David Johnson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > You must include the *text* of the license, but the derived work
> > as a whole may be licensed under any license, including a
> > proprietary one. Commercial X servers are closed-source, but
> > incorporate vast amounts of c
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Ian Grigg wrote:
> I've never come across this term, and can't find any useful
> description on what it is from google. If a "copyright license"
> is not a contract, what is it? Do you have a reference to
> this concept?
I would consider a "copyright license" to be a copyr
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> You must include the *text* of the license, but the derived work
> as a whole may be licensed under any license, including a
> proprietary one. Commercial X servers are closed-source, but
> incorporate vast amounts of code under the MIT license.
The user
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> Based on my readings of discussions on the question of infection by
> binding, no one knows for sure. It is all speculation about libraries,
> linking, binding, run-time coordinated use, etc., etc. There has been no
> test in court.
Correct.
> I have come to favo
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dennis E. Hamilton; Ian Grigg;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BSD / GPL compatibility - Derived vs. Fair Use
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 2.To focus on discussion of derivative works. Making derivative works is
a
> right reserved to the origin
Ian Grigg wrote:
> > Free/open-source software is decidedly published: it is made
> > available to any member of the public who can pay the
> > owner's price ($0).
>
> I can't back up my claim of publication, so I'll leave
> that one for now...
According to the U.S. Copyright Office FAQ
(http:/
Joe Mason wrote:
> If the next version of the GPL were to include a section saying, "For the
> purposes of this license, a 'derivative work' is defined as..." it would
> go a long way toward clearing up these problems.
Unfortunately, such a definition would be of little or no effect.
The GPL, ag
[summary snipped]
> the purpose and character of the use (educational good,
> commercial bad)
That's a good summary, to which I'll add that the use of
copyrighted work for the purposes of avoiding having to
do the work yourself is held to be bad. I.e., under this
view, a
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> In terms of copyright law (and not in terms of programming usage), is an
> application that links to a library considered derivative? I would say that
> static linking is derivation and runtime linking is not. But I'm not sure about
> dynamic linking. R
Ian Grigg wrote:
> If that's the case - I can use "fair use" on GPL, then what
> are the limitations or paramaters? The old rule was something
> like a chapter / 10% for copying, and brief snippets for distribution?
IANAL.
In the U.S., at least, "fair use" is held deliberately undefined,
so th
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 2.To focus on discussion of derivative works. Making derivative works is a
> right reserved to the original copyright holder, and so a license is indeed
> required to make one. And this is all provided for under copyright law. In
> particula
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Alex Nicolaou wrote:
> In general, any "meta-use" of a portion of the source code should be
> acceptable, that is, any re-use of a portion of the code whose purpose
> is to provide commentary or insight into the original and not replace
> the use or function of the original.
essage-
From: Ian Grigg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 13:46
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BSD / GPL compatibility
> > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
> > I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code
> > a
David Johnson wrote:
> You cannot argue that the GPL forbids Fair Use because of its derivation
> clauses. If you do so, you are arguing against yourself, since the GPL is not a
> contract. A much better tack would be to define what Fair Use is in relation to
> source code.
Fair use for source c
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> begin Ian Grigg quotation:
> > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so I can
> > take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code and
> > distrubute it as BSD.
>
> No, because the GPL explicitly covers derived works.
Co
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
> chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
But the reverse is not? Okay, my hackles are raised now... Using a chunk of
GPLd code in my BSD application would ensure mailbombings
Computer Software.
http://www.cyberspaces.org/Effortstoconceal.htm
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Grigg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sub
begin Ian Grigg quotation:
> OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so I can
> take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code and
> distrubute it as BSD.
No, because the GPL explicitly covers derived works.
--
CrackMonkey.Org - Non-sequitur arguments and ad-
> > OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
> > I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code
> > and distrubute it as BSD.
>
> No, this is not possible. While programs distributed under the GPL may use
> BSD (minux advertising clause) code the reverse does not
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Ian Grigg wrote:
> > It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
> > chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
>
> OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
> I can take any part of a GPLed work and shove it into my code
> an
> > Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered
> > code under the GPL?...
>
> It's all a matter of derived work. Some may say that using
> chunks of BSD code in a GPLed work is "fair use".
OK, so does the same apply in reverse? I guess it does, so
I can take any p
begin Ian Grigg quotation:
> Does the BSD licence give a user the right to distribute covered
> code under the GPL? That is what it needs to permit, if the GPL
> is to be satisfied, AFAIK. And neither the new nor old permit
> you to do that, just use it according to the restrictions.
I
> The "new BSD" and the equivalent MIT license are compatible with the
> GPL; the "old BSD" license with the advertising requirement is not.
> In general, a license is compatible with the GPL if it imposes the
> same, or fewer, restrictions than the GPL.
Does the BSD licence give a user the right
23 matches
Mail list logo
