On 13/11/2007, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yves Combe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes?
Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive.
To understand whether there's a license conflict, there needs to be an
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:01 +0100, Oliver Vivell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And if you use terms, please translate them into english, that everybody
understands them, so don't use Urheberrecht but the english term
Intellectual property rights.
I have to defend Jörg here. Urheberrecht is a German
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:35:55 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 19:27 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit :
(1)
Is it ok to change exim's SSL library to OpenSSL in the current setup
without violating the GPL for some of the library currently in use
It would be
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:41:21PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:32:01 +0100, Oliver Vivell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And if you use terms, please translate them into english, that everybody
understands them, so don't use Urheberrecht but the english term
Intellectual
Steve Langasek wrote:
Hrm, this doesn't follow automatically. I'm aware of international treaties
covering reciprocation of *copyrights*, but none that would mean
Urheberrecht has force outside of Germany regardless of where the work was
written. Do you have a reference for this?
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If both M and P were GPL with OpenSSL exception, but L were GPL
without OpenSSL exception, this linking would be a violation of L's
license?`By virtue of P linking to M and L and M linking to OpenSSL?
That's my understanding, yes.
This is why things like
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
Let me understand this in Theory. Given the following link tree:
-
| program P |
-
/ \
/ \
-
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just discovered that the people I was trying to help to migrate to the
GPL might be hesitating because they don't want their software to be
used to provide a service over the network without the source being
release, claiming that their service
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Marc Haber said:
If both M and P were GPL with OpenSSL exception, but L were GPL
without OpenSSL exception, this linking would be a violation of
L's license?`By virtue of P linking to M and L and M linking to
OpenSSL?
To use a rough analogy, compiz doesn't work on certain graphics cards
unless one uses the proprietary driver for that card, but that doesn't
in itself make compiz non-free.
right, but this situation is different. so lets assume that foo2zjs
is analogous to compiz and the printer firmware is
Stephen Gran wrote:
does getweb function correctly if the external files are unable to be
downloaded?
That's not a very useful question - does a web browser function
'correctly' when it gets a 404? It depends entirely on what you mean by
correctly, and that starts to feel like there's no
You are missing the point: some printers may or may not work, but the
program itself still has the same capabilities and is not influenced by
what getweb does.
that's why it is ok for most of the program to be in main. its just getweb
that depends on non-free data.
No, it does not.
you
Stephen Gran wrote:
I have been under the impression that the answer is no. You're not
linking L to OpenSSL. It could be argued that this was an attempt at
defeating the GPL if P was a thin shim layer between L and OpenSSL,
but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that for our default
13 matches
Mail list logo
