15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
particular kind of modification
16-Dec-03 16:07 Joe Moore wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that The Work
described
16-Dec-03 13:34 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
If one section of a legal
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
15-Dec-03 07:39 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
Thus, when distributing binaries compiled from sources, the
compilation is under Section 2 and the distribution is under
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 16:07, Joe Moore wrote:
So, since I've never seen the source for the firmware files that started
this thread, I'd argue that verbatim distribution of the firmware image
(even in .o format) is permitted under the GPL.
Probably. It'd be interesting for them to try and sue
On Dec 13, 2003, at 23:09, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The hole in the explicit wording seems to be so clear that I start
doubting it is just an oversight. Maybe it's normal for sections of a
license to trump each other?
If one section of a legal document is more specific than an other, it
Anthony DeRobertis said:
The only time I think they would allow otherwise would be if the
copyright holder distributed object code under the GPL. I don't know
what they'd do then.
I'd argue (not that a court would necessarily agree) that The Work
described in sections 1 and 2 is the object
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
If I give you GPL'd source, then there is only two ways in which you
can make modifications, Section 2 and Section 3. Section 3 allows a
particular kind of modification (compilation), and Section 2 allows
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, it does now seem like a hole in the copyleft. While possible
in principle, I won't stay awake at nights worrying about it. As
Henning said, it is really just an oversight. The intent is clear,
which may sway a court more than the
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many binaries where the
lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from
layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated
from
8-Dec-03 20:43 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
at all.
And
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
under Section 2?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
--
Henning MakholmJeg køber intet af Sulla, og selv om uordenen griber
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4-Dec-03 20:44 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
at all.
And that (together with the intention of
8-Dec-03 11:15 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What prevents you from distributing binaries produced from sources
under Section 2?
Hm, that's a good question. It seems to be another wording oversight.
I can't get rid of the thought that there is
7-Dec-03 13:50 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Section 2 allows someone (not copyright holder) to distribute a
binary, there are only two alternatives IMHO: either
1. Section 2 doesn't require source form of anything distributable;
That is
30-Nov-03 22:30 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
placed under GPL?
If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
work, most likely not. However, if, for example, you
30-Nov-03 17:12 Don Armstrong wrote:
Eh, that should teach me to go by my memory of the license. I meant
2a. Because they are object files, it's pretty nigh impossible for
them to bear prominent notices stating that the files have been
changed and the date of any change.
That's a separate
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
30-Nov-03 16:37 Don Armstrong wrote:
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section 3
at all.
And that (together with the intention of the license expressed in
Preamble) seems to be the only reason why Section 2 cannot be
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
That's pretty prominent, I think. Especially as strings(1) is the
canonical way of looking for notices in an object file.
Sure, but that's a case where you have acess to the assembly and can
modify the
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Erm... you mean, without this exception compiler itself must be
placed under GPL?
If the compiler is a separate work and doesn't link itself into the
work, most likely not. However, if, for example, you were distributing
a compiled perl program
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Section 2 gives you permision to distribute modified version of the
program's source
False. The word source does not appear in section 2.
(And section 2 contains no references to section 1 that are not also
present with similar wording in section 3).
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being
distributed to, because what's being distributed is the Program,
which is what section 2 specifically applies to.
If you read section 2 this way, then there is no need for a section
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
In our hypothetical case, section 2 specifically covers what's being
distributed to, because what's being distributed is the Program,
which is what section 2 specifically applies to.
If you read section
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Furthermore, it's rather plain that we would be unable to fullfill
2c et al. for these files as well,
Huh? 2c essentially applies only when one changes a noninteractive
program to an interactive one.
Eh,
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Huh? 2c essentially applies only when one changes a noninteractive
program to an interactive one.
Eh, that should teach me to go by my memory of the license. I meant
2a. Because they are object files,
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
That's pretty prominent, I think. Especially as strings(1) is the
canonical way of looking for notices in an object file.
Sure, but that's a case where you have acess to the assembly and can
modify the resultant binary to include such a message. It's
27-Nov-03 04:41 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 21:59, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
binaries.
Section 2 says you may do so under the terms of Section 1 above.
Section 1 grants rights to copy and distribute
26-Nov-03 20:01 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
You mean that section 3 should really be read as If you ... you must
... instead of You may ... provided that ... and must be complied
with irrespective of section 2?
If you are distributing an executable
26-Nov-03 06:57 Henning Makholm wrote:
If you distribute whatever precise bits it was that the copyright
holder waved a copy of the GPL over, those bits must be assumed to be
the Program,
Right, GPL 0 is clear about it:
This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Could you please describe the way you read the GPL in more details?
How do you understand under the terms of? What are the terms of
Section 1 exactly, in your opinion?
Section 1 gives you the
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation where
the object code *itself* is the Program to which the copyright
holder applied the GPL.
Sure, and I'm arguing that because you're distributing only object or
executable code, not
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Could you please describe the way you read the GPL in more details?
How do you understand under the terms of? What are the terms of
Section 1 exactly, in your opinion?
Section 1 gives you the permision to distribute source, and covers the
25-Nov-03 23:11 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
over, those bits must be assumed to be the Program, and as such GPL
#2
On Nov 26, 2003, at 21:59, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry, it's not yet clear to me why Section 2 is not applicable to
binaries.
Section 2 says you may do so under the terms of Section 1 above.
Section 1 grants rights to copy and distribute verbatim copies of the
Program's source code
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
I think Alexander's point may have merit. If you distribute whatever
precise bits it was that the copyright holder waved a copy of the GPL
over, those bits must be assumed to be the Program, and as such
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
#1 explicitly applies only to the Program's source code, but #2
speaks generally about the Program, source code or not.
Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
distribution under #1 (You may modify your copy or copies of the
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
When binaries are not
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you are distributing an executable or object code, that
distribution is subject to Section 3. No other section of the GPL
gives you rights to distribute executable or object code.
Remember that we're talking about the non-standard situation where
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
#1 explicitly applies only to the Program's source code, but #2
speaks generally about the Program, source code or not.
Sure, but the only type of distribution allowed under #2 is
distribution under #1
25-Nov-03 19:19 Walter Landry wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200212/msg00202.html
Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
You mean that section 3 should really be read as If you ... you must
... instead of You may ... provided that ... and must be complied
with irrespective of section 2?
If you are distributing an executable or object code, that
distribution is
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Sorry for the intrusion, but is there a consensus on this issue? I.e.
why binaries can not be distributed under section 2 of the GPL?
When binaries are not the prefered form for modification, as in the
case
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
24-Nov-03 22:02 Don Armstrong wrote:
in order to redistribute under the terms of the GPL, you need to be
able to provide source (the prefered form for modification.)
Section 2 of the GPL doesn't require to provide source. It doesn't
talk
45 matches
Mail list logo
