On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Burton wrote:
1. Can I package an LGPL library foo that links with a GPL library
bar?
Only if the GPL library is not required for basic operation of the LGPL
library. This might be because there are non-GPL versions of the GPL
library with looser licenses, or because
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
How can you backup the dvd in analog space? Leaving out the fact you
You can't. However, fortunately the argument that fair use isn't intended
to apply to technologically modern media holds no water at all and is
unlikely to be accepted by
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
In principle, this gives them the right to restrict use. However,
since restrictions on use contradict federal copyright law, I'm dubious.
So you think this portion of UCITA might be unenforceable in general then?
c. Upon distribution, the source
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
Please let me know what you think.
I think we have had this debate before :}
I don't remember what the final result was, but most agreed that it is
silly to place restrictions on a license agreement that are already
implied by local law, as they are really
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
You may freely download and use this distribution for any purpose with
the exception that you may not sell or distribute this iso image
without prior permission from Libra Computer Systems Ltd.
...
However, this change may
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
What is this subtle difference ?
Piping is done by using both components in a bigger structure (the pipe is
added by the user, not something that is provided by either application).
That isn't really important - what's important is that the two
We all know that UCITA alters the requirements for warranties on software
- making free software providers responsible for providing warranties, but
exempting commercial software providers from this requirement.
I believe that this law could be construed as banning distribution of GPL
software.
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 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
It doesn't matter; the GPL isn't a contract.
That's good, as it restores things to their rightful order :}
The owner hasn't gotten any consideration, and therefore he hasn't
bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Contracts require consideration to be taken as valid contracts. Mere
promises are not legally enforceable. However, the right to copy the
software is most certainly consideration. There is no requirement
that the consideration be tangible;
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Caspian wrote:
about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking all
over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in freedom talk,
as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own pockets.
That's right. It's unfortunate, but I don't
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
I think imposing additional conditions on the use of software downloaded
from Corel in fact contaminates EVERY license. And while some of the
It does, but Corel isn't following the DFSG, so I don't think it matters.
by Corel to their licenses, I am
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Caspian wrote:
However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider
anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA
'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words against their rules.
So sad. Corel has no choice in the matter. They are
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
Does a source that's licensed under the GPL automaticly produce a binary
that can only be licensed under the GPL?
If you are the author of the program, you can distribute the binary and
the source under separate, even incompatible, licenses. You
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
# 3.Derived Works
#
# The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them
# to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
# software.
Something odd is going on. GPL'ed programs are free
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Matthew Simpson wrote:
You are free to use and distribute any command string in the Printer
Technical Reference. I double checked this with my manager. The only
That seems like a pretty straightforward answer to me. What aspect of the
law are you worried about
16 matches
Mail list logo
