Hello,
My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2 exclusively. That
is, instead of the usual "GPL version 2 or later" it just says "GPL version 2".
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux won't be
able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, corr
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2
> exclusively. That is, instead of the usual "GPL version 2 or later" it
> just says "GPL version 2".
That's what it says, yes. People occasionally question the validity
of that,
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:09:10PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
> > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
>
> That would be the case. Is this a problem?
>
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
> > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
>
> That would be the case. Is this a problem?
For a large colaborative project, possibly. Using only the GPLv2 means you are
trappe
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I fear a lot of unpleasant forking action when the GPLv3 comes out, if it
> contains significant language changes along the lines of the GFDL (which I
> believe it will, from statements I've read from RMS and Hasn Reiser, amongst
> others), between people who decide to go "
Scripsit Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux won't be
> able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
Yes, probably. (Which, if the signals we've been getting from FSF the
last few years are to be trusted, does not st
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Let's hope that the powers that be have enough foresight to avoid this as
> much
> as possible. I think that the GPLv2 needs to be updated to, somehow, deal
> with
> the problem of software patents. Ok, IANAL, but I'd like to see a clause that
> says, "I won't sue you f
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Yes, probably. (Which, if the signals we've been getting from FSF the
> last few years are to be trusted, does not strike me as a bad thing at
> all).
This issue is new to me. What are those signals? What are you talking about? Do
you have a URL that might help me get up
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My understanding is that Linux is distributed under the GPLv2
> > exclusively. That is, instead of the usual "GPL version 2 or later" it
> > just says "GPL version 2".
>
> That's what it says, yes. People occasionally question
Daniel Carrera wrote:
> This issue is new to me. What are those signals? What are you talking about?
> Do
> you have a URL that might help me get up to speed?
Two recent articles on the topic are at
Linkname: GPL 3 to Take on IP, Patents
URL: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1730
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> I'm interested in why you think it's not.
Wow, hey. I was just asking a question. I didn't know there was an issue here.
I certainly haven't thought about it half as much as you have.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:31:38AM -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > Yes, probably. (Which, if the signals we've been getting from FSF the
> > last few years are to be trusted, does not strike me as a bad thing at
> > all).
>
> This issue is new to me. What are those sig
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Two recent articles on the topic are at
Yes, I've read those articles. But people here seem to imply something really
bad going on with the GPLv3. Whereas those articles gave me the impression that
it was promising.
> Areas of attention apparently include patents and
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> > Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
>> > won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
>>
>> That would be the case. Is this a problem?
>
> For a large colaborative project
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
> accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use of the program.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSC
Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
> > intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
> > releases GPLv2 only.
>
> Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted
> contributions from B, with the "or later" optio
Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> > Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
>> > intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
>> > releases GPLv2 only.
>>
>> Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accept
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 09:31:51 -0500 Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> > > Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
> > > intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
> > > releases GPLv2 only.
> >
> > Only if all the copyright holders agree.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:38:21 +1100 Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'm too tired to dig up the exact reference, but in a large heated
> discussion between Hans Reiser and many other people on d-devel last
> year(or maybe the year before) about removing or obscuring credits in
> mkreiserfs, Hans Reiser sta
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:33:36 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
> Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
> of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
> I think. But if you can take out his
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
> the standard GPL (with the "upg
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
>> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
>> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:38:21 +1100, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm too tired to dig up the exact reference, but in a large heated
> discussion between Hans Reiser and many other people on d-devel last year
> (or maybe the year before) about removing or obscuring credits in
> mkrei
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
> the standard GPL (with the "upgrade" option), since it has "further
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
> > accessible server.
>
> The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
> restrictions on use of the program.
I've heard people sp
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
>> > accessible server.
>>
>> The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
>> re
Missing from this discussion is a rather important aspect of this license...
the law. If GPL v3 comes out with provisions that are even arguablly
different from GPL v2 there will be all sorts of grounds for developers to
strike out the 'or later' language from all prior grants of access to thei
MÃns RullgÃrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with
> the standard GPL (with the "upgrade" option),
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 Ã 14:09 +0100, MÃns RullgÃrd a Ãcrit :
> Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
> containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
> written license. What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3?
Given that the FSF has already w
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've heard people speculate that this could be called a
> > "public performance" of the work, like singing a song in front
> > of an audience. And the right of public performance is in
> > copyright law.
>
> I don't think thi
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Missing from this discussion is a rather important aspect of this
> license... the law. If GPL v3 comes out with provisions that are
> even arguablly different from GPL v2 there will be all sorts of
> grounds for developers to strike out the 'or later' l
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
>> Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
>> containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
>> written license. What if I don't at all
On Sunday 13 March 2005 01:21 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Well, there are a few that dislike v2 already, or at least some of the
> more far-reaching interpretations of it. Seeing as v3 will attempt to
> extend its reach even further, I see it as inevitable that a fair
> amount of people will have a
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
>> of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version"
>> option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible wi
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
>> Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
>> containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
>> written license. What if I don't at all
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I've heard people speculate that this could be called a
>> > "public performance" of the work, like singing a song in front
>> > of an audience. And the right of public perfor
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 13 March 2005 01:21 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Well, there are a few that dislike v2 already, or at least some of the
>> more far-reaching interpretations of it. Seeing as v3 will attempt to
>> extend its reach even further, I see it as inevit
On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:12 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> It's also rather interesting how people, apparently without much
> reflection, release code under terms, the interpretation of which is as
> yet undefined. Given the grayness of these legal areas, and the lack
> of prior case-law, the outcom
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> We have to consider the possibility that GPLv3 will say something we
> don not want. Then we do not want people distributing it under those
> terms. Never give permission to do something you do not know what it
> is.
There's a more
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:12 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> It's also rather interesting how people, apparently without much
>> reflection, release code under terms, the interpretation of which is as
>> yet undefined. Given the grayness of these legal area
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> We have to consider the possibility that GPLv3 will say something we
>> don not want. Then we do not want people distributing it under those
>> terms. Never give permission to do somethi
(Apologies if I was just rehashing old stuff--a long work week made me
not notice that this thread is already a couple dozen posts old ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:45:36AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
[snip excellent example of wild linking graphs]
> Some argue that this is in violation of the GPL. I, however, fail to
> see how any part involved, except the FTP plugin, can possibly be
> construed a derivative of the GPL'd library.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:01:06AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> First define "problem" and "fix".
I think it's self-explanatory--a major loophole, the discovery of a
major, unintended restriction in the language that does free software
no good, etc.
There havn't been any such bugs, though, fortu
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Its actually quite a shame that there haven't been any court cases on
> the terms of the GPL... would make for some fascinating reading.
Hold your tongue! I'm quite happy that the GPL hasn't had its day in
court yet. Wait until there's a large enough
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
I think. But if you can take out his code (and any other that's
GPLv2 only), you'
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Such language is fine as long as the copyright holder and the license
>> author are the same entity. New versions of the license are likely to
>> reflect changes in the opinions of the authors, and they have every
>> right to make provisions for a modi
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
> > accessible server.
>
> The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
> restrictions
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>
>>Interesting point. But the statement would apply certainly to
>>Linus' own contributions. And that would preclude distribution
>>of anything containing those contributions under anything but GPLv2
>>I think. But if you can t
Kuno Woudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
>> > accessible server.
>>
>> The question is if a license based on
Humberto Massa wrote:
> Everything that is not completely independent and extractable and beyond
> any doubt non-historically-derived of Linus code is a derivative work
> and, as such, can only be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2.
You're correct in that anything that's a derivative work of
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
You're correct in that anything that's a derivative work of any
GPLv2 code also cannot be distributed under GPLv3 or later. But
it's going to be very interesting to figure out what code is
a derivative work of what.
Anyway, this seems rather theoretical.
Arnoud
Yeah, but
Kuno Woudt wrote:
* d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to
request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:29:36 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> There's a more significant problem: if you say "or later", and you
> don't like GPLv3--either because it allows things you don't like, or
> (as recent events suggest may be more likely) includes restrictions
> you don't like, people can tak
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:53:35 + Gervase Markham wrote:
[about the "don't remove get_source feature"]
> - The requirement to not remove certain particular code is probably
>non-free;
I don't think it's forbidding to remove the code: it's merely forbidding
to drop a feature.
You could reimpl
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:14:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
> There havn't been any such bugs, though, fortunately. Some people
> don't like the "PHP loophole" or whatever you want to call it, but I
> don't believe that's fixable in a free license,
Could you please elaborate on the "PHP loopho
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:14:09 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> [...]
>> There havn't been any such bugs, though, fortunately. Some people
>> don't like the "PHP loophole" or whatever you want to call it, but I
>> don't believe that's fixable in a free lic
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could you please elaborate on the "PHP loophole"? I've never heard of
> it: what do you mean by that?
It's the whole web-as-platform idea. Let's say I take a copy of latex
(assuming for the moment that it were GPL, which it isn't IIRC), and I
"enhanc
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:53:35PM +, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Kuno Woudt wrote:
> > * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
> > users through a computer network and if, in the version you received,
> > any user interacting with the Program was given the opportuni
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas about
> how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out to be
> accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far that deal with this
> problem (if it
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could you please elaborate on the "PHP loophole"? I've never heard of
> > it: what do you mean by that?
>
> It's the whole web-as-platform idea.
This is commonly refered to as the "ASP[1] loophole" not th
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:44:02PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> There is no single "the community", sharing a single opinion on
> "freedom". There are many different views out there, and some recent
> moves from FSF have been in a direction away from a large enough
> number of people, with loud e
Kuno Woudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
>> about how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out
>> to be accurate. But the only licenses we've seen
Kuno Woudt wrote:
> Can you be specific on which licenses you think attempt to deal with
> this problem? So far I only know of the Affero GPL, which I already
> mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and I am curious how other license
> authors have attempted to fix this problem.
Larry Rosen's Open
On Mar 15, 2005, at 03:24, Kuno Woudt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
about
how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out to be
accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so f
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean Kellogg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Missing from this discussion is a rather important aspect of this license...
the law. If GPL v3 comes out with provisions that are even arguablly
different from GPL v2 there will be all sorts of grounds for developers to
stri
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:50:54PM +, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> And doesn't the GPL contain a promise that any future GPL will be
> identical in spirit to the original?
Nope. It says "similar in spirit", which is much weaker to me. Certainly
it's also not a major stretch to claim that a
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And doesn't the GPL contain a promise that any future GPL will be
> identical in spirit to the original?
It uses the phrase "similar in spirit", which has yet to be given an
exact definition.
>>Of course, this assumes you actually want to take
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 01:34 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Nope. It says "similar in spirit", which is much weaker to me. Certainly
> it's also not a major stretch to claim that a license which says "if you
> use this program as part of your webpage, you must make source available"
> is "similar i
Francesco Poli wrote:
| 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
| versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new
| versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
| differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Add another one -- "must offer an [...] opportunity for all users [...] to
request immediate transmission by HTTP" -- doesn't mean that the request
must be successfully honoured...
Strictly speaking, yes. However, if you intentionally saw that all
requests would fail to be
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should
> reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the
> latter has a documented API and the former only communicates with
> it through that API, I'd probably say no. Even more so if that
> plugin could
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:22:12AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> >> That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should
> >> reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the
> >> latter has a documented API and the former only communicates with
>
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:22:12AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
>>> That said, it looks questionable whether the FTP plugin should
>>> reallybe considered a derivative of the plugin loader. If the
>>> latter has a documented API and the former only
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> > Basically, ".h" bits are *not* copyrightable.
>> Under what theory do you come to that conclusion? Note that a .h
>> file can contain more than function prototypes, and function
>> prototypes don't have to be in a .h fil
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:56:49AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Whoa, slow down, cowboy! Re-read what I have written up there: <<".h"
> _bits_ are not copyrightable>>. Now take a deep breath. The thing is: it
> is considered by USofA and other countries case law that the bits that
> are at com
Henning Makholm wrote:
>Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
Basically, ".h" bits are *not* copyrightable.
>
>>> Under what theory do you come to that conclusion? Note that a .h
file can contain more than function prototypes, and function prototypes
don't hav
Raul Miller wrote:
Even assuming that this "considered" has some legal basis, this "rule" utterly misses the point. You have a decent heuristic there, but it's just a heuristic -- it doesn't mean anything legally.
Yes and no. Every legal issue is judged (by an attorney, before be
definitively
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Deep breath taken. I still want to know why you think bits are
>> treated differently by copyright just because they happen to be in a
>> file whose name ends in .h.
> Well, this is kind of easy to explain.
Snip "explanation
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Trying to explain more: my "myfile.c" is not a derivative work on
>> "errno.h",
>
> No, but myfile.o may be. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here).
My understanding is that, in practice, myfile.c could
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work
>> on another original work independently of what the compiler and linker
>> will do in the future.
>
> I repeat: No, but the resulting .o file may be derived from another
> work t
Henning Makholm wrote:
Snip "explanation" that does not do anything the idea that bits are
treated differently by copyright just becuase they are in a file
called .h.
Repeating: bits that are in files called .h are not copied in your work,
so your work is not a derivative work of the .h by way
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Trying to explain more: my "myfile.c" is not a derivative work on
"errno.h",
No, but myfile.o may be. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here).
My understanding is that, in practice, myfile.c could infringe as well,
if the only reasonable way to use it is by creatin
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
>>> > Basically, ".h" bits are *not* copyrightable.
>
>>> Under what theory do you come to that conclusion? Note that a .h
>>> file can contain more than function prototypes, and
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 06:41:58PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Inline functions are certainly being included in the machine code that
> > comes out of the compiler, at least if they are called by the rest of
> > the compilation unit.
>
> Irrelevant. If someone chooses to implement a particula
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> extern char **__err_msgs;
>> >> #define perror(s) (fprintf(stderr,"%d:%s:%s\n",errno,__err_msgs[errno]))
>> >
>> >> Is "myfile.c" a derivative work on "errno.h"? The answer is NO.
>> >
>> > Of course. But myfile.o might have been if perror() were c
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 04:19:31PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >Snip "explanation" that does not do anything the idea that bits are
> >treated differently by copyright just becuase they are in a file
> >called .h.
>
> Repeating: bits that are in files called .h are no
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >> extern char **__err_msgs;
> >> >> #define perror(s)
> >> >> (fprintf(stderr,"%d:%s:%s\n",errno,__err_msgs[errno]))
> >> >
> >> >> Is "myfile.c" a derivative work on "errno.h"? Th
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my
> > implementation as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your*
> > problem. I don't even know what you're trying to say here--"you put
> > your copyrighted c
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work
> >> on another original work independently of what the compiler and linker
> >> will do in the future.
> >
> >
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
> on the American notion of "fair use" is non-free, because in the UK
> that means "Non-co
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my
>> > implementation as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your*
>> > problem. I don't even know what you're t
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work
>> >> on another original work independently of what the comp
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:55:40AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a de
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> > rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
> > on the American n
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Trying to explain more: my "myfile.c" is not a derivative work on
>>> "errno.h",
>> No, but myfile.o may be. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here).
> My
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>>Snip "explanation" that does not do anything the idea that bits are
>>treated differently by copyright just becuase they are in a file
>>called .h.
> Repeating: bits that are in files called .h are not copied in your
> work,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:38:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> > > rest of the world i
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:26:18PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:38:19PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:10:41AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 07:45:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > Fair use is an American
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 09:55:40AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > > Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the
> > > > > rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies
> > > > > on the American notion of "fair use" is non-free, because in the
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
