On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 14:33, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Then read the section Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program? in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other interpretations of that section, please
enlighten me.
The program is
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 15:26, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries?
Sure. You can link code under a GPL-compatible license, like MIT X11.
Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
Well, if
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 13:02, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Well, first off, creation of derived works -- even if you never
distribute them -- is restricted by copyright as well.
That's not Debian's problem, and the GPL gives you permission to, so
long as you don't distribute.
If I hand you those
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries?
Sure. You can link code under a GPL-compatible license, like MIT X11.
Good. That's really my main concern.
Is it in any way allowed to distribute
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the GPL. That is,
you'll
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
2. Weston Manning (a new
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
2. Weston
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
could decide either way.
The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
together you are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
The thing is that, in my case, some very good functionality is
provided by plugins using GPL'd libraries. I want to make sure I can
distribute those plugins, at least as source. For reasons that should
be obvious, I'd rather not touch the GPL.
The
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:46:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
| And exec as the Magic Copyright Barrier(tm) is silly.
Well, sort of. I can see the perverted logic behind it: on most
operating systems, a program and its libraries share a common address
space. Once you fork/exec something,
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
right? When the user
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
right? When the user runs the program,
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:02:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works,
as long as the non-GPL things are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
my opinion, placing two shared objects in the same tar file doesn't
make one a derived work of the other.
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:49:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works,
as long as the non-GPL things are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
my opinion, placing two shared objects in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
could decide either way.
The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
together you are creating a derived work that
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
If I write a program and release it under some non-GPL licencse, and
*later* someone writes a plugin and releases it under the GPL, how
can the program possibly become a derived work of that plugin?
No, the program itself doesn't, but the work
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I write a program and release it under some non-GPL licencse, and
*later* someone writes a plugin and releases it under the GPL, how
can the program possibly become a derived work of that plugin?
No, the program itself doesn't, but the work
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, the program itself doesn't, but the work plugin+program does.
The derived work will never be distributed, and is thus permitted by
the above paragraph.
We're obviously talking about distribution, as the
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
right? When the user runs the program, it will
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:50:50AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am working on a piece of free software that makes extensive use of
plugins, i.e. shared objects dynamically loaded at runtime. Many of
these plugins are linked with third-party
101 - 122 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
