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 "
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > application WITH VERY visible caption "THIS part comes from and
>> > is based on GPL license"?
>>
>> Only if the work as a whole is licensed under the GPL without further
> ^
> |
> de
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > application WITH VERY visible caption "THIS part comes from and
> > is based on GPL license"?
>
> Only if the work as a whole is licensed under the GPL without further
^
|
derivative --+
It means that "THIS part comes from and is
Marcin Giedz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello once again,
>
> <>
>
> First of all, I've been looking for the most appropriate list for my
> problem and found this one. If I'm wrong and this list doesn't cover
> problems like I have really sorry and I'll unsubscribe immediately.*
>
> I've been s
John Hasler napisał(a):
Marcin Giedz writes:
I've been searching/googling web sites to find out one question: is it
possible to use GPL software/part of code in commercial application WITH
VERY visible caption "THIS part comes from and is based on GPL
license"?
If you are the only
Marcin Giedz writes:
> I've been searching/googling web sites to find out one question: is it
> possible to use GPL software/part of code in commercial application WITH
> VERY visible caption "THIS part comes from and is based on GPL
> license"?
If you are the only copyright owner you can dis
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Man oh man, yet another schizophrenic.
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> requires you to acknowledge the presence of GPL software, but
> also to make available all source code that has been derived
> *from* the GPL software, if you distribute your software.
"I just _told_ you this wasn't about what
On 2006-08-16, Marcin Giedz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been searching/googling web sites to find out one question: is it
> possible to use GPL software/part of code in commercial application WITH
> VERY visible caption "THIS part comes from and is based on GPL
> license"?
What exact
Hello once again,
<>
First of all, I've been looking for the most appropriate list for my
problem and found this one. If I'm wrong and this list doesn't cover
problems like I have really sorry and I'll unsubscribe immediately.*
I've been searching/googling web sites to find out one question:
18 matches
Mail list logo
