On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment
>
> "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That
You *are* write-only. Kannst du kein Englisch lesen oder was?
I just _told_ you this wasn't abou
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL,
> >
> > Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one.
> >
> > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarec
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL,
>
> Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one.
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
And another long qu
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL,
Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one.
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
--
2. GPL Terminology and Interpretation
a) Works based on the Program
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> [... CONTAINS ***OR*** is DERIVED ...]
>
> Hey Merijn, drop an email to Professor Determann.
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
and tell him that regarding
--
The first sentence of Section 2 of t
Scott writes:
> Do I have to distribute the source code to every library I link to?
You do not have to distribute the source of any library you link
dynamically and do not distribute with your package.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
__
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>>
>> On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Man oh man, you're really krank. It doesn't matter how you label computer
>> > program works ("application" vs "library" is utterly irrelevant) which wor
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>
> On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Man oh man, you're really krank. It doesn't matter how you label computer
> > program works ("application" vs "library" is utterly irrelevant) which work
> > together in combination. In MySQL v. Progress,
Piss off, stupid Merijn. The FSF (apart from IBM, RedHat, and Novell)
went on record in court of law (in Wallace case) regarding the scope of
the GPL. It applies to derivative works and only derivative works. Non-
derivative works distributed together with the GPL'd works fall under
"mere aggreg
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:59:30 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apart from libraries, you GPL your mother, brother, dad, and sisters.
>
> And on your free time, you don't copulate with GPL incompatible
> girls.
>
> Ask GNUtian ams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for details. He's an exp
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[... CONTAINS ***OR*** is DERIVED ...]
Hey Merijn, drop an email to Professor Determann.
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
he must be missing the true meaning of "contains" (vs "mere
aggregate"). Same as the GPL author himself, by the way.
On 2006-08-16, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:01:22 +0200, Merijn de Weerd
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Distributors of GPL code are required to make available the full
>>source code of all modules, which would include the library. So
>>yes you should include the source
On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man oh man, you're really krank. It doesn't matter how you label computer
> program works ("application" vs "library" is utterly irrelevant) which work
> together in combination. In MySQL v. Progress, the Gemini (transactional
> stora
On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One must be a total idiot to think that a preexisting BSD library is
> a derivative work of the GPL'd "application". Are you a total idiot,
> Merijn?
The idiot is the one who can't read. I said that "Your application
might be a deriv
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/a721da94982d6288
"But if the OP is indeed the GPL, the OP cannot copulate with his wife
unless she is licensed under terms that are compatible with the GNU GPL."
-- GNUtian ams
regards,
alex
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:40:28 GMT
Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example is cairo or freetype considered
> a 'system' library, or would I need to redistribute their source as
> well? Is a link to their webpage sufficient?
You can consider the complete GNOME framework (everything that GNOM
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:40:28 GMT
> Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > For example is cairo or freetype considered
> > a 'system' library, or would I need to redistribute their source as
> > well? Is a link to their webpage sufficient?
>
> You can consider the c
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:01:22 +0200, Merijn de Weerd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Distributors of GPL code are required to make available the full
>source code of all modules, which would include the library. So
>yes you should include the source code of the library with all
>the other source.
Thank
Scott wrote:
[...]
> How does this work practically, then?
Apart from libraries, you GPL your mother, brother, dad, and sisters.
And on your free time, you don't copulate with GPL incompatible girls.
Ask GNUtian ams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for details. He's an expert in GPL
compatible sex affa
I won't plonk you this time, idiot. Keep embarrassing yourself. MySQL
won on trademark portion but lost on the GPL portion (which had nothing
to do with trademarks) of its claim for preliminary injunctions.
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf
--
the Co
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
>>
>> It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
>> without requiring external input, but thanks for t
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
>
> It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
> without requiring external input, but thanks for the suggestion.
Man oh man, you're really krank. It does
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
It seems like I am already doing quite a good job at pissing you off
without requiring external input, but thanks for the suggestion.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
Piss off, retard dak. Go to doctor.
Hey Scott, see
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
and also this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_frm/thread/d861b94b44a742c6
(for relevant excerpts regarding GPL Terminology and Interpretation).
r
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> [...]
>> Distributors of GPL code are required to make available the full
>> source code of all modules,
>
> All modules constituting a GPL derivative work (or original GPL'd
> stuff).
>
> One must be a total idiot to thin
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> Qua, 2006-08-16 Ã s 08:01 +0200, Merijn de Weerd escreveu:
> > Distributors of GPL code are required to make available the full
> > source code of all modules, which would include the library.
>
> Please bear in mind that the GNU GPL makes no such requirement "
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
> Distributors of GPL code are required to make available the full
> source code of all modules,
All modules constituting a GPL derivative work (or original GPL'd
stuff).
One must be a total idiot to think that a preexisting BSD library is
a derivative work of the
Qua, 2006-08-16 às 08:01 +0200, Merijn de Weerd escreveu:
> Distributors of GPL code are required to make available the full
> source code of all modules, which would include the library.
Please bear in mind that the GNU GPL makes no such requirement "as
such". The GNU GPL requires you to do that
On 2006-08-16, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am attempting to ascertain my obligations with regards to a software
> project I am writing. This project is to be licensed under the GPL, but
> it links to a non-GPL library. This library is licensed under the 'new'
> BSD license, so it is comp
Hi,
I am attempting to ascertain my obligations with regards to a software
project I am writing. This project is to be licensed under the GPL, but
it links to a non-GPL library. This library is licensed under the 'new'
BSD license, so it is compatible with the GPL. However, my question is: do
I
30 matches
Mail list logo
