Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I know, US copyright law does not give an exemption for
temporary copies in working memory (although I could be wrong about that).
Here in Australia, our government (for once getting it right!)
*explicitly* gives such an exemption to our
Terry Hancock wrote:
Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody
does sue and loses).
This is not
Heiko Wundram wrote:
This is not what the general interpretation of the GPL seems to be with
TrollTech and several other companies. They specifically state that even
when you develop inhouse software with GPL-libraries (Qt in the former
case), you are required to release the code of the
Heiko Wundram wrote:
Terry Hancock wrote:
Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody
does sue and
Ernst Noch wrote:
Heiko Wundram wrote:
Terry Hancock wrote:
Given that Google has been using this fact extensively, and
they have not been sued over it, I think it's a fairly
clearly established interpretation, whether it is popular or
not (but of course it's not a legal precedent until somebody
Heiko Wundram wrote:
..., unless I convince the
people at my univ to _release_ the code I've written under a
GPL-compatible open source license itself.
The can of worms in this is basically that management at my uni doesn't want
employees to take the software home and release it there, which
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Mike Meyer wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is interesting to note that the FSF holds the position that the
language that gives you this right *doesn't* -- it just clarifies the
fact that you already hold that right, because it is provided by fair
On 2006-01-04, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I agree with the FSF - if own a copy of a program,
executing it should be fair use. Without that, then there's no
point in obtaining software - you have to get the copyright
holders permission to execute the stuff anyway.
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, we've also signed an extremely one-sided pro-USA so-called
Free Trade Agreement which forces onto us a whole slew of really bad
Intellectual Property Laws, as well as hamstringing our nation's ability
to govern ourselves. With copyright
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
I believe there is precedent that contradicts the FSF's
position. There are two arguments against it:
...
2) Executing a program is analogous to a performance of the software.
Copyright includes limits on performances, so the
On 2006-01-04, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So is putting that program behind a web server and letting
others execute it.
That's pretty clearly a public performance. One has to wonder
whether or not the exemption for program execution would apply
to such?
I don't think it needs to.
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The stance the FSF (and it's lawyers) take on this is that it is illegal
to dynamically link applications that are not under a GPL-compatible
license to GPL works
I doubt that, because it's simply not true. I can
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've asked TrollTech more than once for their stance on this, and each time
they have told me that it's illegal for me to develop an inhouse
application (such as a frontend to some webapp I've written that's only
used by us and will never ever be given
Mike Meyer wrote:
I can't see how they could *require* you to release the code. The GPL
certainly doesn't (or didn't) require that. Possibly they have a
GPL-compatible license that adds that requirement.
See my additional comment on why our management thinks this is bad even when
I only use
Mike Meyer wrote:
So is putting that program behind a web server and letting others
execute it.
That's pretty clearly a public performance. One has to wonder whether
or not the exemption for program execution would apply to such? Of
course, in cases where it matters (i.e. - I provide public
Mike Meyer wrote:
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've asked TrollTech more than once for their stance on this, and each time
they have told me that it's illegal for me to develop an inhouse
application (such as a frontend to some webapp I've written that's only
used by us and will
Mike Meyer wrote:
In my case, I get paid for building custom applications. If I use
GPL'ed software, I'm required to give my client the software under the
GPL (or, as you point out, a GPL-compatible license). I never bother -
I hand them a tarball and installation instructions and they
Heiko Wundram wrote:
Heiko Wundram wrote:
..., unless I convince the
people at my univ to _release_ the code I've written under a
GPL-compatible open source license itself.
The can of worms in this is basically that management at my uni doesn't want
employees to take the software home and
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:53:32 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Firstly, perhaps you could use a mail/news client that correctly limits
lines to (say) 72 characters, that would make it a lot easier to read your
comments.
Sorry, was using the Optus webmail client which does not do line
wrapping -
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, in cases where it matters (i.e. - I provide public
access to my legally purchased copy of the Brittanica, or some
such), copyrights on things other than the program come into
play. Possibly multiple copyrights.
Huh?
As you pointed out,
Ernst Noch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
In my case, I get paid for building custom applications. If I use
GPL'ed software, I'm required to give my client the software under the
GPL (or, as you point out, a GPL-compatible license). I never bother -
I hand them a tarball and
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:53:32 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Secondly, perhaps you should consider that dynamically linking to a
work is creating a derivative work, which most certainly falls under
the modification clause.
[snip]
I am sorry,
Tim Churches wrote:
The key verb is containing, and I'm sorry, but link (or reference or
call or whatever other verb could reasonably used to describe
dynamic run-time linking) does not mean the same as contain.
What's interesting with respect to distribution of works (of course,
since the
Hello,
One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
extremely successful for us so far but now I run
into a license nightmare.
Some the libraries
Michel Sanner wrote:
Hello,
One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
extremely successful for us so far but now I run
into a license
Michel Sanner wrote:
A google search about GPL and dynamic linking came up with an equal
number of pages saying that dynamic linking of GPL
code into non GPL applications is allowed as it is the end user who
cretes the derived work, as pages saying the opposite !
So does anyone know what to
Michel Sanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A google search about GPL and dynamic linking came up with an equal
number of pages saying that dynamic linking of GPL
code into non GPL applications is allowed as it is the end user who
cretes the derived work, as pages saying the opposite ! So does
Michel Sanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
extremely successful for us so far but now I run
into a
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The stance the FSF (and it's lawyers) take on this is that it is illegal to
dynamically link applications that are not under a GPL-compatible license
to GPL works
I doubt that, because it's simply not true. I can use GPL'ed code any
way I want to -
Mike Meyer wrote:
What I *can't* do is distribute it (or work derived from it, etc.)
unless the entire work being distributed is under the GPL (unless the
license has changed recently, *not* a GPL-compatible license, but the
GPL itself), and meets the requirements of the that license. In
Michel Sanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
extremely successful for us so far but now I run
into a
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
particular, if I distribute an application that has to be dynamically
linked with a GPL'ed library to run, I need to distribute my
application under the terms of the GPL.
Mike,
Which section(s) of the GPL say(s) that, exactly? I mean, where is dynamic
Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which section(s) of the GPL say(s) that, exactly? I mean, where is
dynamic linking mentioned, or even implied? I can see where it says
derived from, but not where it says dependent on at run-time.
It's in the interpretation of the term derived from. The
Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
What I *can't* do is distribute it (or work derived from it, etc.)
unless the entire work being distributed is under the GPL (unless the
license has changed recently, *not* a GPL-compatible license, but the
GPL itself), and meets the
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:36:31 -0800, Michel Sanner wrote:
Hello,
One of the greatest feature of Python in my opinion is the way the
interpreter can be used to integrate a wide variety of
software packages by dynamically linking them. This approach has been
extremely successful for us so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Björn Lindström) writes:
Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which section(s) of the GPL say(s) that, exactly? I mean, where is
dynamic linking mentioned, or even implied? I can see where it says
derived from, but not where it says dependent on at run-time.
It's in the
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in that case, you're going to need a real lawyer, so you might as
well talk to one beforehand, and only try what they think you have a
chance of getting in court.
This is excellent advice. We did, in fact, talk to a real lawyer, and paid him
real money
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
[quote]
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run
Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
[quote]
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
A: Yes, because
Mike Meyer wrote:
. Note that I'm *not* interpreting the GPL. I'm interpreting what the
FSF says about the GPL. If the goal is to avoid a lawsuit, the latter
is what you have to pay attention to, as they're telling you what
actions you can take without getting sued. The text comes into play
Mike Meyer wrote:
. Note that I'm *not* interpreting the GPL. I'm interpreting what the
FSF says about the GPL. If the goal is to avoid a lawsuit, the latter
is what you have to pay attention to, as they're telling you what
actions you can take without getting sued. The text comes into play
Mike Meyer wrote:
. Note that I'm *not* interpreting the GPL. I'm interpreting what the
FSF says about the GPL. If the goal is to avoid a lawsuit, the latter
is what you have to pay attention to, as they're telling you what
actions you can take without getting sued. The text comes into play
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:48:12 -0500
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want to know the intent of the authors, that is
that libraries covered by the GPL would infect programs
they are linked with, whether it's dynamically or
statically. The Library (now Lesser) GPL was created to to
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:48:12 -0500
It is interesting to note that the FSF holds the position
that the language that gives you this right *doesn't* --
it just clarifies the fact that you already hold that right,
because it is provided by fair use. Their
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:57:58 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
[quote]
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
that any program which uses it has to be under the
Mike Meyer wrote:
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The stance the FSF (and it's lawyers) take on this is that it is illegal
to dynamically link applications that are not under a GPL-compatible
license to GPL works
I doubt that, because it's simply not true. I can use GPL'ed code any
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 01:59:34 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
I believe there is precedent that contradicts the FSF's
position. There are two arguments against it:
1) Executing software involves several copy operations. Each of those
potentially violate the copyright, and hence the copyright
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Executing software involves several copy operations. Each of those
potentially violate the copyright, and hence the copyright holder
can restrict execution of a program.
#include disclaimer.h
In the U.S. at least, there's a specific statute
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:26:43 +0100
Heiko Wundram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're nitpicking here, if I may say so. Of course, if you
create the derivative work inside your head, you're not
going to distribute it and as such the GPL distribution
clauses don't apply. But: as soon as you write a
49 matches
Mail list logo
