| You could also write your own whiteroom implementation of readline. Why
| aren't you considering this? The answer is easy: your time is too
| precious to reinvent everything. And readline is implemented
pretty well
| already. But it has it's price (accepting the GPL) - if the price
is too
|
On 28 Jul 1999, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I believe that in the copyright arena, intent goes by names such as
> ``contributory infringement.''
Thanks for the hint!
Yours,
-- martin
// Martin Konold, Herrenbergerstr. 14, 72070 Tuebingen, Germany //
KDE: A stable GUI for a reliable OS.
Date:Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists
> 2. and is available for the user to run with your application on that platform
> 3. and the
Maybe this analogy is somewhat relevant for discussion, if
only to discern nuances of copyright law
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Let's get back to the frame metaphor. When I put a frame in my web page
> that displays one of your web pages, I never copy your web page. The
> frame is an i
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > If the application was created without ever using the GPL-ed code,
> > it is clearly not a derivative work until the end user combines it
> > with the GPL-ed code.
>
> Right. And if the end-user does th
On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists
> 2. and is available for the user to run with your application on that platform
> 3. and the user actually has to have it to run your application.
>
> Postulate that you write an application that works
Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> Now I'm the user, and I want to write some software which maybe
> uses a snippet of code from bash. For example, maybe I want to use
> readline.
You could also write your own whiteroom implementation of readline. Why
aren't you considering this? The answer is ea
On 28 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Let's get back to the frame metaphor. When I put a frame in my web page
> that displays one of your web pages, I never copy your web page. The
> frame is an instruction to the end-user's web browser to load your page
> and format it with my page around it
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the application was created without ever using the GPL-ed code,
> it is clearly not a derivative work until the end user combines it
> with the GPL-ed code.
Right. And if the end-user does the combining, who is responsible?
Does the develo
> Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of
> no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed
> product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then
> you ship that application with the _intent_ that the user combin
From: Kyle Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unfortunately, as much as I love the GPL, I don't think this is
> enforcable. Remember that the GPL covers only distribution, not use;
> hence, if the distribution of a work linked against a library
> interface (even that for which only a GPL'ed implementatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Postulate that you write an application that works with a library full of
> no-op stubs. That library just happens to match the interface of a GPL-ed
> product I've written, and with that library it is a functioning product. Then
> you ship that app
> Just becuase I have code that make calls to a certain API, which you
> happen to have implemented, doesn't mean that I'm deriving from your code.
It's a lot easier to make that assertion:
1. If an alternate implementation from mine exists
2. and is available for the user to run with your appl
| For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where
software is
| concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a
derived
| work. However, copyright law doesn't take that into account and is only
| concerned with copying.
And therein lies a serious problem, beca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I don't see how that can be made consistent with the GPL's claim that
> > "changing it [the GPL] is not allowed."
>
> Well, if reference to license text was considered derivation this would be a
> problem, but it isn't. Linus p
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't see how that can be made consistent with the GPL's claim that
> "changing it [the GPL] is not allowed."
Well, if reference to license text was considered derivation this would be a
problem, but it isn't. Linus put a note before the copyrighted GPL te
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> > It could be viewed as an additional permission, making Linux
> > dual-licensed, except that Linus doesn't have authority to grant that
> > permission on behalf of all of the other developers -- who presumably have
>
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Then in your view, only GPL-compatible programs can be run under Linux?
No, because of this exception that Linus makes to the GPL:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> It could be viewed as an additional permission, making Linux
> dual-licensed, except that Linus doesn't have authority to grant that
> permission on behalf of all of the other developers -- who presumably have
> the right to assert that this is eith
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:33:40 -0400 (EDT)
> [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
> released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
> under that license.
The kernel, however (which is just another
John Cowan writes:
> Kyle Rose scripsit:
>
> > [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
> > released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
> > under that license.
>
> The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL.
> I know that Lin
Kyle Rose scripsit:
> [T]he LGPL, the license under which the major libraries are
> released, specifically allows non-free programs to link to binaries
> under that license.
The kernel, however (which is just another library), is under the GPL.
I know that Linus explicitly states that the GPL's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> > For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is
> > concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a derived
> > work.
>
> Then in your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is
> concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a derived
> work.
Then in your view, only GPL-compatible programs can be run under Linux?
--
John Cowan
On 27 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is
> concerned. If you call into my library from your program, it's a derived
> work. However, copyright law doesn't take that into account and is only
> concerned with copying.
>
> So
Part of the problem is that _copyright_law_ doesn't define derived work in
terms that make much sense for _software_ rather than a printed work, film, or
sound recording.
For example, I'd submit that _reference_ is derivation where software is
concerned. If you call into my library from your prog
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:13:25 -0700
From: Wilfredo Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its
| allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a
| better license?
Most certainly. For starters, it should
| Obviously, the GPL is aimed at being "user-protective" rather than
| "business-protective".
No. It's "author-protective". You write software. You want
people to use it (for whatever reasons), but you have certain
restrictions you use on usage to protect you as the author. This is
t
At 7:17 PM -0600 7/27/99, Jacques Chester wrote:
>
>The GPL has had many areas of success. I wonder, out of sheer
>curiousity, whether there will emerge a *technical* or *quantitative*
>case for any of the licenses.
I'm not convinced that it's a technical or quantitative issue. Seems like asking
>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
>> Certainly the GPL has worked well here. Writing a compiler is
>> enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of
>> your objections, is likely worthwhile.
The GPL has had many areas of success. I wonder, out of sheer
curiou
| I disagree -- it looks like people are starting to see the benefits of
| getting their end users to fix bugs. Which can be a different animal
| from open source entirely.
Not entirely. I don't mind paying for software. What kills me is
"that damned bug that's been there forever and why
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
[for readability I've reformatted some comments]
> | Except the *NeXT* community.
>
> OK, that's fair.
> | making open systems in the first place), of course. My objective
> | is to benefit the user, and make the user's life nice.
> OK, I like
| > NeXT used GPL'ed code for years without adding much value to the
| > GNU Project because they made lots of NeXT-specific changes and
| > didn't care at all whether they got folded into the FSF source
base.
| > Sure the software remaind "free", but none of it ever made it into
| >
>
> >1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA
>
>This has got to be a joke...?
No. It is a circular road in Cupertino which, IIRC, surrounds one of
Apple's campuses. (or something like that).
The NAMING of the road was certainly a joke, but :)
D
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
> That's a fairly narrow view, Bruce.
It can be, but since I disagree with both of you... :)
> NeXT used GPL'ed code for years without adding much value to the
> GNU Project because they made lots of NeXT-specific changes and
> didn't care at
| For the software I personally write, there really isn't much
choice but the
| GPL. That's because I donate my time to increase the amount of
available
| free software, _not_ non-free software. I absolutely will not
tolerate being
| treated as an unpaid employee by someone who takes my cont
By the way, if you are looking for a license how-to, start with
http://perens.com/OSD.html . It's not an instruction manual, but puts
across most of the concepts.
Thanks
Bruce
Have you looked at freshmeat.net lately? At least half of the program
announcements there have "GPL" as their license. That's a lot more than
it used to be.
For the software I personally write, there really isn't much choice but the
GPL. That's because I donate my time to increase the amount of a
"Jacques Chester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The above list is not comprehensive, by any means. I begin to think
> that this list might wish to work towards a License HOW-TO, which
> sets out several aspects of the common licenses and how to choose
> your best choice. For maximum interoperabili
Hi all;
... a maiden poster here. Trust me to pick a holy war to start
with, eh?
>Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted
numerous
>articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah
blah),
>and use freebsd because it's better. ".
>
>Anybody el
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:03:33 -0500
From: Signal 11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted numerous
articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah blah),
and use freebsd because it's better. ".
There has be
There are always anti-GPL messages on slashdot, many from people who don't
write software. I'd not concern yourself with them. There are also lots of
people who speak in favor of the GPL and more vendors are using it lately.
The PHP4 license was not quite identical with the QPL 2.0. We discussed
Thought I'd mention that the licensing has changed for "php4" aka zend.
It was under the GPL, but now it appears to be under the QPL (just like
kde).
Seems to be a backlash against the GPL lately - slashdot has posted numerous
articles on freebsd, which invariably say that "the gpl is evil (blah
43 matches
Mail list logo
