In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
>> On 2006-05-14, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Snip]
>so its basically "if i modify any gpl'd code I must give away my changes
>whether or not i keep it 'in-house' "?
No. If it's in-house, you do not h
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>
>> That is nice, I prefer rmail.
>
>It just shows you off as a fool who can't get the history of a
>discussion straight and is unable to properly attribute articles.
>
> Then feel free to tell this to anyone who uses rmail, this includes
> RMS.
You hero
In case you haven't noticed, RMS does not participate in public
discussion groups.
I guess that means that emacs-devel, the GNOME lists, debian-legal,
the Linux kernel mailing list, etc aren't public discussion group.
Your hero worship makes you appear like a complete and utter idiot,
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That is nice, I prefer rmail.
>
>It just shows you off as a fool who can't get the history of a
>discussion straight and is unable to properly attribute articles.
>
> Then feel free to tell this to anyone who uses rmail, this includes
>
> That is nice, I prefer rmail.
It just shows you off as a fool who can't get the history of a
discussion straight and is unable to properly attribute articles.
Then feel free to tell this to anyone who uses rmail, this includes
RMS.
___
gnu-
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Something which I was not answering.
>
>Who was the one pontificating about thread drift?
>
> What problem do you have about answering specific things in a single
> thread? Seriously, did Terekhov suck your brains out this week?
Your blin
> Something which I was not answering.
Who was the one pontificating about thread drift?
What problem do you have about answering specific things in a single
thread? Seriously, did Terekhov suck your brains out this week?
> For usenet you need a news server, GNU doesn't run its own (I
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Since you are incapable of using your Usenet client
>
> I don't use usenet.
>
>>> The same should apply to the in-house environment you describe.
>
>
> Something which I was not answering.
Wh
Since you are incapable of using your Usenet client
I don't use usenet.
>> The same should apply to the in-house environment you describe.
Something which I was not answering.
Somebody with a bad memory like that should get a Usenet r
osting of the thread):
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL and inhouse use?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2006-05-16, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>> Suppose
Richard Tobin wrote:
[...]
> For example, suppose you provide a service to the public that compiles
> programs using a modified version of gcc, but you don't give out
> copies of the modified compiler: you just accept .c files and return
> .o files. As far as I can see, the current GPL does not a
> Pointing out views which have no relation to my opinion about
> whatever matter is Terkhovian. This wasn't about redistributing
> in-house programs, it was was redistribution of _public_
> programs.
No, it wasn't. It was about in-house programs used for providing a
public ser
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Web services are going to replace software distributed on media.
> If anyone can use GPL software to offer a service to the public
> without having to share modifications, that blows free software
> right out of
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I was answering a specific concern `code that offers a service to
>> the public'.
>
>Which would include a copy of GNU/Linux and/or Firefox running on a
>public library computer. It is not "perfectly reasonable" for anybody
>bu
> I was answering a specific concern `code that offers a service to
> the public'.
Which would include a copy of GNU/Linux and/or Firefox running on a
public library computer. It is not "perfectly reasonable" for anybody
but yourself to demand that the library will then consequentl
On 2006-05-17, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Every user who has access to the Program, yes. This is all perfecly
>> reasonable.
>
> In your opinion, which differs quite from that of the FSF and pretty
> much everybody else.
The FSF di
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> As I said to David, I was talking about code that offers a
>>> service to the public.
>>
>>So every Web site, every shell provider, every search engine
>>running any GPL software would have to distribute source
>> As I said to David, I was talking about code that offers a
>> service to the public.
>
>So every Web site, every shell provider, every search engine
>running any GPL software would have to distribute source to
>every user.
>
> Every user who has access
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As I said to David, I was talking about code that offers a
>> service to the public.
>
>So every Web site, every shell provider, every search engine
>running any GPL software would have to distribute source to every
>user.
>
> E
> As I said to David, I was talking about code that offers a
> service to the public.
So every Web site, every shell provider, every search engine
running any GPL software would have to distribute source to every
user.
Every user who has access to the Program, yes. This is all per
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> As I said to David, I was talking about code that offers a service to the
> public.
So every Web site, every shell provider, every search engine running any
GPL software would have to distribute source to every user.
> In other words, a public performance of the work.
No
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-05-16, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Right now the GPL makes a distinction for in-house code. Only
>>> if you distribute binaries do you have to share the source. I
>>> was just sayi
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> As I said to David, I was talking about code that offers
> a service to the public.
Care to elaborate? (I gather that you're after that mysterious "ASP
loophole"...)
> In other words, a public performance
Public performance? Reading code
>> Right now the GPL makes a distinction for in-house code. Only if
>> you distribute binaries do you have to share the source. I was
>> just saying that that should change: also in-house code should
>> be shared, once it's out of testing.
>
> Why should that change?
Web servi
On 2006-05-16, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>> was just saying that that should change: also in-house code
>> should be shared, once it's out of testing.
>
> That would be at odds with copyright law (which the GPL blatantly
> misstates by saying that "nothi
On 2006-05-16, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Right now the GPL makes a distinction for in-house code. Only
>> if you distribute binaries do you have to share the source. I
>> was just saying that that should change: also in-house code
>> s
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> [... modify any gpl'd code ...]
>
>> was just saying that that should change: also in-house code
>> should be shared, once it's out of testing.
>
> That would be at odds with copyright law (which the GPL blatantly
> missta
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[... modify any gpl'd code ...]
> was just saying that that should change: also in-house code
> should be shared, once it's out of testing.
That would be at odds with copyright law (which the GPL blatantly
misstates by saying that "nothing else grants you permission to
m
Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so its basically "if i modify any gpl'd code I must give away my changes
> whether or not i keep it 'in-house' "?
No.
Go troll somewhere else.
-Miles
--
Next to fried food, the South has suffered most from oratory.
-- Walter Hines Page
Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006-05-16, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>>> Suppose you add a lot of code to implement a really robust and
>>> unique embedded software stack that makes a great product. You'd
>>> want to keep that proprietary to preven
On 2006-05-16, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>> Suppose you add a lot of code to implement a really robust and
>> unique embedded software stack that makes a great product. You'd
>> want to keep that proprietary to prevent your competition from
>> gaining the same advanta
Eric writes:
> so its basically "if i modify any gpl'd code I must give away my changes
> whether or not i keep it 'in-house' "?
No.
> Wow, if i have that right...
You don't. If you do not distribute your modified GPLd code you are not
required to show the source to anyone. Read the GPL. It's
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> On 2006-05-14, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, suppose, hypothetically, that you added a lot of code to the
>> kernel/base distribution, stripped out some of the base distribution
>> stuff (like X or whaever) too in order to create a really robust and
>> unique te
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> On 2006-05-14, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, suppose, hypothetically, that you added a lot of code to the
> > kernel/base distribution, stripped out some of the base distribution stuff
> > (like X or whaever) too in order to create a really robust and unique
> Well, suppose, hypothetically, that you added a lot of code to the
> kernel/base distribution, stripped out some of the base distribution
> stuff (like X or whaever) too in order to create a really robust and
> unique testing environment for testing new computer systems. You'd want
> to keep that
On 2006-05-14, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, suppose, hypothetically, that you added a lot of code to the
> kernel/base distribution, stripped out some of the base distribution stuff
> (like X or whaever) too in order to create a really robust and unique
> testing environment for testing
Byron A Jeff wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
>>kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
>>release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general p
>The GPL only comes into effect when you distribute. If you do not distribute,
>then the GPL doesn't come into effect.
Then distributing a patch (under a user-hostile license) which
contains none of the content of the original code (most patches are
NOT like this, but some are) cannot be stopped b
>> That's true in the direct sense. However, there can be a impetus for it
>> to occur indirectly because the GPL gives anyone you transfer the code to
>> the right not only to modify it, but to distribute it as they see fit.
>
>Yes of course, but the OP seems to suffer from the common delusion tha
I wrote:
> The GPL never requires you to publish your source code to the world.
Byron A Jeff writes:
> That's true in the direct sense. However, there can be a impetus for it
> to occur indirectly because the GPL gives anyone you transfer the code to
> the right not only to modify it, but to distr
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Eric writes:
>> If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
>> kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
>> release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general publi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
>kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
>release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general public or any
>other entity out
Eric writes:
> If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
> kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
> release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general public or any
> other entity outside my company, does the GPL require me to publi
Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
> kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
> release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general public or any
> other entity outside my company, does the GP
If i start off with a copy of the 2.4 linux kernel downloaded from
kernel.org and then modify it (a lot) and only use it "in house" and dont
release it (give away or sell) in any form to the general public or any
other entity outside my company, does the GPL require me to publish my
source code to
45 matches
Mail list logo
