Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
modification that was made by adding material to L.
Ok, in this case, you can either distribute it together in the L
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:32:01AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
modification that was made by adding material to L.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:29:36PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
licence?
I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
If YES, how do
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
it.
be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the
rest can have any free licence,
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
since a given software can either be a modification of the original software
(which can replace it) or link with the original or modified software (and
thus use it).
One last attempt:
I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
library
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
it.
be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
only the part that contains
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is,
Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the Trolltech
annotation, altough it has not yet been endorsed officially by
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread rules.]
In Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther wrote:
If a licence says each time you use the software you have to write a
postcard to a sick
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:34:37AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:32:06AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is,
Nope, because it speaks of different stuff. Also remember the
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread rules.]
In Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther wrote:
If a licence says each
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Privacy problem ? Could you clearly define that. If the author is able to make
a request to you, your privacy is already lost anyway. This is if i understand
this argument right.
As I explained earlier, it might be public knowledge
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread rules.]
In Message-ID [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sven Luther wrote:
If a
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
subthread
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
strongest yet:
(3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
sufficient to make the
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:25:09PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
strongest yet:
(3) Claim that the
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
licence?
I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
granted by section 3?
They do not, since they apply to two different
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
licence?
I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.
If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
granted by section 3?
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Upto now, the identified problems are threefold, so we can start subthread for
analysing and discussing them separatedly. Please don't read to much into my
tentative of concise sumary below for each of those, and argument clearly in
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:38:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-23 13:25:04 +0100 Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and
other
| software items that link with the original or modified versions of
the
| Software. These
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
| initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
| then you must supply one.
The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are distributed,
but
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:29:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
| initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
| then you must supply one.
The
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
(1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
goes against tradition.
Could you define more precisely what is meant by cost of administration ? I
think i am going this way,
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:23:00PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
(1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
goes against tradition.
Could you define more
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
make the software available to the general public.
Why ? You could ask upstream not to release it.
According to 6b you
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:20:00PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
make the software available to the general
25 matches
Mail list logo
