http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2006/1030/104.html
LOL.
Man, but this is even better:
http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=stallmanreaction&message.id=4
--
Ignorance and initial assumptions
rschott
Newbie
Posts: 4
Registered: 10-14-2006
rschott
T
GPLv3 is an Eldorado for Dan.
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/free-as-in-difficult/
Free as in difficult
October 13th, 2006
Free as in freedom is the rallying cry of Richard M. Stallmans Free
Software Foundation. But these guys are anything but easy to deal with,
I
I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of this
sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code showing
how to use various elements of the sdk in various display enviornments.
We have on example based on X11, another for OpenGL. I want to include
a Qt example with m
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
example program.
Does including this example source code in my distrubuted tarball
put the entire thing, including the sdk, under the GPL?
Y
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
>library.
>
> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
> example program.
How fascinating.
Hey ldb, ams' "derivate" means "GNU-derived" (incurable ueber GNUtian
r
> You are not forced to anything, you agreed to follow the license; see
> section 5 of the GNU GPL. But, it would be better if you respected the
> rights of your users by making your library free software, would you
> like to do that and help us in the fight against a society that
> subjugates the
> You are not forced to anything, you agreed to follow the license;
> see section 5 of the GNU GPL. But, it would be better if you
> respected the rights of your users by making your library free
> software, would you like to do that and help us in the fight
> against a society that
Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
>library.
>
> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
> example program.
I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
SD
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
> SDK library and the Qt library.
That must be the GNU Copyleft Act Section 666 or some such. Hey, do
you have a link, Merijn?
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
>library.
>
> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
> example program.
Of course this is nonsense. Alfred confuses several different issues
tha
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> While the SDK library is not derived from Qt, the complete example
> program is derived from both SDK library and Qt.
^^^
Hey ldb, GNUtian dak means "GNU-derived" (see unwritten GNU Copyleft
Act). It has really nothing to do with software "derivati
>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
>sdk's library.
>
> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
> the example program.
I disagree.
And the FSF disagrees with you. From the GPL FAQ
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht
>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
>sdk's library.
>
> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
> the example program.
Of course this is nonsense. Alfred confuses several different
issues that lead to a particular resu
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
>>sdk's library.
>>
>> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
>> the example program.
>
>I disagree.
>
> And the FSF di
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
>>sdk's library.
>>
>> This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
>> the example program.
>
>Of course this is nonsense. Alfred confus
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
> the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
> If he cannot do that, "then as a consequence [the OP] may not
> distribute the Program at all." No infection, just a legal
Hey schizophrenic de Weerd, I think that you've been convinced at some
point that linking doesn't create software derivative works under
copyright except in the GNU Republic (i.e. under Stallman's copyleft***
not copyright, that is). Go take some medicine to end the crisis.
***) As GNU Reichsmi
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
> without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
> a formality instead of an available technical option.
What are you smoking dak?
regards,
alexander.
___
On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
>> the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
>> If he cannot do that, "then as a consequence [the OP] may not
>>
On 16 Oct 2006 07:37:56 -0700
"Louis B. (ldb)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of this
> sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code showing
> how to use various elements of the sdk in various display
> enviornments. We have
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
>>> the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
>>> If he cannot d
> I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of
> this sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code
> showing how to use various elements of the sdk in various display
> enviornments. We have on example based on X11, another for
> OpenGL. I want to in
It should be noted to all that Davids opinion is exactly that, his
own; it is also a complete misrepresentation of the opinion of the
FSF. The FSF has been clear on this point, in that a GPL-incompatible
work that links to a GPL work is illegal. This is both answered in
the FAQ, and in other spot
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of
>> this sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code
>> showing how to use various elements of the sdk in various display
>> enviornments. We have on exa
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:59:18 +0200 (CEST)
QuoteMaster "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > Of course not - you're not including Qt, are you? If it's source
> > code you wrote yourself, that happens to call Qt routines, then it
> > is not subject to the Qt license.
>
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It should be noted to all that Davids opinion is exactly that, his
> own; it is also a complete misrepresentation of the opinion of the
> FSF. The FSF has been clear on this point, in that a
> GPL-incompatible work that links to a GPL work is illeg
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
Linking == modification.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Unfortunately, Alfred's enthusiasm for free software often gets
>the better of him and makes him claim theories that are not
>supported by even the FSF. So when in doubt, rather consult the
>relevant FAQs, license texts and the respo
David Kastrup wrote:
> The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
> without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
> a formality instead of an available technical option. However, if
> there are practical uses without linking to the GPLed library (fo
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:51:58 -0400
From: "Fred Benenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Free Culture @ NYU's list serv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [free-culture] Meeting Tuesday Night at 8pm
Reply-To: "Fred Benenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Free Culture @ NYU,
We'll be meeting at Kimmel at 8
31 matches
Mail list logo
