2009/12/12 Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com:
1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?
Hello Tom
If the answer to this isn't yes, I'll buy a hat and eat it...
As source, Y (the BSD3 library) can
2009/12/12 Stephen Tetley stephen.tet...@gmail.com:
2009/12/12 Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com:
1) Can the author of Y legally distribute the *source* of Y under a
non-GPL license, such as the 3-clause BSD license or the MIT license?
Hello Tom
If the answer to this isn't yes, I'll buy a hat
Hi Thu
That would sound like 'private use' to me[1] which is permitted by the
GPL. If the client later wanted to *distribute* the agglomerated work
the GPL would apply. Distribution being the key point, as at that
stage the client is no longer using the agglomeration privately.
Best wishes
Hello Stephen,
Saturday, December 12, 2009, 3:32:09 PM, you wrote:
the GPL would apply. Distribution being the key point, as at that
your mileage may vary, etcetera. Similar the limits on 'client' would
need some definition vis-a-vis distribution, one person would surely
be fine,
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:54 AM, minh thu not...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to point out a possible situation, that makes the questions
even more interesting.
Say the author of Y (the BSD licensed code) is used to install its
code, Y, along of its requisite X (under GPL) to customer locations.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
Question 2 can be If the answer to 1 is no, is there *any*
circumstance under which the author of Y can distribute the source of
Y under a non-GPL license?
I'd like to get these questions out to the SFLC so we can satisfy our
Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com writes:
In temporary lieu of posing questions explicitly to the SFLC, I dug
up a copy of _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ by Foobar (and
published by O'Reilly), and found this (from an entire chapter —
Chapter 12 — about the GPL):
Nevertheless, there is
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com writes:
If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so
long as neither any binary nor the GPL'd work's source is distributed
under non-GPL terms, well ... I'll say that the meaning of
sigh -- to the list this time.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Ketil Malde ke...@malde.org wrote:
Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com writes:
If it turns out that Hakyll *is* okay to be BSD3 licensed so
long as neither any
Ketil Malde wrote:
minh thu not...@gmail.com writes:
Why should your code be licensed under GPL?
I think your code is covered by whatever license you wish.
An aggregate work, on the other hand, would need to be covered by the
GPL, and all source code would have to be available under GPL
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Tom Tobin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de wrote:
Ketil Malde wrote:
Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
(e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
pick it up and
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
If you are forming a derivative work based on the GPL'd
work, and thus you have to release that derivative work under the GPL.
Wow, I mangled the syntax on that last sentence. That should read:
If you are forming a
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de
wrote:
Ketil Malde wrote:
Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
(e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent
Am I the only one who finds this stuff confusing as hell?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com wrote:
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
source
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Ben Franksen ben.frank...@online.de
wrote:
Ketil Malde wrote:
Your contributions could still be licensed under a
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Warren Henning warren.henn...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one who finds this stuff confusing as hell?
It *is* confusing as hell, because law is confusing as hell, because
it's an interpreted language of sorts — what matters is how judges
rule on the law, not
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com wrote:
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is
not a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no
Pandoc source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc,
Tom Tobin wrote:
IANAL either,
Ditto!
but my understanding is that judges take a very dim view
of attempts like this to evade the requirements of a license.
I can't see how any judge could possibly come to that conclusion
in this case.
Studying the terms of the GPL and the BSD3 a lawyer
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
source code). A compiled executable *is* a derivative of Pandoc, so
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Gregory Crosswhite
gcr...@phys.washington.edu wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it,
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to belabor the point (I hope), but consider the following situation --
if the current version of Pandoc, 1.2.1, were released under BSD3, not GPL,
it would be obvious that the current version of hakyll could be
Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com writes:
Your contributions could still be licensed under a different license
(e.g. BSD), as long as the licensing doesn't prevent somebody else to
pick it up and relicense it under GPL.
Right. So hakyll is absolutely fine with a BSD3 license, AFAICS.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
Tom Tobin wrote:
I can write the SFLC and pose a hypothetical situation that captures
the gist of what we're talking about, and post the response here, if
anyone is interested.
I suggest that you put together a
Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com writes:
1) Is there any scenario where Y can be distributed under a non-GPL
license (e.g., the BSD)?
2) If so, what would Y's author need to do (or *not* do)?
3) If Y must be released under the GPL under the above scenario, and
someone subsequently wrote
Tom Tobin wrote:
The background situation: X is a library distributed under the GPL. Y
is another library that uses that library and requires it in order to
compile and function.
You probably also need to bring in application Z which uses library
X via library Y, because library Y is not
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo
mle...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
Tom Tobin wrote:
The background situation: X is a library distributed under the GPL. Y
is another library that uses that library and requires it in order to
compile and function.
You probably also need to bring
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
Well I think that's actually what we're wondering here — under what
circumstances is Y's author permitted to choose his license at will?
I think I phrased this poorly; it's more under what circumstances is
Y's author permitted
Tom Tobin wrote:
I'm thinking something along these lines:
The background situation: X is a library distributed under the GPL. Y
is another library that uses that library and requires it in order to
compile and function.
1) Is there any scenario where Y can be distributed under a non-GPL
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Matthew Brecknell matt...@brecknell.net wrote:
Based on the discussion so far, I think you need to distinguish between
distributing source and distributing binaries. For example:
Background: X is a library distributed under GPL. Y is another library
which calls
Apologies, Robert, for you getting this twice: I forgot to CC the list
as well.
Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com writes:
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is not
a derivative of Pandoc (it contains, as far as I understand it, no Pandoc
source code). A
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Apologies, Robert, for you getting this twice: I forgot to CC the list
as well.
Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com writes:
The crux here is that the source code of hakyll, released on hackage, is
not
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Robert Greayer robgrea...@gmail.com wrote:
There's another FAQ on GNU site that, I think, addresses the Pandoc/Hakyll
situation directly:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Tom Tobin korp...@korpios.com wrote:
In temporary lieu of posing questions explicitly to the SFLC, I dug
up a copy of _Intellectual Property and Open Source_ by Foobar
::facepalm:: I wrote Foobar as a placeholder as I was typing, and
never replaced it. The
33 matches
Mail list logo
