thank you.
> Now if your interpretation is c
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:53:34PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> In this specific case I want to determine if I can apply the GPL to
> all the files in a particular kdepackage/application directory (I call
> this work the KDE application, I'm assuming I wrote all the stuff in
> these files and own th
(Missed debian-legal)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code
> > .. must be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to mean
> > or at least imply "th
I'm going to take the slightly unusual approach of replying to your comment in
two parts.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Finally interpreting the phrase "the complete source code must be
> > distributed under the terms of
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 10:30:04AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> Raul, it seems you interpret the phrase "the complete .. source code
> .. must be distributed under ther terms of Sections 1 and 2.." to mean
> or at least imply "the complete source code must be distributed by
> applying Sections 1 and
I would like to address an issue that I feel is at the heart of the debate
about the legality of distributing KDE.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Section 3 of the GPL states:
>
>3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or exe
36 matches
Mail list logo
