On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
development environments'
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 02:33:53PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
http://www.compuserve.de/recht/gesetze/urhg/
This is one I'm too ignorant to understand.
[I don't understand German.]
--
Raul
I've put up a page detailing the copyright law references that
have been posted so far. I should add a berne convention link.
Also, note that I can't tell whether the non-english law references
are specific to copyright law or whether they're references to
all law for that country.
Finally, I
On Fri, Nov 05, 1999 at 07:06:40PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
You should put a link to the unofficial English translation of Finnish
Copyright Act. I posted the URL earlier.
I never got your original, I extracted the finnish link from a
followup.
If it's convenient, could you
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finally, I couldn't even access the danish laws.
Yeah. Nobody can, unless they use a browser that speaks JavaScript.
And even then it is is impossible to get a persistent URL for a given
document - for unknown reasons they enforce a session login-style
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 07:00:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell) writes:
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
I don't see any way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
is a device created explicitly for the circumvention of the library's
copyright, and would not protect you from being liable for infringement.
It could be done without even
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:29:38 -0800 (PST), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
The
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
What Raul seems to be getting at is that dpkg is presently the only
existing implementation og the command-line interface in question.
His arguments apparently lead to a general principle: if, for some
protocol (a command line
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:29:00AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
allows,...
The GPL places no restrictions on reverse engineering.
--
Raul
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
allows,
I.e. looking at the source code? That seems to be quite much allowed
by the GPL.
--
Henning Makholm Monsieur, vous êtes fou.
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
sentence would be too complicated
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
(It counts as copying if you get one person
to read it, and someone else writes it down, you don't have to be using
cp or anything. And personally, I can't see any way you could `reinvent'
a header file that wouldn't amount to doing exactly that
Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the header
file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
sentence would be too
A legal argument can be made that the relevant portions of header content
are not protectable by copyright since they are essentially a 'compilation
of facts'
They document the API of the library, so you get into the API copyright issue,
too.
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at
Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the
header file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at Columbia is that run-time
linking is a device to circumvent the copyright of the library, which
otherwise would be static-linked and explicitly copied. Given the universality
of run-time linking, I think there's a good counter-argument that
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable speaker
on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also an attorney.
They are on our side, and they are not as sanguine on this issue as you
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:56:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable
speaker on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also
an attorney.
They
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll still take the stance that because this hasn't gone to court
that we don't know what the courts will decide.
I will amplify this for you. We are writing the rules as we go along.
There is a body of case law that must be accumulated before those
rules can
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
formats would be in violation of copyright.
We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For the case of U.S. copyright law dynamic linking not explicitly provided
for in the license is a fair use issue, not a this isn't covered by
copyright law issue.
I know nothing of US copyright law except that it and Finnish
Raul Miller wrote:
I discussed this issue with two attorneys, one of whom appears to be the
acknowledged authority on free software law. They are not nearly as sanguine
as you. There is thus some possibility that _you_might_be_wrong_.
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
Do you really
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
Which probably reflects a lack of
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:34:03AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The QPL does not require patches. It prefers them, but doesn't require
them. You could just as easily provide the original for reference and
let someone else diff it (which is at least a major improvement over
requiring that only
Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
Jeff Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, my examples seem to be precisely what you are talking about. Corel's
tool, using libapt, is using dpkg's command-line interface, in the same
way an IDE calls a C compiler's command-line interface. The only real
difference is in the results; gcc
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But the GPL is very careful about how it defines program.
The GPL does not define program. However, FSF has a guidline for when
linking should be considered derivation. That is
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:19:06 -0800 (PST), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That doesn't matter. Static linking copies. Dynamic linking copies at run
time, which is a rather shaky argument. Executables that run dynamic libraries
are derivative of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell) writes:
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
I don't see any way the copyright on .so could affect programs that
link against it, if
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
is a device
Zygo Blaxell wrote:
Hmmm...consider the Wine project: a re-implementation of Microsoft DLL's
(among other things) using no Microsoft code. No code means no headers
as well--anything less would be copyright infringement.
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers,
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 03:16:41PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind.
This is a personal statement, not a technical one.
Please confine your discussion to the technical issues.
--
Raul
Raul:
This is a personal statement, not a technical one.
I think we all got to the point of exasperation on that argument. And having
discussed it with attorneys this evening, they don't have a good answer either.
So, I think it's best to table it until something changes, like legislation or
a
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 11:43:12AM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
Such as a particular way to express the format for the
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg.
I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this
with gcc.
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs,
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
development environments'
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
see how this can be a problem.
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless of whether
or not any other application uses it, and such copying is simple aggregation.
Why make
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Please keep trying then--but the discussion is headed the wrong way
right now.
Where would you like the discussion to head?
Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
--
- Joseph Carter GnuPG
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:19:06PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Because they have a right to copy dpkg onto their system regardless
of whether or not any other
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:45:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Where would you like the discussion to head?
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:30:44PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
Towards a fix for the problem that doesn't make the GPL non-free.
How does my interpretation of copyright law make the GPL
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is
not present. Loss in functionallity, but parts will still work.
It more critically
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But you do need a copy of dpkg or it won't work. So I don't
see how this can be a problem.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I understand that this definition of modifies is rather technical,
and thus non-intuitive, but
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:54:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:33:36PM -0600, David Starner wrote:
Probably no more than tar ceases to function if bzip2 or gzip is not
present. Loss in
Raul Miller wrote:
[snip]
But it matters for the Corel front end.
What you're basically trying to show, I think, is that the Corel front
end isn't a derivative work of dpkg.
What I'm trying to show is that it is -- and I've offered two pieces of
evidence that it is:
(1) It won't
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
stops functioning if you remove another component of the system. Copyright
law deals with copying.
You are grasping
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 02:39:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(If this is the case, it might be a worthwhile service to separate main
into `gpl' and `free', so that the things you can just willfully mix and
match (the GPL stuff) is more clearly separated from the stuff you have
to have a
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
Kernel is GPL. Everything is a derivative of the kernel under your
interpretation. You can argue that Linus has allowed people to abuse the
GPL of the kernel so it's okay, however I think this would cause the GPL
to contaminate any distribution which
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:56:30AM +, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
It's also distributed with bash, the Linux kernel, and so on. Is it a
derivative of all the software on the CD?
I think this issue has already been discussed. Several times. But
maybe there isn't any sort of concise explanation,
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Should this interpretation of the GPL become dominant I believe we should
deprecate the GPL in favor of a license which does not skirt the letter of
the DFSG while violating its spirit in favor of some license which
doesn't.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:45:27PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Thoughts on the MPL? I find it a more than adequate compromise between
the GPL's viral nature and BSD's optimal-reuse strategy.
Netscape owns it. Try combining MPL with MPL' where some other company
owns MPL', then imagine
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
you wind up with a
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new
QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic
requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually
you wind up with a
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an
application stops functioning if you remove another component
Richard Stallman writes:
What front-end is this? I know nothing about it as yet.
If the GPL is being violated for GCC, the FSF needs to take action.
But we need to know the facts first.
Would someone please send me a description of the situation?
As I understand it, DEC SRC (now part of
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're not asserting copyright on that command-line interface. We're
asserting copyright on a derived work
There is no derived work anywhere else than in your mind.
--
Henning MakholmI stedet for at finde på en bedre plan havde de alle
Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
/copy of/ get_it.
Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright law doesn't care
what programs do _when_they_run_ because it has no
I'd guess that Modula-3 compiler is including GPL headers to work with the
GPL back-end. Is there confirmation of that?
Thanks
Bruce
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
Yup. I want to see if he finds a difference where the Modula-3 compiler
is concerned. I think he _will_, because the compiler _must_ be using
GPL headers to work with the GCC back-end.
I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
push the
From: Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure.. it would be pretty easy do something where you simply
push the intermediate code into the gcc backend. You wouldn't need
headers to do that..
Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
out what the
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 04:23:36PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
FWIW, RMS also doesn't see a problem with this.
Understood, but RMS didn't write dpkg.
I think he'd be a little less sanguine about someone doing this
with gcc.
--
Raul
Previously Bruce Perens wrote:
Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
out what the intermediate code _is_, and the result, if copied into a non-GPL
program, would probably be an infringement.
But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 07:58:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Which is what happens when you make a CD with a /copy of/ dpkg and a
/copy of/ get_it.
Yes, but I don't see how that could be anything other than aggregation, and
it's very, very clear how we treat aggregation. Copyright law
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
Yes, but you'd have to look very carefully at the GPL source code to figure
out what the intermediate code _is_,
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
--
Henning MakholmKurt er
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate language?
Wichert.
--
_
/
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Previously Henning Makholm wrote:
That's knowledge. Facts are not copyrightable, only particular
expressions of facts are.
Such as a particular way to express the format for the intermediate languag=
e?
No, file formats are not copyrightable,
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
formats would be in violation of copyright.
We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop this thread, I
think all arguments have been made
From: Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But then you get back to the point it's easy to circumvent: one could make
a GPL'ed patch for gcc to make inserting intermediate code simple, and then
write a proprietary tool to generate that code..
No, it'a already easy to insert intermediate code, I
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The backend (which I found at
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/Modula-3/release-3.6/m3cc.tar.gz
) is not pure GCC; they add (=link) in an m3.c which begins with
/* Copyright (C) 1993, Digital Equipment Corporation */
/* All
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 09:41:42PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Corel Front End *ceases* *to* *function* if dpkg is
not present.
Yes, but copyright law does not deal with whether or not an application
stops functioning if you remove another component
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you
take out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front
end can't happen.
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 12:16:40PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Well, I'd like the law to agree with
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 12:16:40PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
Well, I'd like the law to agree with you, actually. The problem is
that copyright law does not consider _reference_ a form of derivation.
This would give us problem
On Oct 30, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you take
out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front end
can't happen.
Well, I'd like the law to agree with you, actually. The problem is
Hmmm. I also suspect that the performance of a play would constitute
a derived work
You can also perform a computer program, it's generally called _use_.
The program's output may be derivative.
Given that the GPL has language that is extremely un-restrictive regarding
use, I doubt it could be
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The difference between mere reference and derivation, in this case, is
the difference between treating the computer program as a static work
(like a book) and a dynamic work (like a screen play or music score).
On Sun, Oct 31,
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 11:40:16PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I really can't even see the point of forbidding non-free programs from
calling dpkg... either (a) they'll reimplement dpkg as non-free
software (reimplementing dpkg might be a good idea in and of itself,
but a non-free dpkg is
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If I sold a cdrom which played music, and the music it played was a few
bars of my own and some hit single I picked up from a music store, I'd
have to have a legal right to sell that hit single.
A better analogy might be if that
Hmmm. I also suspect that the performance of a play would constitute
a derived work
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 11:27:50PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
You can also perform a computer program, it's generally called _use_.
The program's output may be derivative.
It's not the output that's the
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:46:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Given that the GPL has language that is extremely un-restrictive
regarding use, I doubt it could be applied to restricting front-ends
that run across the exec() interface.
Once again, this isn't an issue of use, it's an issue
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I sold a cdrom which played music, and the music it played was a few
bars of my own and some hit single I picked up from a music store, I'd
have to have a legal right to sell that hit single.
Well, this is different in that you are copying the hit single.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
But the xterminal example is a bit more constrained. Here, you could
still run into trouble -- but only if you were distributing both the
proprietary x software and the GPLed software as composite parts of some
larger work. [And,
One problem this thread illustrates is that the GPL is too darned easy
to circumvent today. When it was written, there was less use of dynamic
linking, less client-server computing, and no object brokers.
Bruce
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:59:37AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
A better analogy might be if that cdrom automatically went over to
the next CD and played a track from it mid-song. Could the copyright
holders of the next CD have any control over you selling a CD that
does that?
On Sun,
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 01:46:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Once again, this isn't an issue of use, it's an issue of definition.
The combination of dpkg plus the front end is an example of what the
GPL defines as a program.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:17:01AM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:58:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If that is the case the GPL contaminates other software (like the
Debian distribution as a whole) by requiring that EVERY SINGLE THING
we distribute be GPL. A specific example of something that the GPL
would be trying to
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 02:41:52AM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
And if the apache module in question calls /bin/bash specifically?
Or if /bin/bash calls apache?
I'm having trouble imagining a work which involves apache and bash where
bash is an inseperable aspect of the whole. Bashisms are
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's true that the GPL was written for programs, not music. However,
many countries have a legal concept of a moral right of integrity for a
copyrighted work, to prevent its mutilation. The U.S. doesn't recognize
this as an
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 11:40:16PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I suspect a blanket prohibition on reference by non-GPL'ed software
would be incredibly dumb, even if it were permitted by copyright law.
It would forbid anything non-free from operating as a shell (and would
even prohibit KDE
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 04:44:47AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
It's true that the GPL was written for programs, not music. However,
many countries have a legal concept of a moral right of integrity for a
copyrighted work, to prevent its mutilation. The U.S. doesn't recognize
this as an
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
quote
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The Program, below,
refers to any such program or work, and a
From: Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given the choice between making the GPL a non-free license and having a
way to potentially do something bad with a GPLed program, I would say it's
better to leave things as they are.
It's a false dichotomy. I think we could keep it a free license and close
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you take
out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front end
can't happen.
A front end is a front end is a front end.
It's capable of controlling any program that has a user
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:19:30AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
The copying that's relevant here is the copying which goes into the
production of the cdroms. That's the same whether dpkg is in the same
file as corel's front end or a different file.
But that can not possibly be relevant,
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:53:31AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
Given the choice between making the GPL a non-free license and having a
way to potentially do something bad with a GPLed program, I would say it's
better to leave things as they are.
It's a false dichotomy. I think we could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
The act of running the Program is not restricted
This is going to make it extremely difficult to convince anyone that the act
of running th program through its intended interface, or packaging
the program with a work that runs it through its intended
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure, but a frontend isn't mere aggregation -- in this case if you take
out the GPLed part of the system, the performance of that front end
can't happen.
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 08:36:39PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
A front end is a front end is a
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 05:53:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
And if the apache module in question calls /bin/bash specifically?
Or if /bin/bash calls apache?
I'm having trouble imagining a work which involves apache and bash where
bash is an inseperable aspect of the whole. Bashisms
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My argument is that since the corel front end enhances dpkg it counts
as a derivative work based on dpkg for the purpose of copyright law,
just as editorial notations on a screen play create a derivative work
even though the text of the screen play is in
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My argument is that since the corel front end enhances dpkg it counts
as a derivative work based on dpkg for the purpose of copyright law,
just as editorial notations on a screen play create a derivative work
even though the text of the screen play is
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
