On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 11:28:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
You've left out:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Someone had to comply with these provisions when creating the derivative
work,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:45:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Several topics come up here with some regularity, but which don't
belong here IMO.
[...]
The sorts of topics that are really not appropriate are things like
If I do X, will that get me around the GPL [or other free software
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
When I take, say, /bin/ls, and run it under fakeroot (and thus link it
with libfakeroot.so.0, aiui), I'm not (afaik) causing the resulting modified
file (that's only ever in memory) to carry prominent notice that I changed
the files, and I've no
(I hate it when people do this, but at least I'm not quoting his whole
article. I think the circumstances call for an exception.)
What Brandon said. In fact, better said than how I said it.
Thomas
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 01:46:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
FooCorp doesn't do any linking with GPLed code in these
scenarios. Further, the linking is only done on the users machine, in
a manner explicitly allowed by the copyright holders of both pieces
of code (the GPL allows you to do
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 02:00:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
When I take, say, /bin/ls, and run it under fakeroot (and thus link it
with libfakeroot.so.0, aiui), I'm not (afaik) causing the resulting modified
file (that's only ever in memory) to carry prominent notice that I changed
the
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The set {FooCorp,WhiteNight} however, *is* doing an illegal copy.
Proof by assertion, I love it.
I wasn't trying to do that; I'll explain.
If a single person distributed the parts together, then that would
clearly be a violation. My use of
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:11:27AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
* Independently, someone thinks libA is cool, and does an clean room
implementation that's compatible at both binary and source levels,
creating libA-gpl. It's uploaded to Debian. It Conflicts: with
libA.
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JESUS H CHRIST ON A POGO STICK WHAT is your major malfuction? It's
not good enough for you to start on your John Galt's not part of Debian
kick, but you now have to start on others?! I have some suggestions
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 09:30:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The set {FooCorp,WhiteNight} however, *is* doing an illegal copy.
Proof by assertion, I love it.
I wasn't trying to do that; I'll explain.
If a single person distributed the
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, John Galt wrote:
legality really has little to do with fairness in the sense you were using
it.
Replying to myself: there ws supposed to be a URL here, but I deleted it
and forgot to delete the commentary. FWIW here's the deleted URL...
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If it's done to get around the provision in the GPL, then it probably is,
but that's not the only reason to do it, merely the most likely.
Yes, I'm assuming only cases where the intention is to get around the
GPL. Like I said, intention matters a
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No it isn't. Debian's one of my favorite distros, and I hate to see it
being brought down by the likes of you. Every time you tell someone that
they aren't a part of Debian, at least one person (more likely five
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not. What is supposed to alienate everyone is YOU telling them that
they aren't. Telling ME is one thing: I figure that if they don't know
enough about Debian that they know who all the flame-warriors are it's
just as well that they wait a few years
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
FooCorp doesn't do any linking with GPLed code in these
scenarios. Further, the linking is only done on the users machine, in
a manner explicitly allowed by the copyright holders of both pieces
of code (the GPL allows you to do pretty much whatever
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Are you our friend or not?
How is that relevant? Do you think courts will reject arguments simply
because they are made by people that Thomas Bushnell does not count
among his friends?
You seem do define a friend as someone who would rather
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If X is illegal (or violates a civil law) for a single person to do,
then as a rule, it is also illegal (or violates civil law) for a group
of people acting in cahoots to do it, no matter how they divide up the
tasks.
I agree absolutely.
Obviously the
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The proper interpretation of this area of the GPL is not on topic for
this mailing list.
There's an annoying trend here: if Chloe posts it it's off topic. It
someone else does it, it's suddenly on topic? Please make up your
mind. If you
On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not. What is supposed to alienate everyone is YOU telling them that
they aren't. Telling ME is one thing: I figure that if they don't know
enough about Debian that they know who all the flame-warriors are
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you our friend or not?
How is that relevant? Do you think courts will reject arguments simply
because they are made by people that Thomas Bushnell does not count
among his friends?
I explained why it's relevant already, but I'll explain again.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would assume that Hoffman is also aware that he's not a developer.
Why is it supposed to alienate someone to remind them that certain
lists are primarily for the use of developers, not users?
Because they aren't.
Maybe you should go read
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
noticed, we place a priority on real identities. Or haven't you
No. Our priorities are our users and free software. I really don't
remember real identities of those connected with Debian in there...
noticed that this is one of the new maintainer
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would assume that Hoffman is also aware that he's not a developer.
Why is it supposed to alienate someone to remind them that certain
lists are primarily for the use of developers, not users?
Because they
Scripsit Thomas Bushnell, BSG
By friend I mean someone who wants the GPL strong.
Then I'm not a friend. I'm someone who wants as much code code
in this world as possible to be reuseable by anyone. To the extent
that GPL works against this goal, I don't care particularly by
its hurt feelings.
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
noticed, we place a priority on real identities. Or haven't you
No. Our priorities are our users and free software. I really don't
remember real identities of those connected with Debian in there...
noticed
As it happens I wrote a section on this topic in a recent paper. Look
in II.B.d (paginated at 24 in the pdf) discussing thecompulsory source
distribution terms.
The paper is titled Open Source Software and Implications for
International Copyright and Moral Rights in Software and can be found
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hrm. I'm trying to figure out how you can quote something without reading
it.you know, I just can't
feature it.
The front page of lists.debian.org defines certain lists as for
Users and others as for
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The goal the entire world must use MY license is not one I support.
The goal the code I wrote shall stay free is an admirable one which
I do support. The GPL reaches that goal excellently even though it
doesn't do everything the bad gyus may wish it
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you? I can think of three packages that the maintainer is acting in an
unaccoutable and irresponsible way. You may even think you know which
ones: I'm sure the DD responsible knows what I think of them. I know for
a fact that it's damn well
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 10:46:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Yes, I'm assuming only cases where the intention is to get around the
GPL. Like I said, intention matters a great deal here.
Note: intention doesn't make the derivative work illegal or legal,
however, intent (as expressed by
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The goal the entire world must use MY license is not one I support.
The goal the code I wrote shall stay free is an admirable one which
I do support. The GPL reaches that goal excellently even
On 28-Jun-01, 14:53 (CDT), Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Why do you think a strong GPL implies the entire world must use MY
license?
That's the entire point behind the difference between GPL and LGPL.
Wrong.
I want a strong
Scripsit Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The price you pay for that work is that you have to make your work
available too. What is so unreasonable about that?
It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's something that is
quite different from simply letting your code keep *its* freedom.
Which
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hrm. I'm trying to figure out how you can quote something without reading
it.you know, I just can't
feature it.
The front page of lists.debian.org defines certain
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:44:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's something that is
quite different from simply letting your code keep *its* freedom.
The only freedom that's lacking is the freedom to become nonfree.
Which was all I said.
Blatently
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you? I can think of three packages that the maintainer is acting in an
unaccoutable and irresponsible way. You may even think you know which
ones: I'm sure the DD responsible knows what I think of them. I
Scripsit Raul Miller
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:44:04PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's something that is
quite different from simply letting your code keep *its* freedom.
The only freedom that's lacking is the freedom to become nonfree.
False. A
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LGPL achieves it too. The only extra thing GPL says is that
if you reuse my code, I'm not satisfied that you keep MY
code free. The code YOU write by yourself must also have MY
license.
Well, that depends on the case. I'm generally happy with the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
False. A freedom which is also lacking is the freedom to combine
with code under other licenses, without making the GPLed code itself
nonfree. Cf the subject line...
The problem is that if you combine my code with nonfree code, and
distribute the
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the definition is so broad that I easily fall into it. Hoffman may or
may not, but it really isn't your place to decide. They have the
listmasters for a reason, you know.
The term Developers in Debian is a formal one, not an accidental
one. The
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You know, I'd say that no employer is going to give two shits about
activity on a mailing list, but your past actions speak of a willingness
to try to give the lie to that statement. The only relevant issue to
employment that I can see from the collected
The only freedom that's lacking is the freedom to become nonfree.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:37:40AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
False. A freedom which is also lacking is the freedom to combine
with code under other licenses, without making the GPLed code itself
nonfree. Cf the subject
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And the definition is so broad that I easily fall into it. Hoffman may or
may not, but it really isn't your place to decide. They have the
listmasters for a reason, you know.
The term Developers in Debian is a
On 28 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You know, I'd say that no employer is going to give two shits about
activity on a mailing list, but your past actions speak of a willingness
to try to give the lie to that statement. The only relevant issue to
44 matches
Mail list logo
