> 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
> Absent that though, here is a hypothetical... Can you
> copyright your personal
> name in such a way that people could not legally address mail to you?
No.
/Larry Rosen
On Saturday 24 February 2001 12:13 pm, Fred Patrick wrote:
> I am not so concerned about someone using the API but rather that they
> modify the API specification. In the CORBA world, I do not care that
> someone implements an interface but I do care if they make changes but
> still purport to be
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 1:45 PM
> To: Fred Patrick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: What is Copyleft?
>
>
> On Saturday 24 February 2001 06:28 am, Fred Patrick wrote:
>
>
On Saturday 24 February 2001 06:28 am, Fred Patrick wrote:
> Are there more details about not being able to copyright an API?
> Does API in this usage apply to CORBA interfaces as well?
>
> If so it doesn't make much sense to me.
I wish I had more details. I am only going by my recollection. I p
>
> A header that is pure API (only function declarations) are in
> this class. The
> names of the functions get copied over into the resulting object
> file, but
> the header file itself does not. I believe that there was a case
> once that
> ruled you couldn't copyright an API.
>
Are th
On Friday 23 February 2001 08:32 am, Dave J Woolley wrote:
> [DJW:] In the normal course of programming the host
> program will be combined with the header files (or typelib)
> from the libary to produce the object code and the further
> reference will be made to the lib
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If a court found that the first and third results Mr. Woolley enumerated
> were not derivative works (and thus could ignore the terms of the LGPL or
> the GPL for non-free code), I suspect that a case could be made to the FSF
> for abandoning the use
Dave J Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 libra
From: "Dave J Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> or you link it against the dynamic version to create a dynamically
> *linked* executable, which can load the full text of the library
> and run time.
> There are three possibilities here:
>
> - unlinked (LGPL gives a dispensation on the headers used)
> 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
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 library?
Rod
> Dave J Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I
> 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
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?
Rod
> > From: Frank Hecker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > makes a distinction between licen
Dave J Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had a look over the LGPL and it seems to have some interesting
> restrictions on derivative works that are almost certainly
> violated more often than obeyed, at least for the glibc.
> It seems to require that limited licesnses be given to modify
>
> 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
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> 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,
> there could be a counter
> 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:]
> > > How can that create a derivative work?
> >
> > Well, the question is why wouldn't it?
>
> Because you're not modifying the original work. You're not adding
anything
> to it. The two parts (the Program and the Library) aren't ever combined
> into one work. If you would argue that they are
> 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
"Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> When you make a function call in compile-time linked code, you are
> creating a derivative work, because the function code itself will be
> compiled into the Program and inextricably combined with your code.
> When the two are separated by a run-time
On Thursday 22 February 2001 02:16 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> No, DLLs are in the same address space as the main program. They are
> ordinary code that instead of being mapped at link time, is mapped at
> the beginning of run time. Calls to a routine in a DLL are essentially
> ordinary subroutine
> From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Dynamic linking with unfree libraries *not* distributed with the OS is a
> > gray area in the GPL. When it was written, dynamic linking was a
> > marginal concept. The FSF believes that linking with unfree dynamic
> > libraries, except as mentioned
Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> If I understand the internals of the situation correctly (which I may not),
> a program that binds to a DLL at runtime does so through the mediation of
> the OS. Data is packaged, handed to the OS, the OS moves it from the
> process making the call to the target process,
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dynamic linking with unfree libraries *not* distributed with the OS is a
> gray area in the GPL. When it was written, dynamic linking was a
> marginal concept. The FSF believes that linking with unfree dynamic
> libraries, except as mentioned above, is n
> 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
>
Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> 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
> be written using the GPL?
By a spec
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask.
>
> What is a Copyleft?
>
> The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about
> Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws
> of the license is that:
>
> "It is
Correct. Your quote from RMS didn't indicate whether he was referring to
static or dynamic linking, but since your example uses dynamic linking, I
assume that is what RMS meant as well. I do not read the copyleft in the
GNU GPL to preclude runtime linking to DLLs. Indeed, to read the copyleft
in t
begin Ryan S. Dancey quotation:
> Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask.
> What is a Copyleft?
Your underlying point is well-taken, and perceptive: RMS's recent usage
of the term indeed appears to depart from its prior (and customary)
meaning, in objecting to the ability to link to
32 matches
Mail list logo
