G'day all.
On Saturday 18 November 2000 04:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're aquainted with how a linker works?
[...]
On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:49:11AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
For a few linkers, maybe. For others no.
[...]
If I may ask a meta-question here...
This question has
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:49:11 -0800
On Saturday 18 November 2000 04:32 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're aquainted with how a linker works? It's the linking of object
code plus libraries which creates the machine-code executable. For
on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 10:53:23PM -0500, Eric Jacobs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts
have held, in Mai v. Peak) a
on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 10:44:39PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 09:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The legal test of copyrightability (what is copyrightable) is
"original works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium" [1].
Or at least
on Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 06:46:01AM -0500, Eric Jacobs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how this follows.
You don't see how what follows? That linking is a corrolate of Mai v.
Peak, or the principles established in Mai v. Peak?
David Johnson wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and tangible
requirements of copyright law, and is therefore a copy under
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, David Johnson wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and tangible
requirements of copyright law, and is
on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:29:20PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 01:20 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea is that, if a program is a work, and if (as the courts have
held, in Mai v. Peak) a program in memory meets the fixed and
tangible
on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 08:22:57PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2000 08:02 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've heard this before, but I've always dismissed it as hearsay. I
will have to look up Mai v Peak. The implications of this are
On Friday 17 November 2000 09:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The legal test of copyrightability (what is copyrightable) is "original
works of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium" [1]. Or at least the
second part of that.
This seems to be a different issue. Those are good
on Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 11:53:23PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sunday 12 November 2000 11:07 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will a BSD or MIT application even be able to use these #ifdefs so
that the end user can recompile in private?
Oblig: IANAL
It's
When Trolltech announced that they were offering their Qt/Embedded product
under the GPL, I initially assumed that it would be a dual GPL/QPL license
just like Qt/X11. I was wrong. It is only under the GPL and their proprietary
license.
This brings up an interesting quandery. There are lots
on Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:40:10PM -0800, David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
When Trolltech announced that they were offering their Qt/Embedded product
under the GPL, I initially assumed that it would be a dual GPL/QPL license
just like Qt/X11. I was wrong. It is only under the GPL
On Sunday 12 November 2000 11:07 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will a BSD or MIT application even be able to use these #ifdefs so
that the end user can recompile in private?
Oblig: IANAL
It's generally accepted that the MIT license is convertible to GPL, as
is BSD without advertising
14 matches
Mail list logo
