Re: GPL Question

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 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2

Re: GPL Question

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] ___

Re: GPL Question

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 tel

Re: GPL Question

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 license

Re: GPL Question

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

Re: GPL Question

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 "C

Re: GPL Question

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

GPL Question

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 services. Applications

Re: GPL Question

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| >

Re: GPL Question

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| | do

Re: GPL Question

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 account

Re: GPL Question

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

Re: GPL Question

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 | |

Re: GPL Question

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

Re: GPL Question

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.

Re: GPL Question

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 services.

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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? >

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 gnu-misc-disc

Re: GPL question

>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 sp

Re: GPL question

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 inte

Re: GPL question

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 agen

Re: GPL question

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 t

Re: GPL question

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) > >

Re: GPL question

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 se

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

"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 awa

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

[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, >

Re: GPL question

"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 e

Re: GPL question

>>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

Re: GPL question

>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

Re: GPL question

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 DEFEND

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

[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

Re: GPL question

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, >bu

Re: GPL question

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 i

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 GP

Re: GPL question

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 Her

Re: GPL question

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 redefin

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 not impinge on GPLv2 in an

Re: GPL question

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 exactl

Re: GPL question

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 m

Re: GPL question

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 > sim

Re: GPL question

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 you

Re: GPL question

> 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 gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.

Re: GPL question

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 gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GPL question

(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

Re: GPL question

> 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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 08:04 -0400, rjack wrote: > 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 contra

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 proh

Re: GPL question

Alexander Terekhov wrote: 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 Ter

Re: GPL question

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. Gr

Re: GPL question

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 us

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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. > An

Re: GPL question

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 propert

Re: GPL question

On Oct 13, 6:44 pm, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?

Re: GPL question

> > 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 mat

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 le

Re: GPL question

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 becom

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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* cod

Re: GPL question

> 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 mai

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

> 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

Re: GPL question

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 le

Re: GPL question

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 f

Re: GPL question

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 packa

Re: GPL question

On Oct 11, 2:57 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 wi

Re: GPL question

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 la

Re: GPL question

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 GPL

Re: GPL question

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 w

Re: GPL question

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: I am mighty confused now. Are you saying that what I'm planning to do is not possible? Correct, you cannot link non-free software with a GPL library. If not, why? The end result contains code from a GPL program, and the GPL states that the whole work has to be license

Re: GPL question

> > (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 > Soft

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

GPL question

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 gdbm

Re: GPL question

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.

Re: gpl question

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,

gpl question

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 http://lists.gnu.org/m

Re: gpl question

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 modificatio

Re: GPL question

>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" wit

Re: GPL question

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 pr

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 Ho

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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

Re: GPL question

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 pr

  1   2   >