rjack wrote:
[... Affero GPL ...]
If you're into the copyleft thing ask the people at the Free Sofware
Foundation http://www.fsf.org/licensing/ -- it'll be legal gibberish
It would be real fun to watch FSF/SFLC enforcing GNU Affero*** given
Ryan wrote:
I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
if necessary.
I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
like to release it under a license that obliges those who build services
on it to also release the source for those
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols
open for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every
malicious hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your
co-operative financial accounting system in 0.001 seconds or less.
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:10:57AM -0500, rjack wrote:
Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols open
for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every malicious
hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your co-operative financial
accounting system in
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.
\|||/
(o o)
,ooO--(_)---.
| Please|
| don't feed the |
|
David Kastrup wrote:
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols
open for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every
malicious hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your
co-operative financial accounting system in 0.001
Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 07:10:57AM -0500, rjack wrote:
Sounds like a wonderful idea. Keeping the source code and protocols open
for all to examine will be the perfect challenge to every malicious
hacker on the planet to see who can disrupt your co-operative financial
Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.
\|||/
(o o)
,ooO--(_)---.
| Please|
|
Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 01:24:08PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Windows' security track record does not exactly convince one of closed
source's inherent superiority in this regard.
\|||/
(o o)
,ooO--(_)---.
| Please|
| don't
Ummm, anyone want to address my question?
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:39 +, Ryan wrote:
I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
if necessary.
I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
like to release it under a license that
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Ryan wrote:
Ummm, anyone want to address my question?
From what I can tell, this list was set up specifically as a honey pot
for trollers.
If you want real help I would recommend joing #gnu on freenode.net.
--
Noah Slater http://bytesexual.org/
Ummm, anyone want to address my question?
Those with patience get answers faster; those who read already have
the answer.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Ryan wrote:
Ummm, anyone want to address my question?
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 07:39 +, Ryan wrote:
I'm not sure this is the place to be asking this, so please redirect me
if necessary.
I'm working on a payment-routing server (http://ripple.sf.net/), and I'd
like to release it under a
Noah Slater wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:17:03PM +, Ryan wrote:
Ummm, anyone want to address my question?
From what I can tell, this list was set up specifically as a honey pot
for trollers.
If you want real help I would recommend joing #gnu on freenode.net.
From what I can
Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ummm, anyone want to address my question?
You only posted it about 10 hours ago even if somebody is interested
in the issue, you still have to give them time to read it.
-Miles
--
The key to happiness
is having dreams. [from a fortune cookie]
On Oct 17, 1:42 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
more complicated, then?
By orders of magnitude. Do you know patent law?
So then how the heck can one ever hope to understand
or use it?
--
John
mike3 writes:
OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
more complicated, then?
I wrote:
By orders of magnitude. Do you know patent law?
mike3 writes:
So then how the heck can one ever hope to understand or use it?
A good question. I certainly do not intend to
On Oct 24, 5:47 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you get a Shared Source license and test your theories and
then mail Stevie Balmer?
Betcha' my dog can whup your dog.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for GNU. So he
cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project.
Anyone can state facts. Who you find more reliable depends on lots
of factors.
-- Richard
--
David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Oct 19, 9:47 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all
I care, the user may choose to combine it with
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no library with compatible interface) creating acting as
your agent liability is utter nonsense and only totally lobotomized
GNUtians take it
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
FYI:
10/18/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. served on
9/24/2007, answer due 10/22/2007. Service was accepted by Loretta Alger,
Account Manager. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no library with compatible interface) creating acting as
your agent liability is utter nonsense and only totally
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no library with compatible interface) creating acting as
your agent liability
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
ROFL. Hey dak, you know that your theory of user linking (when
there is no library with compatible interface)
Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
Since you don't either represent or speak for GNU, you really
can't state that now can you?
Sure I can.
Anyway, to reiterate: Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
may or may not opt to use it with the library in question.
You are including code as well, macros for example.
If they are part of
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a common sense
opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
Since you don't either represent or speak for GNU, you really can't
state that
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a common sense
opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
Since you don't either represent or speak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Oct 19, 9:47 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The binary is also combined into one big blob when run,
But not even by me. The user chooses to combine it. I don't. For all
I care, the user may choose to combine it with some other library,
which he
David Kastrup writes:
If there is a library with compatible interface, you might be right. If
there isn't, and if the only reasonable way in which the user can
sensibly make any use of your code is to link with a particular library,
the the user is acting as your agent when assembling the
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
Since you don't either represent or speak for GNU, you really can't
state that now can you?
Sure I can.
Anyway, to reiterate: Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
-Miles
--
Run away! Run
Miles Bader wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a common sense opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
He is uber GNUtian. Next step in the evolution of
FYI:
10/18/2007 3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc. served on
9/24/2007, answer due 10/22/2007. Service was accepted by Loretta Alger,
Account Manager. Document filed by Erik Andersen; Rob Landley.
(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
10/19/2007 4 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR
On Oct 10, 5:44 pm, Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently developing a closed source application that
is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a common sense opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
Alfred does not represent or speak for GNU.
-Miles
--
/\ /\
(^.^)
())
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy this
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a common sense opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its interface in your product. The users of your product
may or may not opt to use it with the library in
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I hope than Monsoon folks will take an opportunity to trash Moglen's
nonsensical GNU legal theory myths in federal court.
The GPL myth gives rise to another problem.
That problem is legal standing. A license such as the GPL
On Oct 19, 9:47 am, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a common sense opinion:
Which sadly, is not much common sense.
I see GNU likes civilized discourse.
When you choose dynamic linking, you are not including the library,
but only its
John Hasler wrote:
Tim Smith writes:
Especially when the later keep overlooking a major area of copyright law:
first sale. As more and more embedded systems use Linux, and more and
more OEMs sell pre-built Linux systems, first sale is going to become
very relevant.
First sale does
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works.
The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
what a condition means with
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works.
The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is attempting to redefine
what a
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
rjack wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge First Sale when it states
However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works.
The GPL (and Herr Professor Moglen) is
On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[bah, google groups seems broken]
Mike Cox writes:
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too unless contractually prohibited but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is
On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Cox writes:
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too unless contractually prohibited but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
arises
Mike Cox wrote:
On Oct 14, 3:08 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[bah, google groups seems broken]
Mike Cox writes:
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too unless contractually prohibited but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:04:49AM -0400, rjack wrote:
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.
Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text
of published United States statutes and federal court case law
for his personal
Question is, what is the difference between
(1) calling a function in a GPL shared library
(2) running an external GPL program and parsing its output
One shares code, the other doesn't (unless the output contains
copyrightable bits).
As for rjack, ignore him.
How come they are
What other word is there for it?
How about GPL?
Copyleft works as well.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Otherwise, shun the offer.
And I did not preclude that in my postings. One can either accept
the offer or reject it. But if one accepts, one must also accept
the strings.
Obviously.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
(1) Its runtime uses GPL code for its edit_distance() function,
but only provides source for this one function but not the entire
library. (says so in the docs that code for this function is
provided to comply with its license) Does the GPL allow that? Can I
do the same in my own
As for the viral, that's just what I call it. *If you choose* to
use GPL code in your program, [...]
That is the key, if _you_ choose. Nobody forced you, a virus attacks
a host without asking.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On Oct 14, 6:55 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
What I mean is if you choose to use GPL code in your programs, then if
you wish to distribute those programs, you must do so under GPL -- and
not just the GPLed part, but the entire original part that you put your
On Oct 14, 6:50 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler --A. Einstein
The GPLv2 is as simple as possible given it's goals. If you want something
simpler for
mike3 writes:
OK. I'm curious, though, you mentioned the version 2. Is the version 3
more complicated, then?
By orders of magnitude. Do you know patent law?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rjack is neither a troll nor a lawyer. Rjack relies on the text
of published United States statutes and federal court case law
for his personal observations.
Ultimately, the Constitution and the Copyright Act mean exactly
what
Miles Bader wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.
FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.
Greetings to
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.
FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
than bumblers like rjack or wigged out nutcases like Terekhov.
-Miles
--
1971 pickup truck; will
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 15:18 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make sense of what he
writes.
FWIW, Mike Cox is a troll too, though perhaps a slightly more subtle one
than bumblers like rjack or wigged out
What other word is there for it?
Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.
Otherwise, shun the offer.
Rui
--
You are what you see.
Today is Boomtime, the 68th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No
On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mike Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Possibly, just like a dozen other such projects I found during
my research. But most probably aren't knowingly violating the
GPL, it's just the GPL is way too complicated.
So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
On Oct 13, 2:46 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
As for the viral, that's just what I call it.
Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like
fashion. According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL
code onto your property every
On Oct 14, 12:59 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What other word is there for it?
Reciprocal? If you chose to receive an offer with strings attached
that say you must be reciprocal, then you must be reciprocal.
Well, alright.
Otherwise, shun the offer.
And I did
mike3 writes:
So why not make a _clear and simple_ free-software license?
Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler --A. Einstein
The GPLv2 is as simple as possible given it's goals. If you want something
simpler for your software use the BSD.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mike3 writes:
What I mean is if you choose to use GPL code in your programs, then if
you wish to distribute those programs, you must do so under GPL -- and
not just the GPLed part, but the entire original part that you put your
little heart and soul into making as well.
So choose not to use
The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL
states that the whole work has to be licensed under the same
terms.
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Yes.
For example, if you go to
On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Most rational people consider it so, but you seem
How come they are allowed to do that but I am not?
Are you sure they didn't get a proprietary license from the
authors? It could also be the case that they haven't been caught
yet...
BFD is a GNU project, so no.
___
gnu-misc-discuss
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a
On Oct 13, 8:22 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 10:34:36AM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still
mike3 writes:
As for the viral, that's just what I call it.
Viral implies that it is infectious and can spread in a disease-like
fashion. According to Microsoft this means that if you ever let any GPL
code onto your property every piece of software you ever have or ever will
write might become
On Oct 12, 5:37 pm, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal
Mike Cox writes:
In a previous reply, rjack says that according to copyright law (1) is
legal too unless contractually prohibited but he also seems to think
the GPL is not a contract so no prohibition is possible. Confusion
arises again.
Rjack is a troll. There is no point in trying to make
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal advice
so I hope you follow the sane reasoning of taking the license to a
Mike Cox wrote:
Where can I find this GNU GPL FAQ? Is it normative? Legaly binding?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
It is legally binding in all courts exercising jurisdiction under the
the authority of the GNU Republic.
Again, is mere dynamic linking the same as incorporating
On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
(specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first
mike3 writes:
I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the
license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered
parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free
-- why does it take releasing the original parts of the package
On Oct 12, 4:45 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mike3 writes:
I've never really been able to understand this exactly. Why wasn't the
license made so that it would only require you release the _GPL-covered
parts_ under GPL and distribute them in such a way that they remain free
--
On Oct 12, 9:37 am, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:03:03AM -0700, Mike Cox wrote:
I am still confused. Does mere linking make the result realy
*contain* code from a GPL program?
Most rational people consider it so, but you seem to want legal
I am currently developing a closed source application that
is going to be used on Linux and Solaris. Question is,
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
(specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and
On Oct 10, 7:10 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Cox writes:
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first consulting
On Oct 11, 3:10 am, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Cox writes:
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first consulting
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries
already present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed?
(specifically, libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
Software
Mike Cox writes:
(1) Can I dynamically link my application with free libraries already
present on the target system, even if they're GPL'ed? (specifically,
libbfd, part of binutils, I believe; and gdbm)
Not without first consulting a good copyright lawyer experienced in Free
Software law.
Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version? Also,
how do i install ant on windows?
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On Aug 27, 8:46 pm, Barry Margolin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version?
Yes, as long as you
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the GPL am i allowed to modify an existing program that someone
else made (the program is under the GPL) and sell that version?
Yes, as long as you make the source code available (including your
modifications) and
On May 22, 1:54 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And therefore distributing them even separately through different
channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
use GPL code in my program,
On May 15, 9:27 pm, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bahadir writes:
I don't own the library implementation, but what about any instance of
symbols I use in my code?
The symbols themselves are not protected by copyright at all.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Bahadir writes:
Are those kernel headers explicitly declared as public interface
somewhere, or else how do you distinguish a non-copyrightable public
interface?
It is not up to the author to determine whether or not a work or a portion
of a work is protected by copyright. It depends on the
On May 21, 2:45 pm, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
And therefore distributing them even separately through different
channels is considered the same as distributing them as a
whole. So, in other words, the following holds true: If I decide to
use GPL code in my program, I am agreeing to pay for the code
with my own code -- because
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
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
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
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
In the US creation of derivatives is one of the exclusive rights of the
copyright owner.
This right is under statutory limitation regarding computer programs.
17 USC 117, stupid.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039303p.pdf
regards,
alexander.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If you are merely using the system call interface of the kernel, you
Use of ANY interface doesn't create a derivative work, stupid. The AFC
test and all that.
are not involved with creating a derivative work, and as long as the
customer has a license for running
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if
I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use
their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even
if I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you say: Big deal, I won't link it then. The customer has to do
it. Now if the only conceivable use of the software _is_ to link it
to a free version of the software, the linking
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make
any sense otherwise. In that case, it is
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
