> > What is specific point of law on which we disagree?
...
> The part where you stated:
>
> > So: the complete source code has to be licensed under the GPL, but
> > some of the individual elements of it do not.
>
> Also, from various statements I can't bother to cull together, I don't
> think you
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> > >
> > > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > > itself does not. There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> >
> > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> >
> > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > itself does not. There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> > where you could make sugar boil
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 03:39:47PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > I'm asking a very straight-forward question: if you link a dynamic
> > library to a GPL Program, does the source code of the library have to
> > be licensed under the GPL? I think you are really wafflin
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > OK, perhaps we are making progress after all. It appears that you have
> > > now abandoned the argument that Qt itself must be licensed under the
> > > GPL. So if that is true, all you require is that the collective work
> > > in k
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > OK, perhaps we are making progress after all. It appears that you have
> > now abandoned the argument that Qt itself must be licensed under the
> > GPL. So if that is true, all you require is that the collecti
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 02:23:59PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> OK, perhaps we are making progress after all. It appears that you have
> now abandoned the argument that Qt itself must be licensed under the
> GPL. So if that is true, all you require is that the collective work
> in kghostview/Qt be
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You've been implying that the irreversible change mentioned in Section
> > > 3 is a requirement for cases where libc is used as a Library.
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Well, it seems you misquoting me is beco
Raul Miller wrote:
> > You've been implying that the irreversible change mentioned in Section
> > 3 is a requirement for cases where libc is used as a Library.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Well, it seems you misquoting me is becoming an annoying ritual. What
> I
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > > Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> > > > General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> > > > the Library. To do this, you must alter all t
> > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> > > General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> > > the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer
> > >
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> > General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> > the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer
> to this License, s
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Feb 17, Andreas Pour wrote:
> [...]
> > > I don't see why, after you've gone to such pains to establish that the
> > > on a module license doesn't change when a module is linked with a GPLed
> > > program. Why have you decided that this is a necessary step for this
> >
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:35:55AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> You are right, I apologize, I should have left out the bracketed part.
Thank you.
> I note, though, there were some flames in the part I snipped as well.
Hm... Rereading my message, I see that I referred to you in an ironic
or sar
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:32:26PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > [ double-think, confusion and inconsistencies snipped ]
> >
> > I think all the issues have been adequately aired. I will turn to
> > other things.
>
> I agree that the issues have been adequately aired, but tha
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:32:26PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> [ double-think, confusion and inconsistencies snipped ]
>
> I think all the issues have been adequately aired. I will turn to
> other things.
I agree that the issues have been adequately aired, but that's
no call for flamage.
--
Ra
Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You're claiming that since it's possible to replace the copyright on
> > > the library that it's necessary?
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:26:06PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > You mean change the license? I'm just quoting from the LGPL, don't blame
> > me.
[ double-th
> > You're claiming that since it's possible to replace the copyright on
> > the library that it's necessary?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 03:26:06PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> You mean change the license? I'm just quoting from the LGPL, don't blame me.
I blame you for failing to distinguish betwe
On Feb 17, Andreas Pour wrote:
[...]
> > I don't see why, after you've gone to such pains to establish that the
> > on a module license doesn't change when a module is linked with a GPLed
> > program. Why have you decided that this is a necessary step for this
> > case?
>
> B/c the LGPL says so.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > You can distribute a work under more than one license, so I still don't
> > > see why this is an issue.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > May be true in general, but not w/ the LGPL. Look at Section 3 of the LGPL:
>
Raul Miller wrote:
> > You can distribute a work under more than one license, so I still don't
> > see why this is an issue.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2000 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> May be true in general, but not w/ the LGPL. Look at Section 3 of the LGPL:
>
> You may opt to apply th
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you
> > have to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed
> > with Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 10:42:51PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you
> have to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed
> with Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment
> that Debian does no
On Feb 16, Andreas Pour wrote:
> It is relevant b/c, under your reading, to link libc with 'grep', you have
> to license libc under the GPL. So that means the libc distributed with
> Debian is a GPL libc, not an LGPL libc (ignoring for the moment that Debian
> does not in fact do the conversion).
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:53:06AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > OK, so you admit that the advertising clause conflicts with the
> > GPL. Well, that's very interesting, b/c the Apache license (see
> > http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt, clause 3) includes this provision,
> > a
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:53:06AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> OK, so you admit that the advertising clause conflicts with the
> GPL. Well, that's very interesting, b/c the Apache license (see
> http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt, clause 3) includes this provision,
> as well as several others (clau
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:46:48AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > >
[ Raul Miller wrote: ]
>
> > > No clauses from the BSD license were presented which conflicted with
> > > any of the clauses from the GPL.
> >
[ Andreas Pour wrote: ]
> > The advertising clause is a "furt
28 matches
Mail list logo
