> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 23:34
> Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
> libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
> applications that are
> under different license
> The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
> the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
> to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use
> of inheritance constitutes the creation of a deriva
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted the
comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance to post
the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use of inheritance
constitutes the creation of a derivative
On Monday, I received the following email that purported to be internal and
was actually from an external source. Our analysis shows that this email
came this license discussion email list.
So,
1. did others on this list receive this email (but not from the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] address which is
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 19:05
> I've been watching the exchange on this topic with interest.
Great, finally a lawyer here!
> While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more
> thorough analysis
> of
Hm,
I tend to write lenghty maisl, sorry.
In short: bring the question if a piece is derived work or not down to
the source code.
You are deriving work if you take original source code and modify it.
You are making a derived work if you incorporate source code in any way,
compiling, loading a
on 17/10/01 2:34 pm, Angelo Schneider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In Germany dynamic linking is: "derived work".
> Its up to your lisence if you allow it.
>
> Inheritance is NOT, NOWHERE, NEVER a "derived work".
>
> However incorporating the derived class plus the base class into a piece
> of
Hi all!
The FSF is incorrect.
However your extract and the talk with the FSF might have been
missleading, see below.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> >
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more thorough analysis
> > of the situation from th
[ Apologies if multiple copies were sent -- mail server problems ]
Michael Beck wrote:
> I just got a response from FSF lawyers stating that "inheritance is considered
^^^
> modifying the library" (see below). My question was related to releasing code
[...]
>
9 matches
Mail list logo
