On May 14, 4:18 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Hi,
>
> > Suppose I used some GPL code (e.g. linux kernel linked lists) in my
> > own project, which is also under GPL. However I have the copyright for
> > the bits that I wrote, possibly more than a non-t
On Apr 29, 4:32 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does free software make it more difficult for people to make a
>profit (even an *honest* one, not Microsoft-style) from their
>computer programming skills and talents?
>
> It doesn't.
>
>People should deserve to be a
On Apr 7, 1:43 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
But you can still infringe the copyright.
That's what's being discussed.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@
On Apr 27, 7:44 am, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > money with a long-term goal of building a sustainable business.
>
> Signed,
>
> > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
>
> Renowned GNUtian dak -- loyal paying customer of FSF endorsed
On Apr 27, 8:20 am, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a not entirely bad piece as of 2004.
>
> http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/...
>
> --
> Has Open Source Reached Its Limits?
> by Tony Healy on 04.03.2004
>
...
Interesting stuff, but h
Hi.
I just noticed someone with concerns a bit similar to mine, and
although I posted a message there I'd like to post another here to see
if I can be more clear and/or make it more visible.
Here's the scenario:
I have two programs, a GPL program and my own program, to which I
myself own the cop
On Apr 27, 8:20 am, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a not entirely bad piece as of 2004.
>
> http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/...
>
> --
> Has Open Source Reached Its Limits?
> by Tony Healy on 04.03.2004
>
...
Interesting stuff, but h
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi.
>
>Here's the scenario:
>
>I have two programs, a GPL program and my own program, to which I
>myself own the copyrights.
The point is moot then. If you own the copyrights, you can do anything
you like with the programs. Copyrig
mike3 writes:
> I have two programs, a GPL program and my own program, to which I myself
> own the copyrights. Now, I take a couple of pieces of the GPL program and
> install them in my own program, and then release the resulting package
> under a proprietary or other non-GPL license,
> ...
> So, w
BAJ
> It's yours in your example. You can do whatever you like.
This is true if both programs are his (I read his article the other way).
The GPL is model license, not a law. Only the copyright owner can sue for
copyright infringement, and you are not going to sue yourself.
To the OP: yes, you
Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to
mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if,
say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of
the original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be
distributed in the pack
> People should also have the freedom to use, study, improve and
> distribute the software they have. Earning a living by subjugating
> the rights of ones users is not a honest one.
So you can get reasonably rich then without subjugating?
You can earn a living without subjugating the
Dom, 2007-05-20 às 18:50 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> On Apr 7, 1:43 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
>
> But you can still infringe the copyright.
> That's what's being discussed.
Then why don't you talk about that, i
> You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
But you can still infringe the copyright. That's what's being
discussed.
No, what was being discussed was _stealing_ code, and you cannot do
that. If you wish to discuss copyright infrginment, then do not
discuss something
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
none) (Byron Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have two programs, a GPL program and my own program, to which I
>>myself own the copyrights.
>The point is moot then. If you own the copyrights, you can do anything
>you like with the programs.
It seems pretty clear
Richard writes:
> It seems pretty clear that he *doesn't* own the copyrights to both
> programs.
I think it is pretty unclear. He wrote "I have two programs, a GPL program
and my own program, to which I myself own the copyrights." Does the plural
'copyrights' refer to the two programs, or to the
Asking the OP what he or she meant would probobly resolve this issue
far quicker... Just a thought.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On May 21, 5:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED](none) (Byron Jeff) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi.
>
> >Here's the scenario:
>
> >I have two programs, a GPL program and my own program, to which I
> >myself own the copyrights.
>
> The point is moot then. I
On May 21, 10:03 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard writes:
> > It seems pretty clear that he *doesn't* own the copyrights to both
> > programs.
>
> I think it is pretty unclear. He wrote "I have two programs, a GPL program
> and my own program, to which I myself own the copyrigh
On May 21, 6:41 am, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 writes:
> > I have two programs, a GPL program and my own program, to which I myself
> > own the copyrights. Now, I take a couple of pieces of the GPL program and
> > install them in my own program, and then release the resulting pa
On May 21, 7:42 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to
>mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if,
>say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of
>the original q
mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique-
> functionality component, however I do NOT distribute it (the GPL
> program, not the non-GPL one) in a non-GPL way and only distribute
> the NON-GPL components of the program (ie. the ORIGINAL
On May 21, 8:11 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
>
>But you can still infringe the copyright. That's what's being
>discussed.
>
> No, what was being discussed was _stealing_ code, and you cannot do
> that
On May 21, 8:00 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> People should also have the freedom to use, study, improve and
>> distribute the software they have. Earning a living by subjugating
>> the rights of ones users is not a honest one.
>
>So you can get reasonably ri
What about if it does not "contain" the GPL program, ie. the two
could be distributed separately and are not "fused"? Like if they
occupy separate program files and there is no source code mixing,
but the non-GPL one depends vitally on the GPL one?
If it depends `vitally' on the GPL pr
I suggest you check the GPL FAQ
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) and the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), they answer all your
questions.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
But usually when someone says "steal the code" it usually means
"infringe the copyright". The use of the term "steal" may not be
correct, but it is nonetless used often and must be understood well
in order to facilitate communication.
Sharing software is never wrong, so we shouldn't us
>What if you want to make a huge amount of money to use for _good_,
>world-benefitting purposes?
>
> What if I enslave millions of people so I can have them work on
> solving the issues of poverty, our energy needs, polution? The
> question is meaningless since the `what
Seg, 2007-05-21 às 13:21 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> On May 21, 8:11 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
> >
> >But you can still infringe the copyright. That's what's being
> >discussed.
> >
> > No, what was
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> That's not the letter of the GPL you are obeying, but some fuzzy
> notion of yours. The problem here is contributory infringement: the
> infringement is _planned_ and _prepared_ by you with the end-assembly
> to be done in a mechanical way by the customer as your agen
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> If I knew how, they I would have solved it.
http://www.answers.com/topic/developed-socialism
-
It was Khrushchev who in 1961, just a few years before the coup against
him, in the new program of the Communist Party, promised that "the next
generations of the
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
> mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So then if I do NOT own the GPL program, but make it a vital unique-
> > functionality
mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He would not have to "bargain" for any copy of the GPL program. And
> it (the GPL program) would not have a different license -- the only
> thing that has a different license is the non-GPL program.
But the non-GPL program has no use of its own.
>> The GPL is
On May 21, 2:53 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What if you want to make a huge amount of money to use for _good_,
>>world-benefitting purposes?
>>
>> What if I enslave millions of people so I can have them work on
>> solving the issues of poverty, ou
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mike3 writes:
>> A GPL program, which is NOT mine, and an original program ("my own"
>> get it?, code) which IS mine.
>
> The combination of your code and someone else's GPL code may only be
> distributed under the terms of the GPL. However, this does not
Seg, 2007-05-21 às 15:43 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
> Which is why I don't use the term myself. But I know what people
> are referring to when they use it, and so I provided what seemed
> like a plausible clarification so that the essence of what was
> being said could be kept in the discussion and not
On May 21, 2:51 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seg, 2007-05-21 às 13:21 -0700, mike3 escreveu:
>
> > On May 21, 8:11 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> You cannot steal code, so such an analogy is without a point.
>
> > >But you can still infr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Note that this provides a problem for dual-licensed code like that
>from Trolltech: they provide a GPLed version of their code, and they
>sell a version that can be linked into proprietary programs. Assuming
>that those ar
mike3 writes:
> A GPL program, which is NOT mine, and an original program ("my own" get
> it?, code) which IS mine.
The combination of your code and someone else's GPL code may only be
distributed under the terms of the GPL. However, this does not prevent you
from seperately distributing the port
On May 21, 4:21 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > He would not have to "bargain" for any copy of the GPL program. And
> > it (the GPL program) would not have a different license -- the only
> > thing that has a different license is the non-GPL pro
On May 1, 9:25 am, "Trevis Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/30/07, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Trevis Rothwell wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Selling the software itself is certainly one option, and some people
> > > may even pay money for a copy of your software even
On May 21, 4:46 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > mike3 writes:
> >> A GPL program, which is NOT mine, and an original program ("my own"
> >> get it?, code) which IS mine.
>
> > The combination of your code and someone else's GPL code may onl
42 matches
Mail list logo
