If the Program specifies a version number of this License which
applies to it and any later version, you have the option of
following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any
later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
Raul Miller [EMAIL
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:26:41PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Rather than continuing to assume that I'm an idiot, please try to
imagine reasonable things I might mean. You were talking about how
portions copyright foo-style notices didn't work; I provided a
reference to a GPL'd
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:22:47PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
But there's a bigger problem: you're advocating that the GPL was designed
to allow a developer to impose a restriction on subsequent users which
[a] is not expressed explicitly in the GPL, and [b] was not imposed by
the original
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:41:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Response from David Turner, forwarded with permission. As noted, please
keep the ticket number (gnu.org #209128) in the subject line if you CC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with responses. I havn't added them to the CC of this
forward,
* Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] [040826 01:32]:
You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Which is GPL v2, nothing else.
GPL v2
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's nothing in S9 that leads
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:41:50AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
GPL 9 is there so that I *can*
release mine under GPL v2 or later and he can then integrate it into
his, because there's explicit definition of what this means and how it
works with the rest of the GPL.
That's one of the
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:31:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
The problem arrive if you release a patch that sayd GPL v2 alone, against a
program which is GPL v2 and later.
That's not a problem, because GPL v2 alone includes (via either option
in section 9) later versions.
GPL v2 alone excludes
I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
analogous to GPL v2 alone as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:43:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
What do you mean that's not
I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms
offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
analogous to GPL v2 alone as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Section 9 of the GPLv2 is quite
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
version of it?
The right to use other versions of the GPL.
--
Raul
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:42:25PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
What rights from the GPL are being restricted by using a specific
version of it?
Raul Miller writes:
The right to use other versions of the GPL.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:35:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Please
so it does not prohibit specifying a particular GPL version to the
exclusion of others.
False. Section 6 says:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:43:49PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Er, section 6 isn't the copyleft in the GPL. It's the public
license part. It only grants rights to *the
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
This excerpt is quite clear:
A Program may specify GPL2 and any later version - check
If the Program just says GPL, the recipient may use any version - check
If the Program says GPL v2 alone, there's
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 04:10:23PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Two programs' licenses are incompatible if you can't combine them and
distribute the result. If Raul's interpretation of the GPL is correct
(the second alternative above), then a GPL v2 program would be incompatible
with a GPL v2
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 05:58:40PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I disagree that there are only two options. Section 9 provides two
options, but does not expressly prohibit options of the form This
code is distributed under the General Public License, version 2.
I agree.
Do you believe
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Have you considered the consequences of your weird legal theory?
Presumably the Linux kernel would be undistributable because it
contains both GPL 2 and GPL =2 code.
Not if GPL 2 indicates that GPL v2 applies and not meant
Raul Miller wrote [in reply to Michael Poole]:
You seem to be claiming that the GPL implicitly allows the constraint
no future versions of the GPL may be used as if that constraint were
written into the license (see section 8 for an explicit example of this
kind of language).
On Fri, Aug
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:40:22PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul, nobody has claimed that the privileges which are available only
to copyright holders make software non-free. I and others have
claimed that compulsions of asymmetric privileges are non-free. The
compulsions are what
The fact that it doesn't provide terms for any other cases, and another
part of the license says You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:10:46PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
Are you saying
But, frankly, the point about what the oopyright holder can do doesn't
really matter because there are significant programs (such as gcc)
where the copyright holder has specified or any later version.
And, that's what you have called compulsions of asymmetric privileges.
On Thu, Aug 26,
The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
terms. If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
terms might be proprietary. [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly
But GPL v2 explicitly allows other users to make this version choice
themselves. So later users still have the option to use GPL v3, just
like you did.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:22:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, it doesn't. GPL v2 section 9 only allows that if the program
What do you find non-free in this ?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:07:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
It compels me to grant upstream a right which upstream will not grant
me. If that were symmetric, I would not object to this under DFSG 3.
Same condition exists with the GPL. [The GPL
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Section 9.
I don't see anything like that.
All I see is a common license from authors that software is available
under the GNU GPL, version 2 or any later version, at the discretion
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Section 9.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I don't see anything in there about the FSF replacing my
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge
that.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:27:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The GPL
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 03:00:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It requires that derived works be released under the same license. The
GPL requires that derived works be released under the GPL. You can't do
both of these at the same time.
I think I disagree.
You can release software under
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can release software under multiple licenses if you're the copyright
holder. If you're not a copyright holder you can still release something
derived from it under the terms of the gpl if the other copyright doesn't
have restrictions beyond what
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:33:13AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
I am hardly the first person to bring this up [1] [2]. This comment
from Raul Miller is particularly illuminating [3]
As I remember it, DFSG#10 was specifically added to the DFSG because
some people were saying
I'll agree that you're not seeing the raw bits, but nobody ever sees
the raw bits. Instead, you see things resulting from those bits.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:51:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
You just defeated yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the
copyright of a program to
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That as long as is important. It can be engaged in two ways. If I
say GPL except for to Bob, who gets Nothing! Nothing! then that's
not Free, because Bob doesn't have a Free license. If I say BSD to
teachers, GPL to
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
presenting now].
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
The execution isn't, any
So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any
other machine is. Running some code doesn't interact with the
creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by
copyright[1]. This is old news.
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I disagree
[Yeah, this is a stale thread -- I'm catching up, but it will
probably be days before I'm completely caught up. But no
one seems to have addressed this point.]
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:22:45PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code on
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
17 USC 101 and Articles 4 and 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty probably
suffice. They definitely classify a network-provided application as
public performance -- unless you believe that executing a program does
not count as a performance of it, which
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:34:28PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't think I've said anything new or strange about the GPL--it causes
rewriting, it's designed to do so, and I think it's fair to acknowledge that.
The GPL tends to cause rewriting to be done earlier than otherwise.
Copyright
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's also clear to me, from reading the bit of 17 USC 101 you quoted,
that running postfix constitutes a performance, even if it's not a
public performance.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 07:25:54PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
That would be this bit
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:40:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Security isn't just a binary quality.
[Can't sleep, trying to find something boring enough to fix that.
Didn't quite work...]
Security is not always the same thing from one person to the next.
Ok, sure, some things are
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:45:17AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
don't see a way to prevent dongleware without also preventing Google
-- really, what is a hundred thousand machine server farm and five
years of data but a really, really big dongle?
A dongle is a piece of hardware designed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG.
The G in Debian Free Software Guidelines means Guidelines.
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:17:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among
all
Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in
Debian must be GPL-compatible. [...]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:27:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion
and I do not believe it to be the consensus
It seems to me that the QPL is trying to address cases where someone
might try to use otherwise independent contractual agreements to prevent
the distribution of QPL licensed code.
And, it seems to me, that some peopl see a conflict between the way the
QPL has expressed this and their
Is there a way software can be made free in that sort of situation
which is acceptable to people who like to discuss the DFSG? If not,
is there some reason we should think that's a good thing for the free
software community?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:07:55PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:31:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Damn. Did some more research, and you appear to be correct with respect
to the most recent interpretations of the law. :-P The current
interpretation of 17 USC Sect. 105 is that such works are
copyright-controlled in
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:15:31PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
General Electric is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
(IBM Works does not infringe Microsoft Works). Apple's probably
lawyer-bait.
The important issue with trademarks is whether or not the word or phrase
has some
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Ok if you want to focus on that aspect, I've included enough material
in this thread to show you what you originally said, and the way you
said it.
All right. Which licenses to we accept as DFSG-free even though they
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:12:17PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
WRONG. Debian is distributing them in source form, and the compilation is done
at installation time, and the linking at emacs run time. Furthermore, since i
remove them from binary packages, even the above is not done.
Assuming this
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:37:59PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Point one: The Debian Social Contract says Our priorities are our
users and free software -- no mention of authors, and there is an
abundance of free software authors.
Actually, if you read the text, you'll see that the free
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
would say Get that program out!)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You'd be going against Debian policy, then.
In what sense? We've done this
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 01:25:55PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A choice of *law* clause tells you which laws apply to the document. A
choice of *law* clause looks like this:
This license will be governed by the laws of the state of California.
A choice of venue clause does something
On 2004-07-14 18:36:52 +0100 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what happens when two copyrighted works are in question,
where the parties involved each claim that their work has copyright
and the other does not, and both have choice of law and/or choice of
venue clauses
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
Why do we wish to ensure that they have a freedom that can be revoked at
any time
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 05:04:33AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
The Dictator Test:
A licence is not Free if it prohibits actions which, in the absence of
acceptance of the licence, would be allowed by copyright or other
applicable laws.
License grantors do not have a private
Also, hammering minor point after minor point while missing the main
point is argumentative and of little value.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:49:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I see; what sort of DFSG violations do you consider minor?
Minor is relative, and depends on context.
In the
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
A license should be granting permission, not taking away rights. Period.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:45:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
s/^A /A free /
Very succinctly put, though.
Agreed.
However, (given that there are
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 03:30:26AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I would appreciate commentary and analysis.
I'd also like to know if this simple enough that we could recommend it for
usage more broadly. I realize my notes are a bit wordy. In theory they
could be left out, and kept handy
Raul Miller wrote:
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:44:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Via a message dropped from a passing airplane. Duh!
Which is either really heavy, and thus
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
grounded in the DFSG, and see
Raul Miller wrote:
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
From the DFSG FAQ:
This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the
castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The prerequisites for inclusion in main should merely be a reasonable belief
that the program is useful without recourse to anything non-free,
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I disagree. I think an MP3 player should be
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on that,
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:37:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Why shouldn't we present license analyses that are as comprehensive as we
can make them?
Because potential complexity of the boundaries is
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
* Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
public to be provided to the original developer on request. This
requirement fails the Desert Island test and the Dissident test (see
sections 9a, 9b, and 12o
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 07:57:13AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
That is a fallacy. The word-processor is capable of producing content,
hence it is not useless without pre-existing content to work with. An
emulator has no such luxury.
This depends on the emulator.
An emulator designed for
You should provide a more significant objection than your modifications
have value.
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 04:26:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I don't think it's an insigificant objection.
I do.
The license prohibits any redistribution at all, and instead of focussing
on that, you
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:40:08AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
a) Go try and 'reword' a book and try to pass it off as your own.
In a sense, this is what the GNU project is all about.
Stealing from one source is plagiarism, stealing from many sources
is research.
Copyright is not
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 01:42:22PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
running ucon64 over said directories). Are they still covered by copyright
law in that case?
Thoughts?
Debian itself doesn't include copyright licenses in all its
directory listings and package lists -- including those with
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value.
...
This clause violates the intent of DFSG 1, in my opinion. The license
may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. It does not seem
reasonable to me to
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:12:03PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
OK, you *are* making that argument. Why, then, should mpg321 stay in
main? Honestly, how many people play DFSG-free mp3s?
More than 1.
--
Raul
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:28:10AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
If I issue a license as my example above, but appending provided you
wear yellow underpants, and then discover that you have distributed
copies of the software without wearing yellow underpants, can I
enforce the contract
It means either (a) that the license is not a contract, or (b)
that the license is invalid.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:53:11PM +0200, Patrick Herzig wrote:
Combined with the principle of Precatory Language I'd have a strong
leaning for (b) with respect to German jurisdiction.
I suppose
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 03:03:06PM -0400, Lex Spoon wrote:
That is not exactly my argument: I think you have to agree to a license
agreement before you gain the included license, and I also think a
license agreement can perfectly well make requirements on both parties
while still being a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO
EVENT SHALL APPLE OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING
TO THIS LICENSE
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:52:15PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The act of compiling source code into binary does not *add* creative
elements to the original work, hence the law says that this act cannot
*add* copyright holders to the work.
That depends on the compiling process.
Consider, for
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 04:32:00PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
OTOH, when you issue the classical
$ ./configure
$ make
commands, you are not performing any creative act.
Do you agree?
What makes this particular point in time significant?
--
Raul
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is. Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary images) should be
considered a compilation
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
The interpretation favoured by kernel hackers is that anything that runs
on the host CPU is part of the program, and anything that runs on the
card is just data for the program to operate on.
This distinction isn't relevant when
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:55:47AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
What rights do the GPL'd software recipient have? The GPL grants
some rights not granted by copyrights law. I made an extensive
document and posted it to d-l, but no-one seemed to listen or to
understand. All ok. IRT making
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of collective
works based on GPLed code. It grants an
Why is this a problem?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
*because* the GPL exempts mere aggregation
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of
collective works based on GPLed code. It grants an exception, but
that exception doesn't
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:47:50AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
The current GR on debian-vote attempts to resolve some of these
issues.
FYI,
--
Raul
Firmware images embedded in kernel drivers fit neither.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:39:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Please, demonstrate why the firmware is not an independent work. No
one has done so yet. Then define interdependent programs and
explain why that concept is relevant to
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what it says?).
You seem
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: a work based on
the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
_Not_ collective/compilation/anthology.
False
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
differences between
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
believe it goes back to the argument whether the mere aggregation
clause applies.
Here's the
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:34:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
How are going to use that firmware without the linux kernel?
Because if you're using it
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:25:17PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
How to use it without Linux? There is more than one operating system
in the world. At least a few of them (including Linux) provide more
than one way to load firmware to a device, although not all device
drivers may support all
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
is mere aggregation is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course it is. This
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:23:19PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The question is not whether you
extract the work later, but whether the collective work is governed by
the GPL.
I agree that this is the question.
Copyright covers creative content, not mechanical
transformations, so whether the
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
Program, it refers to any program or other work licensed under the
GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
derivative) works in just two
However, this sentence makes clear that works based on the Program
is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
It may not be a legal issue, but I think it is more than merely
technical. It does touch the freeness question.
It is about trust that the source provided is actually the true and full
source for the given binary. This is not
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 05:36:42PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
i.e., we include it in the supporting documentation
/usr/share/doc/PACAGE/copyright, which we have to include anyway.
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:34:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We have imposed that requirement upon
Scripsit Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Except, the copy is being made on the server.
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 01:27:00AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
When I download something, the copy is being made on a hard disk that
sits in a box below my desk. Current is being modulated and passed
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That is: I'm not required to accept the GPL if I simply want to download
(and install and use) a GPL'd piece of software.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 12:52:37PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
If you want to *download* the sofware, then you'd better do it
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 02:19:42AM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai quotes:
LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with
Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with
non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder.
How can this be free?
--
Raul
501 - 600 of 1213 matches
Mail list logo
