On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 09:11:56AM -, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>
> If I were to write a proxy library which could integrate with various
> read-line style libraries - lets say just the GNU one for now to save time,
> and er... released this proxy under LGPL, surely PHP could use my proxy and
> th
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:16:14AM +0100, Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 09:11:56AM -, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> >
> > If I were to write a proxy library which could integrate with various
> > read-line style libraries - lets say just the GNU one for now to save time,
> > and e
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 05:55:07PM +0100, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 11:16:14AM +0100, Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 09:11:56AM -, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > >
> > > If I were to write a proxy library which could integrate with various
> > > read-line styl
At 18:55 15/1/2001, Stig Venaas wrote:
>If our extension is written to support a non-GPL readline clone (say a
>BSD licensed one), and it then accidentally works with the GNU readline
>shared library, that can't be our problem, or?
Of course not. GNU cloned tons of commercial UNIX applications a
Zeev Suraski wrote:
> By releasing PHP 4.0 with the readline extension, we are *not*
> violating any licenses.
i still cannot agree here (from my legal understanding)
as long as readline is the only thing to implement this
interface the readline extension clearly qualifies as
derivated work a
Quoting Zeev Suraski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> However, if your code is compatible with a GNU library, which is, in turn,
> compatible with some other library (commercial, BSD) that is legal to link
> with PHP, then things change. Obviously, this all story about encouraging
> the users to break
> but trying to redefiny the terms of use others have
> put on their code to fit our needs is a very bad idea
> IMHO
Under whose jurisdiction would any GNU GPL licience issue be resolved?, a US
court might have a different view of what is derivative work to an
British/French court which could co
At 01:13 16/1/2001, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
>i still cannot agree here (from my legal understanding)
>as long as readline is the only thing to implement this
>interface the readline extension clearly qualifies as
>derivated work as it is in this case without doubt
>ment to be working with and on
AFAIK the GPL never made it into court. Apparently it's way too vague to
be useful anyway.
Zeev
At 01:36 16/1/2001, James Moore wrote:
> > but trying to redefiny the terms of use others have
> > put on their code to fit our needs is a very bad idea
> > IMHO
>
>Under whose jurisdiction would a
Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> AFAIK the GPL never made it into court. Apparently it's way too vague to
> be useful anyway.
AFAIK every serious issue with it (like Objective C) has been resolved
out
of court yet, and it wasn't the FSF that had to give in in all of theese
cases
so it _could_ be that i
Not really - the FSF has very strong power outside the court - the power of
the public opinion. When someone is portrayed in 'Good vs. Evil' (GNU vs.
put_your_name_here), then things beyond legal basis come into the
picture. It doesn't change the fact that the GPL is a very vague legal
docum
Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> Not really - the FSF has very strong power outside the court - the power of
> the public opinion. When someone is portrayed in 'Good vs. Evil' (GNU vs.
> put_your_name_here), then things beyond legal basis come into the
> picture.
with Steve Jobs being the guy that he i
Hartmut,
AFAIK, there's no precedence to preventing source distribution because of
software license compatibility or incompatibility with other libraries. Be
they GPL'd, MS EULA'd or anything else. I have strong doubts that if it
ever arrives at a court, such a thing would be accepted. My b
AM>> more worrying, but how many people use the _readline_ module with PHP?
I do :)
AM>> I'm sure all two of them would find an alternative if it were to
AM>> disappear :-)
Actually, I did :)
As for now, I have NetBSD code (which appears to me as the most recent
version, though all other BSDs
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:14:28AM +0200, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> AM>> more worrying, but how many people use the _readline_ module with PHP?
>
> I do :)
And I'm planning to.
>
> AM>> I'm sure all two of them would find an alternative if it were to
> AM>> disappear :-)
>
> Actually, I did
Midgard, soon to use php4 is to be released GPL (according to their website
www.midgard-project.org).
How will this work; will it just be the patch to php4 that makes it INTO
migard that will be GPL, or midgard+PHP that will be GPL.
Either way it seems using this means EITHER
a) anyone could re
They obviously can't distribute PHP under the GPL. And I wish they would
just contribute whatever patches to PHP they think need so Midgard could
use a vanilla PHP install.
-Rasmus
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Midgard, soon to use php4 is to be released GPL (according to their w
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Midgard, soon to use php4 is to be released GPL (according to their website
> www.midgard-project.org).
>
> How will this work; will it just be the patch to php4 that makes it INTO
> migard that will be GPL, or midgard+PHP that will be GPL.
The own
At 12:08 17/1/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>They obviously can't distribute PHP under the GPL. And I wish they would
>just contribute whatever patches to PHP they think need so Midgard could
>use a vanilla PHP install.
Stas talked to them a while ago, some of their patches don't really align
wit
> At 12:08 17/1/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> >They obviously can't distribute PHP under the GPL. And I wish they would
> >just contribute whatever patches to PHP they think need so Midgard could
> >use a vanilla PHP install.
>
> Stas talked to them a while ago, some of their patches don't really
At 12:02 17/1/2001, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>If (b) is true then surely we need officialy a choice of license (or at
>least project-midgard.org does)
As Rasmus said, obviously they can't distribute PHP under the GPL - and
there's nothing wrong with that.
It doesn't mean that they can't distribute P
At 12:17 17/1/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > At 12:08 17/1/2001, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > >They obviously can't distribute PHP under the GPL. And I wish they would
> > >just contribute whatever patches to PHP they think need so Midgard could
> > >use a vanilla PHP install.
> >
> > Stas talked t
SL>> If (a) is true then I could GPL my copy of PHP and then use and
SL>> GPL-non-LGPL code I liked
You can not GPL PHP code - that's not your code, you don't hold a
copyright on it.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115
-
23 matches
Mail list logo
