Le lundi 03 septembre 2007 à 12:19 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
If the program cannot work without the database, that makes it a derived
work.
Er, presumably the application can work with any database that's in the
right format?
Yes, but if there is only one existing database in this
Ben Finney wrote:
Yes. Without explicit grant from the copyright holder to the recipient
of a particular work, the default situation is all rights reserved
(to the copyright holder).
Ok. So the only way to settle this issue will be to contact all upstream
authors and ask them to include a
Tobi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about the GPL3 vs. GPL2 issue? If the main program is GPL3 and
the plug-ins are GPL2 or any later, does this match? I think it
doesn't.
Sure it does; that's the intent of the or any later version
clause. As you describe it, all the works have been licensed
Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
library?
That is not at all what he said. The test for whether work A is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but if there is only one existing database in this format, I don't
think that changes much. It would be pretty much like a program
requiring a GPL library to work properly, but that would dlopen() it at
startup.
The criteria is still the derived work one. Not are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a very common situation. Most people crating works of
authorship find copyright to be a huge hassle to even think about
(because it is). Those who do think about it will usually take
whatever appears to be the path of least resistance -- such as tossing
in a
Peter S Galbraith writes:
Wow. I don't think I could disagree more. Loading the library
presumably means we are going to invoke some of its code. So you are
saying that an interpreter under any non-free license can use any GPL'ed
library?
That is not at all what he said. The test for
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Sure, the code is fine with older Emacs. We simply shouldn't install it
and set it up for GPL v3 versions of Emacs.
*If* there is a violation (and I'm still not convinced), this isn't a
solution, at least not for Debian.
The GPL is all about distribution and
If it explicitely calls the interface...
... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
can do whatever we want so it doesn't matter.
In this case, there are older emacsen -- distributed under
I wrote:
If it explicitely calls the interface...
... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
can do whatever we want so it doesn't matter.
If I follow the advice from the FSF's web site:
Peter S Galbraith writes:
If it explicitely calls the interface...
... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
can do whatever we want so it doesn't matter.
When there is only one
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter S Galbraith writes:
If it explicitely calls the interface...
... that does not resolve the question, even for bytecompiled files.
So why do need the freer LGPL versus the GPL for libraries? I guess we
can do whatever we want so it
Peter S Galbraith writes:
So I'm fine using GPL-v2 code with GPL-v3 libraries as long as (1)
there's a GPL-v2 version of the libraries with the same interface, such
that (2) the GPL-v2 code does not need to be modified to run on the
GPL-v3 version of the libraries?
That is my conclusion and
Marco d'Itri wrote:
While explicit licensing terms in every source file are a good idea,
I think that Debian has always considered acceptable distributing a
copy of the license along with the code.
That's how we've handled this so far.
Ben, Marco... thanks for discussing this!
To draw a
Hi all,
I've just found out a real case where section 7b of GNU GPL v3 is
actually used to impose specific restrictions.
PySoy[1] is a Python library for 3D game development.
It is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3.
Its licensing page[2] states:
| Under section 7 of the GPLv3 we require
On 9/6/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can logos be considered reasonable legal notices or author
attributions?
What do you think?
A logo definitely isn't a legal notice, but it *could* be an author
attribution (although to me it seems more a project attribution or
even an
16 matches
Mail list logo
