David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was
> supposed to have a GPLed component, ergo be a combined work derived
> from (among others) the GPLed piece.
His product as whole is NOT a derivative work, idiot.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?st
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was
> > supposed to have a GPLed component, ergo be a combined work derived
> > from (among others) the GPLed piece.
>
> His product as whole is NOT a derivative work, id
Marcin Giedz wrote:
[...]
> problem with this) and commercial (for OUR code - simple to survive ) -
> but what about such things like libtiff and xpdf in this situation? Can
> we use it? If yes what is an obligation?
Compliance with the GPL for GPL'd portions of your product. Ignore
infections
Forgot one thing...
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > It means that "THIS part comes from and is based on GPL license"
> > (which is a derivative work) as a whole must be licensed under the GPL
> > and only the GPL.
>
> Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was
> suppo
--
Comment 1621: An idea to make everyone happy?
Regarding the text: No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.
In section: gpl3.drm.0.0
Submitted by: Fire on 2006-08-14 at 10:56 EDT
0 agree:
noted by Fire on 2006-08-14 at 10:56 EDT:
I agree that Tivoization is a danger, but I a
Marcin Giedz writes:
> So what about Safari in this case? What license do they use?
Safari is LGPL, as is libgtkhtml2.
> We've built application from scratch and this is our code but to present
> a tiff file to user we use libtiff library.
Read the licenses on the libraries you are linking to.
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> Read the licenses on the libraries you are linking to. Libtiff4 isn't
> under the GPL at all. It is distributed under a BSD-like license.
OP mentioned xpdf, uncle Hasler.
http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/about.html
--
Distribution conditions
Xpdf is licensed under t
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Yes, and he quite clearly stated that their product as a whole was
>> supposed to have a GPLed component, ergo be a combined work derived
>> from (among others) the GPLed piece.
>
> His product as whole is NOT a deriv
I wrote:
> Safari is LGPL...
Parts are closed-source.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
--
Comment 1562: Surrender?
Regarding the text: Surrender
In section: gpl3.libertyordeath.0.0
Submitted by: franks on 2006-08-02 at 20:51 EDT
1 agree: anjrew
noted by franks on 2006-08-02 at 20:51 EDT:
Is surrendering of freedom a legal term?
A positive, assertive statement may be be
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Cute. Another completely irrelevant quote. Court filings (not even a
> judgment) for a completely different setting.
Oh really? What your damaged brain perceives as "a completely different
setting" is nothing but FSF inspired crackpot theory of A+B resulting
in a "
Well, not quite about the GPL (except that the GNU President declared
SUN's CDDL "GPL incompatible" for various reasons and ruled that "a
module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this
reason. Also unfortuna
The essence is this: "I would like to see if we can make HPL the
"Greater GPL", because virality is what made open source what it is
today. If we relax it, we are toasted."
ROFL.
http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2006/08/honest-public-license.html
---
The Honest Public License
A few weeks
13 matches
Mail list logo
