On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:03:38 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you now claiming that it's legal to distribute kghostscript?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:21:44PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: Yes,
definitely, if you are distributing sources; from your remarks I conclude
that
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:00:51PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
But your remark reveals an interesting line of thought, one that would
never have occurred to me. It considers any inconvenience, caused to
the recipients by having to distribute sources, not as an inevitable
by-product of
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:10:57 -0500 Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not inconvenience that's relevant.
What's relevant is what the distributor intended to distribute, and what
decisions are available to the end user.
If the distributor intends to distribute a working copy of
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 04:16:07PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Do you mean that distributing sources of kghostview, not for the purpose of
literary enjoyment of reading the sources, and in practical absence of any
alternatives for libqt, would be equally illegal as distributing binaries,
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:34:29 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:26:47PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Nobody in this discussion is claiming (as far as I can see) that
by some subtle shuffling of pieces you can get a (composite) program
from A to B
So please don't suggest any more that people are trying to evade
copyright law when in fact they are trying (maybe by jumping through
hoops) to abide by the conditions put forth in the licence(s).
Are you now claiming that it's legal to distribute kghostscript?
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000
(please don't drop debian-legal from the Cc list)
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 08:39:13PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Third, I challenge you to find a relevant case that says a program is the
same work, for copyright purposes, with a dynamically loaded
Around 1989, NeXT wanted to release the Objective C front end as just
object files, and tell the user to link them with GCC. Since this
would clearly be against the goal of the GPL, I asked our lawyer
whether we had grounds to object. He said that what NeXT proposed to
do would be tantamount to
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(please don't drop debian-legal from the Cc list)
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 08:39:13PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Third, I challenge you to find a relevant case that says a program is
the same work, for
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 01:20:22AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
Qt *cannot* be distributed under terms 1 and 2 of the GPL: term 2 gives
your more freedom in how you make your modifications than the QPL permits.
Only Troll have the right to give that extra permission, no one else does.
I
Anthony Towns wrote:
(debian-legal brought back into the Cc list)
On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 04:02:35PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the
source code for all modules it *contains*, plus any associated
:Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Forwarded by: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Around 1989, NeXT wanted to release the Objective C front end as just
object files, and tell the user to link them with GCC. Since this
would
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:53:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Either the program uses readline or it doesn't. If it does use readline,
and it's distributed with readline, then, strictly-speaking, it contains
readline.
I disagree.. If it was not built using one piece of readline (ie,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:53:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Either the program uses readline or it doesn't. If it does use
readline,
and it's distributed with readline, then, strictly-speaking, it contains
readline.
I disagree.. If it was not built using one piece of
I'll give it just one more shot...
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:41:11PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
The GPL has no power to apply to non-GPL'd works which are not derivative
in source or binary form from GPL'd works. We have already established
this as
On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 05:26:47PM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Nobody in this discussion is claiming (as far as I can see) that
by some subtle shuffling of pieces you can get a (composite) program
from A to B without requiring permissions from all copyright owners.
It seems to me that
On Feb 08, Andreas Pour wrote:
Now, please explain how the executable work which I am
distributing (kghostview which is dynamically linked to Qt) has in
it, holds, encloses or includes, has the capacity for
holding, or is equal or equivalent to, the Qt library. Sure, the
Qt library can later
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:51:03PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
A dynamically-linked kghostview is completely non-functional without
the Qt library. Qt is irrevocably bound up in that executable,
whether or not any of Qt's code is actually contained in kghostview.
(Besides which, some of Qt's
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:51:03PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
Readline, it
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
Readline, it
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Hypothetical: I build something under a proprietary license, and then
use the dl*() calls to access a GPLed library (let's use Readline for
example). Even though my software doesn't strictly-speaking contain
Readline,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If the program is being distributed with the BSDish readline, and not the
GPLed readline, then there's no issue. But if the program is distributed
with the GPLed readline, and not the BSDish readline, then it's pretty
obvious that
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:22:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If the program is being distributed with the BSDish readline, and
not the GPLed readline, then there's no issue. But if the program is
distributed with the GPLed readline, and not the BSDish readline,
then it's pretty obvious
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:13:22PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 08:09:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
What if it's distributed with neither of them, and it just
build-depends on the readline API?
That sounds like an artificial situation. Who is going to
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 10:34:52PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Ah, you were talking about executables, not source. Sorry about that.
Of course.
There's no requirement that you consider the program as a whole if you're
not dealing with executables/object code.
--
Raul
This is an expanded version of my original response to this
message. Andreas indicated that he didn't understand why
what I was saying was significant.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
this
Raul Miller wrote:
[ ... ]
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
What does it mean for a program to accompany itself? Why do you raise
this point?
It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph of
Section 3 in question deals in terms of
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the
definition of what the complete source code is. This is provided in the
second sentence of the ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
For an executable
I share similar views to Mr. Hutton. Allegations have been made that KDE is
responsible of GPL abuse and copyright violation. The fact that the GPL is
generally misunderstood has served to amplify these allegations. It took me
a considerable amount of time to find Andreas Pour's arguments in the
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition of
what
the complete source code is. This is provided in the second sentence of the
ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
Could you please limit
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
(*) The source code must be complete.
Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition of
what
the complete source code is. This is provided in the second sentence of the
ultimate para. in Section
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
(*) The source code must be complete.
Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the definition
of what
the complete source code is. This is provided in the second sentence of
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:08:16AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right. And those are distributed in source form.
Not under terms which satisfy the GPL.
The GPL requires that there be no proprietary
On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 09:14:55PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right, but for the analysis to be complete you must include the
definition of what the complete source code is. This is provided in
the second sentence of the ultimate para. in Section 3, which provides
For an executable work,
Raul Miller wrote:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
What about the Qt header files, which are included at compile time?
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:08:16AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Right. And those are distributed in source form.
Not under terms which satisfy the GPL.
Says you :-).
The GPL
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:02:29PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Then again, the above issue has been pointed out to you many times,
yet you choose to ignore that particular issue whenever you feel like it.
I don't ignore it, I disagree with it. I have spent lots of e-mails
explaining why.
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:14:15PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Where does it say that (in the GPL, that is). It only says you have to make
available the complete source code to what you are in fact distributing.
I don't think we're disagreeing on this point.
However, I
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
So don't put the binary in main :-); it's not so hard to have users
compile the 2-3 apps that fall within the KDE developers borrowed GPL
code from another project category.
We're not putting it in main.
What does it mean for a
Raul Miller wrote:
It's not that the program accompanies itself. The paragraph
of Section 3 in question deals in terms of components and
modules, not entire executables. So in the hypothetical case
we discuss, libc is a component (although statically linked,
the library is a
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 12:04:52AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
If you insist... I hope I get the details right though.
So the scenario is: kghoststript is being distributed as executable of a
GPL-ed source dynamically linked against the Qt object library; the
distributors read all the
On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 12:39:51AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Making that change under the scenario described by Marc would violate
the GPL, but so would lots of other things, such as linking a GPL
program with a proprietary libc.
Nope, because there's a special exception in the GPL that
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers to the
executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time).
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript
that the executing program
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers to
the
executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time).
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript
that the
b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers to
the
executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time).
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with kghostscript
that the executing
William T Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
b/c executable work as written in the quoted sentence above refers
to the executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists
at run-time).
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with
kghostscript that the executing program doesn't contain Qt?
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:17:56PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Well, this is funny indeed. When it suits your desired interpretation,
you can change words rather freely;
Raul Miller wrote:
You're claiming here that even though Qt must be linked with
kghostscript that the executing program doesn't contain Qt?
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:17:56PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Well, this is funny indeed. When it suits your desired interpretation,
you can
On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:14:15PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
Where does it say that (in the GPL, that is). It only says you have to make
available the complete source code to what you are in fact distributing.
I don't think we're disagreeing on this point.
However, I think that you are
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:31:48AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
That point is: why does GPL section 3 not say something like the
following?
For object code or other kinds of executable work, complete source code
means the full source text for all executable
Raul Miller wrote:
Meanwhile, I've not gotten any real feedback on whether adding -static
to CFLAGS is legal, let alone any of the more complicated changes
I proposed...
If you insist... I hope I get the details right though.
So the scenario is: kghoststript is being distributed as executable
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 I wrote:
So in this case distribution of non-GPL-ed source code must still be subject
to [GPL section 2], if that source is part of the complete sources of the
binary distributed, and the exception for OS components does not apply.
I suppose that a program dynamically
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:31:48AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
That point is: why does GPL section 3 not say something like the
following?
For object code or other kinds of executable work, complete source code
means the full source text for all executable code that will be executed
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Scripsit Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There's a difference. You'd have to do some work to show me that in all
cases a function call is equivalent to a footnote - footnotes you don't need
to see to understand the text, a non-standard API I
This is partly in reply to messages of Andreas Pour [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Fri, 28 Jan and of Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 30 Jan. But mainly
it
is about interpreting licences in general and in particular the GPL. This is
not an easy matter, and if differences of opinion arise this is
Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
Yet, why has nobody recently put forward this way of resolving the KDE/Qt
issue? I've seen drastic bending of the meaning of much more unambiguous parts
of the GPL. Maybe this was discussed and resolved long ago, or maybe I'm just
too blind too see the obvious?
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 10:48:20AM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
I have put this opinion forth (that Qt is distinct from the
application and not a module) in the past, but each and every time
I have met with immense disagreement and vile language, so that I
have become
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, David Johnson wrote:
Oh, but it does! I'm sorry that I can't quote the relevant law to you,
not being a lawyer or anything. But there have been court cases in the
past that have determined that APIs cannot be copyrighted. A footnote
containing a chapter or page reference is
57 matches
Mail list logo
