Hello,
We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary arsenal
uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library) even though the
contractor who wrote it was instructed to re-code the application to avoid
using GPL code.
We are now trying to figure out a way to remove the c
On Friday 18 May 2007, Amos Shapira wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary arsenal
> uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library) even though the
> contractor who wrote it was instructed to re-code the application to avoid
> using GPL code.
>
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:11:06PM +1000, Amos Shapira wrote:
> We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary arsenal
> uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library) even though the
> contractor who wrote it was instructed to re-code the application to avoid
> using GP
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:11:06PM +1000, Amos Shapira wrote:
>
>> We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary
>> arsenal uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library)
>> even though the contractor who wrote it wa
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 11:49:23AM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> It is GPL on my system, not LGPL.
I did not look.
> > If the library has a published interface and all your programmer did
> > is call it using that interface, then your code is not covered by
> > the GPL.
>
> Not true. Accordin
The whole purpose of the GPL is to keep software freedom.
I hate all those who try to bypass the GPL and find a way to write
propriatry software and bypass the GPL.
I usually avoid working with such companies.
--
Ori Idan
On 5/18/07, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
We have jus
On Friday 18 May 2007, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> Not true. According to GPL, if you link your code to a GPL library
> your code falls under "derivative work" category, and must be released
> under GPL. See the GPL itself and the accompanying FAQ.
>
Correction: it must be released under the GPL or
On 18/05/07, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:11:06PM +1000, Amos Shapira wrote:
> We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary arsenal
> uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library) even though the
> contractor who wrote
On 18/05/07, Ori Idan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The whole purpose of the GPL is to keep software freedom.
I hate all those who try to bypass the GPL and find a way to write
propriatry software and bypass the GPL.
I usually avoid working with such companies.
I completely understand your opini
On 18/05/07, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 18 May 2007, Amos Shapira wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have just noticed that one of the programs in our proprietary arsenal
> uses GPL code (libipq, the netfilter interface library) even though the
> contractor who wrote it was instructed
The solution should have been to release the software under GPL, that is the
whole purpose of the GPL.
I hate those who try finding solutions to keep software not free.
--
Ori Idan
On 5/18/07, Amos Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 18/05/07, Ori Idan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The whol
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That would make anything ever written that uses a GPL'ed library a
> derivative work.
Everything that links to a GPL'ed library is a derivative work - it is
explicit in GPL.
> However the GPL is a COPYRIGHT license, not a technology license.
"Ori Idan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The whole purpose of the GPL is to keep software freedom. I hate
> all those who try to bypass the GPL and find a way to write
> propriatry software and bypass the GPL.
> I usually avoid working with such companies.
Ori,
This is your prerogative. I woul
I did not say anything against Amos. I think he is doing the right thing.
What I say is that I don't like the whole idea of propriatry software and
that people try to find ways they can use GPL with propriatry software.
I think the whole purpose of the GPL is to eliminate propriatry software and
t
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>> That would make anything ever written that uses a GPL'ed library a
>> derivative work.
>>
>
> Everything that links to a GPL'ed library is a derivative work - it is
> explicit in GPL.
>
I can issue a sta
I wonder how many software programmers in Israel provide their children
from GPL code revenues.
Ori Idan wrote:
I did not say anything against Amos. I think he is doing
the right thing.
What I say is that I don't like the whole idea of propriatry software
and that people try to find ways they
Do you think that GPL code means no money?
--
Ori Idan
On 5/19/07, Oren Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder how many software programmers in Israel provide their children
from GPL code revenues.
Ori Idan wrote:
I did not say anything against Amos. I think he is doing the right thing.
No. I just wonder who's salary is actually based on his GPL code work.
I don't argue the GNU ideology now, I just believe that PRACTICALLY
there are no "software houses" (or individual programmers) in Israel
which produce GPL software as their main business, and which survive
and succeed for m
I believe many people salary is based on GPL
I myself mostly consult but sometimes really writing code.
All my work is free software related.
--
Ori Idan
On 5/19/07, Oren Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. I just wonder who's salary is actually based on his GPL code work.
I don't argue the
Oren Held wrote:
> No. I just wonder who's salary is actually based on his GPL code work.
Does LGPL work count?
>
> I don't argue the GNU ideology now, I just believe that PRACTICALLY
> there are no "software houses" (or individual programmers) in Israel
> which produce GPL software as their main b
Hi,
I don't argue the GNU ideology now, I just believe that PRACTICALLY there
are no "software houses" (or individual programmers) in Israel which produce
GPL software as their main business, and which survive and succeed for more
than 5 years.
I have worked in various jobs (sub contractor) wi
On Sat, May 19, 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: GPL Issue":
>...
> While TrollTech and MySQL both make their income from
> selling proprietary licenses to GPL code in something which is
> borderline extortion,
>...
While I agree with you philosphically (all sof
Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: GPL Issue":
>
>> ...
>> While TrollTech and MySQL both make their income from
>> selling proprietary licenses to GPL code in something which is
>> borderline extorti
Nadav Har'El wrote:
> While I agree with you philosphically (all software should be free, etc.),
> to be fair, there's a different way to look at what TrollTech, MySQL, and
> others, are doing.
I want to stress something further, in case it wasn't clear enough in my
previous response.
I see nothin
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:00:33PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> I'm saying all of this just to point out that I have done relicensing
> for a pay (or, more precisely, offered to do) myself. That is not the
> part that angers me about MySQL AB. What I don't like about it is the
> misrepresentatio
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:38:00PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> Then someone comes along and offers big bucks, so the same code is
> now released as version 2, with a dual commercial/GPL license.
>
> In one case the people who did contribute code were not offered any
> compensation for t
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 05:15:35PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> You fail to mention whether they retained the copyright to their
> contributions or assigned them to someone else (presumably, whoever
> relicensed the code). If it's the latter, tough luck.
Actually the license states:
... reta
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 05:15:35PM +0300, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
You fail to mention whether they retained the copyright to their
contributions or assigned them to someone else (presumably, whoever
relicensed the code). If it's the latter, tough luck.
Actually th
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What bothers me is releasing a buggy, low function program ONLY as
> GPL, and soliciting people to contribute fixes and upgrades with the
> clearly stated promise that the code will remain GPL (free).
>
> Then someone comes along and offers big
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 06:35:27PM +0300, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> IANAL, but if you know someone who did this they are clearly in
> violation, and you will be right to be bothered by this, and you may -
> and should - report it.
Unfortunately I seem to be the only person of this opinion and the
o
On Sunday, 20 בMay 2007 18:11, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> ... consider it "tax on Freedom challanged corporations", does that
> make you feel better? :-)
Yes, I always tend to say that these corporations pay in cash
instead of lines-of-code for the right to use Free-Software.
IMO the main problem
On Sun, May 20, 2007, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: GPL Issue":
> Consider: if I modify your buggy GPLed program I automatically[1] hold
> the copyright to my changes. I cannot release them under any license
> than GPL, nor do I agree to any other license. It stands to rea
On Sunday 20 May 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2007, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: GPL Issue":
> > Consider: if I modify your buggy GPLed program I automatically[1] hold
> > the copyright to my changes. I cannot release them under any license
>
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When someone sends you a patch for your free software project, without
> stating anything about copyright, what does that mean? Is he keeping his
> copyright and only letting you use it in the GPL software,
IANAL, but I think that by default the copyri
IANAL
Nadav Har'El wrote:
> I don't think the situation is as clear-cut as this. It is obvious that
> I create a free software project, let other people help and half of the
> code ends up to be code contributed by other people, then I don't have the
> right to relicense the complete project witho
On Monday, 21 בMay 2007 08:17, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> ...
Lot's of valid points.
> A gross over-simplification can claim that the Unix source code case
> with Novel vs. BSD is a case where so many small, probably
> non-copyrightable changes were made, that the entire piece turned into
> public d
Oron Peled wrote:
> Do we believe many individual small contributions somehow "dillutes"
> the GPL into public domain? I don't think copyright law work this way.
>
>
In a way, it does.
If I start out with a GPL program that is 1,000 lines long, and through
a series of patches, none of them copy
37 matches
Mail list logo
