Thomas == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications
under section 3 of the GPL. But that is only for object code
or executable form. Debian is distributing it
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone
who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing,
even if their piece, in isolation, would not be.
What must
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to
tell that my original different people scenario was meant as a
situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is
something they do because it makes sense in itself
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
here is the *non-interesting* one?
Well, it's the one that matters. You want
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What must I say to communicate the message that the case you describe
here is the *non-interesting* one?
Well, it's
Scripsit Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:57:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
So that there is no way to evade the GPL by doing things that
happen to be individually OK, and in sum, just happen to get around
the license. They only way to do this is if it is
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:07:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
MEANWHILE: The Danish communications engineer Dennis Damm realizes
that efficient polynomial factorization can be used for an elegant
analysis of network choke points. He quickly writes a prototype
iplementation in AngstRom
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we go by your interpretation, then any self-contained GPL executable
(for example, a flash image for an embedded linux system) can be
distributed without source code.
A GPL-d program in which the original is not source code is
incoherent. Section
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What establishes cahoots? Well, basically, anyone who did any of
the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
process. This is similar to conspiracy law, where
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What establishes cahoots? Well, basically, anyone who did any of
the steps (*any* of them, whether that step would be illegal in
isolation or not) with the intention that it's part of the total
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure whether or not you disagree with me. Was it that hard to
tell that my original different people scenario was meant as a
situation where each of the things that each of the parties do is
something they do because it makes sense in itself
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
What matters is if it's part of a total pattern: if so, then anyone
who intended it to be part of such a total pattern is infringing,
even if their piece, in isolation, would not be.
What must I say to communicate the message that the case you
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[I wrote the double-quoted text even though 'starner' tries to hide that]
For example, the one who ports the program to the
proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
environment.
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 20:57, Richard Braakman wrote:
And section 3 specifically says distribute under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2, so it can't be more permissive than
those sections. In fact, it imposes an extra requirement.
That's not quite correct.
Section 1 covers distributing the
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:37:26AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Section 2 says you have the option of changing that source code, and
then distributing that changed code as in section one (i.e., in source
form), so long as you note your changes, license under the GPL, and some
stuff about
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's clear that our basic disagreement is here. I see nothing in
section 2 that would limit it only to source code.
Correct. Compiling is a form of modification. But are you able to
distribute everything in the object file (including the libraries)
Hello,
What is the list's opinion of this entry in the FSF's GPL FAQ?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all binary
executables are just
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all binary
executables are just data to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
Unices have always gone out of their way to
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all binary
executables are just data to a kernel;
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
with a
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
section 3 of the GPL. But that is only for object code or executable
form. Debian is distributing it under section 2. Furthermore, the
thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, if it's the same I who do all four steps, some argument could
probably be made that I am in fact infringing on the original
software's copyrigt, under the it's the intended end result that
matters doctrine. However, if the steps are done by
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
with a
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, if the steps are done by different parties, it will be
difficult to point to an individual party who is actually in
violation.
What establishes cahoots? Well, basically, anyone who did
For example, the one who ports the program to the
proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
environment.
How does this differ from, say, Emacs on Windows? I'm sure that Emacs
has been extended to do some
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:00:27PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3 lets
you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
licensed under the
31 matches
Mail list logo
