Good evening, Hadron!
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>> You appear to believe that modifying the source of a GPLed program
>>> so that it invokes a function which is provided separately under a
>>> non-GPL license violates
Alan Mackenzie writes:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program, and
>>> arranges for this new functionality to be called through a socket call
>>> (substitute technically correct terms here) rather than
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program,
and arranges for this new functionality to be called through a
socket call (substitute technically correct terms here) rather
than a normal functio
Hi, Hadron!
In gnu.misc.discuss Hadron wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>>> The GPL is useless without copyright law. The two are entertwined. You
>>> cannot understand the GPL without understanding copyright law, thus the
>>> "contents fo the GPL" includes copyright law, because the GPL is a
Alan Mackenzie writes:
> Evening, Erik!
>
> In gnu.misc.discuss Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:43:09 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
Funny, but even YOU don't seem to understand the GPL that nobody could
possibly misunderstand. Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't under
Evening, Erik!
In gnu.misc.discuss Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:43:09 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Funny, but even YOU don't seem to understand the GPL that nobody could
>>> possibly misunderstand. Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand
>>> it.
>> Or maybe you don
Erik Funkenbusch writes:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:43:09 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>> Funny, but even YOU don't seem to understand the GPL that nobody could
>>> possibly misunderstand. Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand
>>> it.
>>
>> Or maybe you don't have a clue what "outside i
On Sat, 09 May 2009 10:43:09 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Funny, but even YOU don't seem to understand the GPL that nobody could
>> possibly misunderstand. Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand
>> it.
>
> Or maybe you don't have a clue what "outside its scope" means. The FSF
> is talk
In gnu.misc.discuss Tim Smith wrote:
> In article , Alan Mackenzie
> wrote:
>> > Another example is XMLRPC (or SOAP or other similar technoloties) in
>> > which a function is called via network request on a distributed system.
>> > Some believe that this is covered by the GPL, others believe it
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program, and
>> arranges for this new functionality to be called through a socket call
>> (substitute technically correct terms here) rather than a normal function
>> call, that
In gnu.misc.discuss Rjack wrote:
> Not so tired and tedious that you are refraining from whining in
> reply. If I'm an obsessive crusader, then use your killfile. No one
> is forcing your mouse to click. Why don't you just move to some other
> forum that's a little more comforting to Freetards? W
In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand it.
> It's the latter. The FSF (probably deliberately) tells an untruth ...
You're not pulling punches here, are you?
> ... when it claims that the GPL applies to a dynamically link
Hyman Rosen writes:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Or maybe it's the FSF that doesn't understand it.
>
> It's the latter. The FSF (probably deliberately) tells an untruth
> when it claims that the GPL applies to a dynamically linked program
> or to separately distributed plugins.
It tells no such
Erik Funkenbusch writes:
> On Fri, 8 May 2009 09:58:11 + (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> Dynamic linking, along with static linking, compilation,
>> interpretation, profiling, and other specific techniques used by
>> hackers are not covered by the GPL - they're outside its scope, and
>> wou
14 matches
Mail list logo
