"Mike Cox" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> Question to the nice folks in g.m.d...
>
> I have a couple of nice patches I would like to contribute to
> the Gentoo project, but I have some doubts. As some people
> probably already know, Gentoo requires that their contributors
> transfer copyright o
Mike Cox writes:
> It says there legal action is only possible if all copyright is owned by
> a single entity.
Not true.
> In other places they claim they're doing this because ... Debian ... [is]
> requiring copyright transfer as well...
Not true.
> I have heard first hand that Debian not only
Question to the nice folks in g.m.d...
I have a couple of nice patches I would like to contribute to
the Gentoo project, but I have some doubts. As some people
probably already know, Gentoo requires that their contributors
transfer copyright of all contributed material to the
Gentoo Foundation
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You define "based on" for source code as "not runnable in compiled
> format without the library and containing references to the
> library's API". The way I would defin
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
> >
> >> I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs,
> >> or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
>
>> I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs,
>> or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever
>> license he fancies, without any recourse for the copyright holders
>> of the libraries
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
> an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
>
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> I would go as far as to say that in the case of software, ...
---
No. 05-04001
__
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 13th CIRCUIT
__
OMEGA, INC.,
Plaint
"Louis B. (ldb)" wrote:
>
> Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
> SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
Utterly moronic GNUtian copyleft derivative theory was sorta "argued" in the
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 13th [sic :-)] CI
Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
> You cannot "annotate, revise, elaborate or otherwise modify" without
> anything of the original work.
I think that David is assuming annotations or elaborations that do not
include portions of the original works. I think that the copyright act is
assuming annotations o
Stefan writes:
> ...you're perfectly entitled to install and run GPL'd software without
> accepting the GPL, because those rights are already conferred to you by
> the fair use doctrine of copyright.
They are conferred[1], but not by fair use (in the US).
[1] More precisely, they are not reserve
David Kastrup writes:
> I have here a secondary literary work covering "Ulysses", consisting
> pretty much exclusively of annotations. Where there are citations, they
> are short enough not to count as copyrightable in itself. But it
> certainly is a derivative work.
Under US law it may very wel
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> I have here a secondary literary work covering "Ulysses", consisting
> pretty much exclusively of annotations.
Uh moron dak.
http://www.viewerfreedom.org/legal/20030711Intel/20030711brief.pdf
---
... copyright law requires that a derivative work incorporate p
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:49:53 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
> > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> > An original program i
> By linking to a GPLed library, which Qt is, you must abide by that
> license.
Don't forget that the GPL only gives you extra rights. So you can still do
things without accepting the GPL. Typically you only need to accept the GPL
for a given product if you intend to distribute some derivative o
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > An original program in source code format, and contains function
>> > and/or system calls does not consist of "rev
David writes:
> I would have thought that it's sufficient to publish *only* the example
> program under the GPL.
It is more than sufficient.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:10:19 +0200
David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:08:47 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
> > 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.
On 17 Oct 2006 06:57:50 -0700
"Louis B. (ldb)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
> SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
That was what I understood. IMHO, adding example source code that uses
Qt constructs is
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > An original program in source code format, and contains function
> > and/or system calls does not consist of "revisions, annotations,
> > elaborations or other modificat
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL>
Yeah right, "bindings" moronity.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs>
And "special exception" for "major components (compiler, kernel, and
so on)." ("unless that component it
David Kastrup wrote:
[... annotations ...]
> > It's a wholly new work. It contains _no_ code from the libraries or
> > the OS, and thus it cannot be a derivative work.
>
> But in the literary case, exactly that does _not_ hold, according to
> the letter of the law.
Uh retard dak. Here's a bunc
David Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:08:47 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
>> 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,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:08:47 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> 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
Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
Guys, thanks for all the information. It was quite a read.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
htt
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed
>> > library. I license my source code under a non-Fr
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed
> > library. I license my source code under a non-Free license to
> > Alex. He compiles my code, and links i
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366>
> >
> > You should read his later work as well.
> >
> > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
> >
> > In plain language:
> >
> > http://www
Peter Yared, chief executive of ActiveGrid...
(According to Dan, "Yared says he and others in the open source
community wasted two years trying to counter all the SCO-related FUD
with customers. Just as that cloud is being lifted, along comes
Stallman and the GPLv3 to mess everything up again."
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> clear that even a work which as a whole represents an original work of
> authorship can be a derivative work.
Uh retard dak. The first rule of statutory construction is "begin at
the beginning" and the second rule is "read on". Original simply means
creative effort
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366>
>
> You should read his later work as well.
>
> http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
>
> In plain language:
>
> http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
Of course "in pl
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366>
You should read his later work as well.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
In plain language:
http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses with his own,
but i
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:20:54 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> The source code is not a derived work as far as I can see, but the
>> question is whether a mechanism created and provided for the sole
>> purpose of acquiring a cop
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
> >> >> picture m
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:10:45 +0200
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the distributor can prove that one typical use case for a
> > customer would be to let the code rot away without ever compiling or
> > linking it (indeed a typical use case for example code), then the
> > produc
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:20:54 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But source code as such is never a derivative work of the stuff that
> > might or might not be called when the compiled program is executing.
>
> Sure. But the quest
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
>> >> picture might change, depending on how much of the l
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
> >> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
> >> in the transformed source code.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > This is a weird example - distributing source code of a proprietary
> > product in order to compile and link it with GPLed libraries smacks
> > of putting the cart in front of the horse.
>
> It smacks of license circumvention.
Only in your brain-damaged head. 17
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
>> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
>> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
>> in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
>
2006/9/13, Brandon Sharitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
One of the things that is confusing me is the talk about the front and
back cover text. What exactly are they, and what do they mean?
If you print the documents in quantity, you'll need to print them in the cover.
And if you redistribute the docum
On 9/13/06, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I plan to use Wikipedia articles for some of the basic background,
thus it will be covered by the FDL, and not one of the easier to
understand Creative Commons licenses.
The GNU FDL is not part of the Creative Commons licenses, man
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
> in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
> the resulting source code will contain the whole of "
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But source code as such is never a derivative work of the stuff that
> might or might not be called when the compiled program is executing.
Sure. But the question is whether the compiling and linking is done
at the choice of the end user, or whethe
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:04:23 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
> > Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >This ex
quoted by Dan Lyons:
http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/off-the-record/
--
People find the GPL very hard to understand. Its not written in a
style that is a typical license style. Licensing lawyers write in a
particular style because its precise. Its hard to understand but if
y
Uh moron dak. So in the GNU Republic the status of other people's
works changes instantaneously (somehow becoming less derivative) the
moment GNUtians decide to dual-license. Go to doctor.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
>
>
> Linking == modification.
>
>These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>identifiable
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> If its main purpose is to be compiled and run, things are different.
17 USC 117, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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 w
Stephen Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 pract
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:51:57 -0400
Stephen Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, however, the GPLed library in question is Qt, which is
> readily available both under the GPL and a commercial license.
> Presumably nothing in the example code insists that people use Qt
> under the GPL,
53 matches
Mail list logo
