On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 05:53, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 21:01, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Suppose you view a webpage which says:
SoftwareX for $30 - buy/download
How will you know if it's GPL or proprietary?
I won't unless they tell me. But I don't normally spend $30 without
finding out what it is I'm buying first.
Again, the GPL states that you may charge a fee
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 16:12, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Suppose you view a webpage which says:
SoftwareX for $30 - buy/download
How will you know if it's GPL or proprietary?
I won't unless they tell me. But I don't normally spend $30 without
finding out what it is I'm
To summarize:
By not providing a public notice if charging a fee for d/l or by
restricting access without a legitimate reason, you're effectively
bypassing the GPL and its nature, even if the GPL doesn't explicitly
tell that.
Companies which want the sw they're using to stay a secret, can ask
Please help me out with this: I thought we just had to make the sources
available (they will be available on our or via our web site), return
any changes we make to the developers (we haven't changed much but we
have contributed back to the Wine project, for instance), and not change
or
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Please help me out with this: I thought we just had to make the sources
available (they will be available on our or via our web site), return
any changes we make to the developers (we haven't changed much but we
have contributed back to the Wine project, for instance), and
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 15:18, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
Please help me out with this: I thought we just had to make the sources
available (they will be available on our or via our web site), return
any changes we make to the developers (we haven't changed much but we
have
And they are allowed to build a whole proprietary
cathedral (including kernel modules) on top of it.
But note that there's a difference between a mere aggregation and a
combination of several modules into one program. The GPL Faq describes
that precisely.
Marek
Marek Peteraj wrote:
There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
post.
From your previous post:
The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and
you have to interpret
The GPL also uses the term ,any third party'.
And the FAQ clarifies exactly what is meant by third party: Under some
circumstances (ie GPL section 3c) Distributees may pass along your written
offer of source code when they pass along your binary. Your offer must
extend to these third parties
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
post.
From your previous post:
The keyword 'General
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 17:08, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
post.
From your previous post:
The keyword 'General
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 16:21, Paul Davis wrote:
The GPL also uses the term ,any third party'.
And the FAQ clarifies exactly what is meant by third party: Under some
circumstances (ie GPL section 3c) Distributees may pass along your written
offer of source code when they pass along your
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 12:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the
general public (read: everyone on earth).
True. Just that one person. But IF instead of giving them the source you
give
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the
general public (read: everyone on earth).
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 21:01, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with the
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 21:01, Simon Jenkins wrote:
Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with
On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 00:45, Michael Ost wrote:
As I nervously enter the fray... I work for Muse Research. And yes we
are using Linux. But no we aren't going to tell customers about it in
any obvious way. Most of them don't care, and would indeed be confused
by that piece of information.
El viernes, 9 de abril de 2004, a las 01:51, Clinton Ebadi escribió:
You are a bit off track, the
section on Common Misunderstandings of the GPL will get you back on
track.
I can't see such section in the link you provided.
IMHO, unfortunately, people trying to make money legally on an Open
On 04/09/04 01:51:53, Clinton Ebadi wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html . You are a bit off track, the
section on Common Misunderstandings of the GPL will get you back on
track. Putting the code on an FTP server is not enough. It is easier to
include the source on a CD with the
On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 14:54, Dave Robillard wrote:
Putting the source up on an FTP server (provided it's publically known about
and announced and whatnot) is fine, you just need to include an _offer_ to
mail a CD with the source code. Noone is actually going to order it anyway if
it's
Jan Depner wrote:
I agree completely. The relevant quote from the GPL FAQ is this:
You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a
physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a
way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the
Thanks to the list for all the helpful replies. I am working on
implementing them.
- mo
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 22:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 04:08:34AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:57:32AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Companies using Linux in musical gear besides
As I nervously enter the fray... I work for Muse Research. And yes we
are using Linux. But no we aren't going to tell customers about it in
any obvious way. Most of them don't care, and would indeed be confused
by that piece of information.
We have a team with good knowledge of this market
26 matches
Mail list logo
