Wrapped up in this discussion are basically two questions:
1. Am I legally required to distribute the source of my application in
these cases? This is a complex, fact-bound question and there is no
substitute for asking a lawyer what is required and what the potential
legal consequences enforced
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:02 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> MURAKAMI, Keiko scripsit:
>
>> Our application are made by Java, so these are not tightly linked GPL
>> libraries, because GPL libraries are located in another directory,
>> are referred or dynamic liked at live time.
>
> It is disputed whether
MURAKAMI, Keiko scripsit:
> Our application are made by Java, so these are not tightly linked GPL
> libraries, because GPL libraries are located in another directory,
> are referred or dynamic liked at live time.
It is disputed whether that matters or not. I tend to think not.
> And we never de
Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au):
> hi Rick
>
> Everything you say is true, but asking FSF was way cheaper than asking a
> judge in a court of law ;-)
> I don't have enough money and interest - that's what open source is about,
> right?
Well, speaking as someone who ha
hi Rick
Everything you say is true, but asking FSF was way cheaper than asking a
judge in a court of law ;-)
I don't have enough money and interest - that's what open source is about,
right?
Grahame
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthint
Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au):
> About Java and GPL:
> http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=1225
Meaning no disrepect to FSF, but asking them the legal application of
GPL v 3 to a specific situation commits a depressingly common category
error.
(1) In the ge
not give every source code to users.
>
> Keiko
>
> -Original Message-
> From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org
> [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Kuno Woudt
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:04 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
&
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:04 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Is Web application including GPL libraries
covered under GPL?
On 12-05-13 08:08, MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We've been developing an application on Eclipse Framework with
On 12-05-13 08:08, MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote:
Hi everyone,
We've been developing an application on Eclipse Framework with libararies
covered under LGPL, GPL and Apache licenses.
These libraries are jxl.jar(LGPL), servlet-api.jar(GPL v2) and
stepcounter(Apache) and so on.
When we deliver our applicat
MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote:
The application is not static linked.
The exact point at which combining software creates a derivative work
under copyright law is controversial. However, you should note that the
Free Software Foundation considers dynamic linking to do so.
--
David Woolley
Emails
David Woolley wrote:
(Some recent licences have taken the position that this is a loophole
and have tried to close it.)
The GNU Affero General Public Licence, is an example of a licence that
attempts to do this.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses
MURAKAMI, Keiko wrote:
When we deliver our application just as Web application, by using but not
If you deliver the actual application, then all the licences apply.
If you only deliver a service, many licences don't impose restrictions,
however, you should carefully read all the licenses and
Hi everyone,
We've been developing an application on Eclipse Framework with libararies
covered under LGPL, GPL and Apache licenses.
These libraries are jxl.jar(LGPL), servlet-api.jar(GPL v2) and
stepcounter(Apache) and so on.
When we deliver our application just as Web application, by using but no
13 matches
Mail list logo
