I have a question on two GPL areas, mere aggregation and packaging
some GPL software in an installer.
Both are FAQ's listed here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCompatInstaller
I have a commercial applicat
Ad. writes:
> I have a commercial application that is distributed packaged in an
> installer that you can download. When a user installs the application I
> wanted to install some GPL software at the same time. Reading the above
> FAQ's it would seem to me that I can package the GPL software in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a commercial application that is distributed packaged in an
installer that you can download. When a user installs the application
I wanted to install some GPL software at the same time.
There was once a company called SCO that decided to to mix the GPL
license
On Dec 27, 1:14 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ad. writes:
> > it would seem to me that I can package the GPL software in the
> > installer along with the commercial software.
>
> Correct. You will, of course, have to either provide the source on the CD
> or a written offer as speci
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you violate a socialist belief of a GPL author you're going to end
> up in Federal Court because you used their license. Do you really want
> to trust your commercial business to license interpretations written
> by Marxist crackpots?
Uh, the ones delivering
On Dec 27, 4:28 pm, rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have a commercial application that is distributed packaged in an
> > installer that you can download. When a user installs the application
> > I wanted to install some GPL software at the same time.
>
> Do you rea
avesty writes:
> I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
> openness to 'interpretation'.
Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.
> It seems there should be definitive defendable answers to questions like
> the ones I have...
> ...
> That's the other r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> avesty writes:
> > I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
> > openness to 'interpretation'.
>
> Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.
>
> > It seems there should be definiti
David Kastrup wrote:
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If you violate a socialist belief of a GPL author you're going to end
up in Federal Court because you used their license. Do you really want
to trust your commercial business to license interpretations written
by Marxist crackpots?
Just after some straight answers... The company selling a
commercial license to the GPL software is obviously motivated to
sell me one, as opposed to help clarify the GPL.
What do you mean with a commercial license? The GPL is after all also
a commercial license. Is this license incompat
> I have a commercial application that is distributed packaged in
> an installer that you can download. When a user installs the
> application I wanted to install some GPL software at the same
> time.
There was once a company called SCO that decided to to mix the GPL
license in w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> That's the other reason I asked if there were lawyers that specialize
> in this sort of thing...
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
regards,
alexander.
--
"Plaintiffs copyrights are unique and valuable property whose market
value
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Just after some straight answers... The company selling a
commercial license to the GPL software is obviously motivated to
sell me one, as opposed to help clarify the GPL.
What do you mean with a commercial license? The GPL is after all also
a commercial license.
Barry Margolin wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
avesty writes:
I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
openness to 'interpretation'.
Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.
It seems there should be d
On Dec 27, 7:06 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> avesty writes:
> > I like the idea of the GPL and what it stands for, just not this apparent
> > openness to 'interpretation'.
>
> Then you won't like any legal document of any kind.
I didn't realize the goal of the GPL was for it to be
On Dec 27, 8:55 pm, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > avesty writes:
> > > It seems there should be definitive defendable answers to questions like
> > > the ones I have...
> > > ...
> > > That's the other re
On Dec 28, 7:46 am, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > That's the other reason I asked if there were lawyers that specialize
> > in this sort of thing...
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
>
> regards,
> alexan
On Dec 28, 4:37 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just after some straight answers... The company selling a
>commercial license to the GPL software is obviously motivated to
>sell me one, as opposed to help clarify the GPL.
>
> What do you mean with a commercial license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 7:46 am, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > That's the other reason I asked if there were lawyers that specialize
> > > in this sort of thing...
> >
> > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softw
Buying a $30k license isn't an option for
me, so I'm attempting to explore what I can legally and safely do
according to GPL.
I'm always amazed that people will shell out lots of cash to get a
license that prohibits them from doing things.
The answers from the ghostscript company are
>Just after some straight answers... The company selling a
>commercial license to the GPL software is obviously motivated
>to sell me one, as opposed to help clarify the GPL.
>
> What do you mean with a commercial license?
They have release the software under two lice
[...] could anyone recommend a lawyer that specializes in the GPL?
You could contact the Software Freedom Law Center
(http://www.softwarefreedom.org/), I'm sure they can help you.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lis
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> [...] could anyone recommend a lawyer that specializes in the GPL?
>
> You could contact the Software Freedom Law Center
> (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/), I'm sure they can help you.
Solid and reliable advice --- go to the people who wrote the book.
I could also reco
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It seems quite difficult to get straight answers on what exactly
>is/isn't ok with the GPL...
>
> Try reading the license, it is very clear even for non-lawyer people.
Isn't it a bit early to be rehearsing for
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There was once a company called SCO [...]
Remind me, who sued whom?
This is reminiscent of David Irving, whose defenders talk about the
"Deborah Lipstadt libel action" as if he were the victim of oppressive
lawsuits, when in fact
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There was once a company called SCO [...]
Remind me, who sued whom?
This is reminiscent of David Irving, whose defenders talk about the
"Deborah Lipstadt libel action" as if he were the victim of oppressiv
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> There was once a company called SCO [...]
>>
>> Remind me, who sued whom?
>
> SCO, was a really stupid company that initially released software
> under the GPL. R
On Dec 28, 3:07 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe if you could explain what you wish to do, then one can give you
> a better answer with references to the FAQ and other data.
I thought I did that already :)
I have a commercial, closed source software application. To instal
avesty writes:
> I didn't realize the goal of the GPL was for it to be interpreted and
> implemented differently by each group that uses it... That seems to work
> entirely against the goal of its widespread adoption.
The GPL is a model license, not a law. How do you expect its authors to
prevent
Ad writes:
> I disagree. There are plenty of spots in the GPL that way too open to
> interpration, which seems to be exactly the problem here.
No. The problem is that they are trying to bluff you.
> I and the FAQ interpret it one way, the company interprets it another.
I can "interpret" black a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 28, 3:07 pm, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe if you could explain what you wish to do, then one can give you
a better answer with references to the FAQ and other data.
I thought I did that already :)
I have a commercial, closed source softwa
I am attempting to clarify whether I can include ghostscript (and
its source) in the installer with the commercial
software. Ghostcript
Please don't use `commercial software' as a synonm for non-free
software, the two have very different meanings. Commercial software
is just software bei
32 matches
Mail list logo
