On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 08:02:23AM +0200, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
> >
> > Using this information, B develop, based on some GPLed code,
> > a program for A.
> >
>
[DJW:] IANAL, but I believe that B could be considered to
be acting as an agent for A with the derived work onl
> From: Carlo Wood [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Selling closed source plugins wouldn't be illegal anyway,
> but wouldn't it be illegal for the buyers to link the bought
> plugins with the GPL-ed opensource? If so then that means that
>
My impression was that the FSF only really cared about
re-
> From: Forrest J Cavalier III [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The GPL does not meet their definition of "Potentially
> viral software."
>
>
[DJW:] That depends on whether the examples of
software with which it may not be distributed form
a, non-exclusive, part of the definition of
"Potentially
> From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> You are right that broader language increases potential litigation risk to
> those who accept it, but this risk is nothing but another cost that may/
> should be considered when deciding whether to enter into the license.
>
[DJW:] How m
> From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> If my Library is under the GPL, the users are not able to sell an
> application using my Library.
[DJW:]
This is not true. They can sell a copy of the library for any
price that the market will bear. What they c
> From: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Some authors are comfortable not to have any control whatsoever over how
> their work is used, distributed and modified. They can "do away" with
> their
> copyright by providing a notice that places the work in the public domain.
> Such sof
> From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is
> used in a commercial application ?
[DJW:]
Allow: yes. Require: I believe not.
In addition, you may insist on payment before supplying the
software, but you canno
> From: Greg Herlein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you
> want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open
> source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and
> derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for der
> From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Now, again, as I read it, if I provide an http or ftp directory, which
> contains 10 files, and one of those has all the licenses, and one is the
> tarball that makes the floppy, and one is an html file that clearly lists
> both and explains what th
> From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> * no way supercedes or nullifies any other protections on the component
> parts *
> * such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which apply to practically
> everything!!! *
>
It seems to me to mislead as to the copyright ownership, mislead
as to the right
> From: Brian Behlendorf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> them to do that, without granting them specific approval to do so? Note
> that such an arrangement is not cool with Debian, as it would violate the
> DFSG (and the OSD) by creating a second agreement limiting the right to
> redistribute, as w
> From: Dave Gilbert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> It is unreasonable:
> 1) To say that no one is able to write a function with a particular name
> 2) That no one else is able to reimplement a function with a given name.
>
[DJW:] Adobe purport to do something like this to protect
the integri
> From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> hypocrisy. As the open source community has long since proven repeatedly,
> particularly with its contributions to Internet-related software, the
> enforcement of appropriate standards can be encouraged and achieved
> without
> recourse to l
> From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> I hope this is not the case. I wouldn't like Microsoft to have the ability
> to suppress WINE because it uses the Windows API.
>
[DJW:] They are attempting to achieve something
similar for MS Office products. The MSDN Library
licence forbids th
> From: Frank LaMonica [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I agree with you completely. BSD is one of the only software licenses
> that allows PEOPLE the freedom they need to establish their own business
> objectives. I would go even further to say that there are only three
[DJW:]
There are different
> From: August Zajonc [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Note: If this has been covered before, I'd be happy for a pointer to the
> proper list thread or FAQ.
[DJW:]
This is GPL specific, so ought to be asked on the USENET
gnu.misc.discuss (?) group.
> Powered by MyCoolSoftwa
> From: Carter Bullard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I hate to jump in the middle, sorry for the distraction.
> IMHO, what you describe is not open source or free
> software, but rather "you can't buy this" software.
>
>
[DJW:] You generally can't buy conventional
commercial software either.
> From: Christoph Steinbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I have a problem understanding point 3. Shouldn't it be: "The license
> must ... require them to be distributed under the same terms"
> instead of "... must ... allow them to be ...".
>
[DJW:] That's one of the ways in which the GPL
> From: phil hunt [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> source products, but only if the result becomes open source after
> a time delay, say 3-5 years. This is plenty of time for a company
> to gain revenue from the sale value of software, and should
[DJW:]
That sort of time figure agrees with my idea
> From: Dr. David Gilbert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> What I am unclear of is shared libraries; is there something actually
> copied into the result as part of the linking stage? If I was to rewrite
> a header for a GPL library so that I didn't make use of the GPLd header
> could I then shared
> From: Toon Knapen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Do you mean that, if you release your work under
> the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically
> the copyright owner ?
>
[DJW:] Gnu is not the same as GPLed. Gnu
is things like GCC, not things like the Linux
kernel.
As I already mention
> From: John Cowan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a
> transfer must be in writing and signed by the
> developer.
>
[DJW:] The Free Software Foundations
assignment form, quoted recently,
appears to be in the form of a co
> From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The function prototypes in header files almost certainly cannot be
> copyrighted, thus there's no point in licensing their use. In fact, you
> can
> almost always call an exported function by ordinal number, thus I wouldn't
> even have to inclu
> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I don't understand your last sentence, and it sounds as if you might be
> making an important distinction. I am confused by your reference to linked
> to static version and "unlinked objects." How could both be occurring with
> the same
> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Dave, I don't have the LGPL right in front of me, if you could quote the
> provision you are referring to, it might help us respond. Even so, which
> part of the license do you think is disobeyed, and why?
>
[DJW:] Last phrase in:
6. A
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> So, since glibc is available as a dynamic library, most uses of glibc
> do not conflict with the LGPL. The only way to conflict would be link
> against the static version of glibc and distribute the resulting
> binary without distributing the
> From: Frank Hecker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> makes a distinction between licenses that are "copyleft" licenses,
> licenses that are "not a strong copyleft", and "non-copyleft" licenses.
> Thus the GPL is described as a "copyleft license", but the LGPL is
> described as "not a strong copyleft
> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Interesting point. In the ordinary course of programming, I suspect there
> would be no derivative work created, hence the GPL should provide no
> obstacle for distributing the program as open source. As you mentioned,
>
[DJW:]
> From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Is the argument that a run-time link to external code creates a derivative
> work (in the sense that the copyright statutes define a derivative work)
> of
[DJW:]
I don't think so. It think the argument is about taking
> From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load
> and
> link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not
> that
> DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program
> ever
>
> From: Chloe Hoffman [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Predatory pricing is the act of someone with market power selling
> something
> below the marginal cost thereof with the primary intent to drive out
>
[DJW:] The marginal cost of software is very low, which is
why this issue arises in the fir
> From: Brian Behlendorf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Heh, I wish they had included the part where I said if MS really said that
> Open Source was a threat to "innovation" and inellectual property, then MS
>
[DJW:] I can't get at the Red Hat response, probably because
of typical broken non-Java
> From: Richard Boulton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> We were unable to come to a satisfactory agreement, so I am asking this
> list: "Is it permissible in any circumstances for an Open Source license
> to require a royalty or other fee for sale of the software?"
[DJW:]
The GPL
> Forutnately for us Europeans, that doesn't apply here - software and
> algorithms are, IIUC, non-patentable in Europe. IANAL
>
>
[DJW:] The recent UK government consultation paper++ on
the possibility of introducing US like software patents
said that European law allowed software patents wh
> From: Lawrence E. Rosen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country,
>or patented or described in a printed publication in this or
>a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant,
>or
>
[DJW:] That seems to raise
> This is one of the dangers of basing Linux (or any other large,
> multicontributor project) on the GPL; the threat that something embedded
> deeply in the code could eventually have an external patent applied,
>
[DJW:] In the UK, one is always told never to reveal
anything abou
> From: Alexander Eichler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> in US, it needs copyright law to act like it does. Conclusion is, that GPL
> is only a possibility to give the right to use to somebody else. Copyright
> beneath this still exists. So GPL is a license agreement. As any other
[DJW:]
> From: Ravicher, Daniel B. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> The rest of the world does provide these automatic warranties, but we at
> least let intelligent people bargain them out of a contract. Why should I
> be forced to pay for a warranty I don't want or need?
>
[DJW:] I seem to remem
> From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I was going to suggest that - presumably anyone with pockets for Office
> can pick up a copy of Acrobat as well, and the reader's free and
> multi-platform.
>
[DJW:] There are royalty free and "open source" tools for
creating and viewing PDF, fr
> From: Carter Bullard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two
> different legal documents are functionally equivalent?
>
[DJW:] As I understand it, they are determining
whether the licence is a member of the set of
possible "ope
> From: Mark Hatch [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> shown that it will prove profitable enough to attract and maintain the
> commercial application base that I believe Linux needs to be successful.
>
I think you are defining "successful" as actually meaning
"commercially profitable". I think one
> From: Ralf Schwoebel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> And here it comes: We are less strict than the GPL, you SHALL and GPL
> says you MUST,
> I can not see why the OSI should not accept that?
>
>
[DJW:] In typical compliance language, SHALL is the most strict
level of compliance. I'd normally
> From: Bryan George [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
[DJW:]
> Under current copyright law, reproducing a similar concept, even using
> different language, would be a violation once I've been exposed to the
>
[DJW:] Are you sure of this. I thought that this
was one of the k
> From: Andrew J Bromage [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I would think that it would be exceedingly hard to argue that the output
> of a compiler is a derivative work of (or "work based on") the compiler
> or any standard libraries that must be provided as part of a conforming
>
[DJW:] Th
> From: Frank Kotler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> http://www.dsf.org.uk/
>
IANAL, but it seems to me that this is a confused mixture
of a licence with articles of association/memorandum of
understanding for the Authors. (I think articles of
association would be called bye-laws for US corpora
> From: William Abernathy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > IV. The Software, or parts thereof, may be incorporated into other
> > software which is not freely redistributable (i.e. software for
> > which a fee is charged), as long as permission is granted from the
> > authors of the Software. The a
Apologies for sending this on list, but attempts to
communicate using a guessed list owner address failed
but didn't bounce and the ISP that is the target of
the relevant MX records says they are no longer customers
and disclaims responsiblity.
Ever since I subscribed to the list, every posting I
> From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> code,
> but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
>
[DJW:] That would appear to make the result
> From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Really??? What was wrong with it - I did it all by hand, so I thought it
> wouldn't have any weirdness
>
[DJW:] No DOCTYPE and blockquote immediately subordinate to ul, see
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.simplel
> From: SamBC [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> http://www.simplelinux.org/legal/sLODL.html
>
> Opinions on OS-ness and legality, and general good/badness, pls
>
[DJW:] The HTML is invalid, although it makes an
exceptionally good attempt to use elements for their
intended pu
> From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Does the GPL allow us (the toolkit creators) to ask a fee for commercial
> use
> of our toolkit?
>
[DJW:] No. You can ask a fee for the supply of the
recorded media and for support, but you cannot
charge for the licence itself. You can even
> From: Lionello Lunesu [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> so we can ge more organised). We definately want to prohibit commercial
> use
> (I guess GPL covers this), but we also want to be notified of any changes
>
The GPL encourages commercial use (I may be wrong, but
I have a feeling that the OSI ru
> From: David Johnson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Other than the strange warning on the bottom, it appears to be a
> straightforward MIT license to me. I'm not sure what your concern with
> the documentation is. There is no documentation requirement that I can
> see, unless it is mentioned el
http://www.wegalink.de/english/download_c.html contains
a licence which is claimed to be OSI certified, and
looks like it may be derived from the X licence, although
this is not stated.
However, this licence requires the recipient of the software
to have the documentation for the licence to be va
The mailing list help tells me how to retrieve a
numbered message fromt the archive, but not how
to search the archive.
How does one do it?
--
--- DISCLAIMER -
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except
55 matches
Mail list logo
