On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:32:57AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think the problem here is the notion that a file necessarily has
exactly one licence.
Totally agree.
[snip]
So it is true that a downstream redistributor who does not change F
cannot change the licence, because the only
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:10:14 -0400 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
[...]
They can do it because the license never changed, it was *just*
distributed under a different set of terms (the GPLv2+ says you can
distribute it as if it were GPLv3+ and everything is tidy -- it does *not*
say you can yell
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: GPL + question):
They *can* since the work as modified *can* be distributed under the
terms of the GPLv3+, *without* changing the original work's license, but
the *file* can be distributed as GPLv3+, since that's the minimum
license needed to comply with all parts
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a
I'm not sure that you can grant the right of enforcing the license to
someone else,
I suspect that for legal litigation you may need to represent the
copyright owner.
That's what I meant; I probably didn't word it clearly, though.
pgp4w78cg1zYD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 30/05/15 03:30, Riley Baird wrote:
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who
On 31/05/15 00:10, Riley Baird wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:24:53 +0200
Ángel Gonzálezkeis...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO you would be the one responsible for enforcing the license...
Exactly. So, if a work is originally licensed under GPL-2+ and Person A
makes a copy and gives it to Person B
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
If it were me, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the upstream
author of missfits, and trust him that if he added a GPLv3+ header, it
is because he modified the files, as he says in the README.
When I adopted the first package from this author
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+,
Maximilian maximil...@actoflaw.co.uk writes:
and this seems to imply that the end user can choose which licence
suits them.
Not only the end user -- also (in our case) the upstream author. So, he
can choose to redistribute the files under GPL-3+. Being them modified
or not.
However, if
That's literally what I said.
d/copyright is for source not binary.
On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, Riley Baird
bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch wrote:
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Hi,
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally
I'm probably wrong, but the code that was originally GPLv2+ remains licensed
under the GPLv2 *in addition* to the GPLv3 that the overall package is licensed
under.
The GPLv2 states that:
'if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it
and any later version, you
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
file as a whole can only be distributed under
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released in
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel
Bertin) and released
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:41:58PM +1000, Riley Baird wrote:
But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some
parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The
file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3.
the terminology being thrown around
If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined
with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other
file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the
terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license. If I get
this file after you say it's GPLv3, it's still LGPLv2.1+ to me
Or a CLA. Or breaking copyright law. Or modified the work and distribute
it under a superset of the old terms. Or or or :)
For the record; I don't believe Apple is breaking copyright law, and I
didn't mean to imply that :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 04:06:52PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key --
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
No, you may redistribute it under different terms, *not* relicense. You may
*use* GPLv2+ as GPLv3+, *BUT* the original work is *STILL* GPLv2+, since
you can't relicense works.
Sorry, but I still think release under the terms of the General Public
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org writes:
So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+
and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to
also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the
version 3 of the lincense, or later, but
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
I don't know any jurisdiction where I can take a work of yours and now
claim I have the rights to it under a different license.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good lawyers.
Best
Ole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:43:21PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
I don't know any jurisdiction where I can take a work of yours and now
claim I have the rights to it under a different license.
Apple did, as I have shown. I think they have good
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright holder has
surely the initial right to license his work, but I don't see a reason
why he can't transfer this.
Via copyright asignment, not licensing, unless the license
2015-05-29 16:06 GMT+02:00 Ole Streicher oleb...@debian.org:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key --
Please end this thread, it's getting nuts. Ask the FSF if you're still unclear.
Thanks,
Paul
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:11:12PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Again: please provide a reference for this. The copyright
On 29/05/15 16:30, Ole Streicher wrote:
Miriam Ruiz mir...@debian.org writes:
So in my opinion, if you modify a code which was released under GPL2+
and you license your modifications as GPL3+, the resulting work has to
also be GPL, and the terms or conditions that apply are those of the
Le Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:12AM +0200, Ole Streicher a écrit :
I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my
packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a
directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark
Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
Let's say I hold copyright on a work, and I grant someone else
permission to change the license of a work. Who would enforce the
second license?
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:09:34PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
Same for me. However: the (L)GPL allows even an unmodified
redistribution under a later license.
This is key -- redistribution. It doesn't change the license.
It does. Just look into the
On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:50:39 +0200 Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes:
[...]
Only the copyright holder can change what a *work* is licensed as.
Unless the copyright holder grants the permission to do so, I would
say...
[...]
If the original license allows,
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:10 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
-static or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
violation that way then you should not
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on
On 6/10/05, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
at
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoops, I misattributed that message. It's Brett Glass who wrote
that, NOT Theo de Raadt. :-(
And after Googling Brett Glass briefly, I doubt he has much concrete
evidence to back up his claim that RMS
Hi everyone,
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend on a
new library in the next version. This library, ruby-zoom, is an LGPL Ruby
binding of libyaz. libyaz links to OpenSSL and is, as far as I can tell,
under a
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Do you know whether the NSS implementation is being certified at
source code level (a very unusual arrangement) using the sort of
maneuvers mentioned in the Linux Journal article on DMLSS?
I'm not able to say - it's not my area. If you are interested,
De: Steve Langasek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The phrase For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains appears in the text
of GPL section *3*, which is not specific to works based on the
Program. Such lack of attention to license detail from
You might also observe the comments at
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=6924 and
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=8508 regarding MySQL's retreat, first
from providing OpenSSL-enabled binaries, and then from referencing
OpenSSL in the server source code. Any bets on whether there was a
quid pro
On 6/6/05, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The implementation of SSL in the Netscape NSS libraries is available
under the GPL, and I believe certain versions of it have FIPS validation.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/fips/
I'm delighted to hear that. It does not
On 6/6/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P. S. If you think that an FSF vendetta against OpenSSL would be an
anomaly, or that RMS is purist about copyright law when it comes to
his own conduct, you might be interested in Theo de Raadt's comments
at
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
since the OpenSSL shim for GNU TLS was added to the GPL (not LGPL)
libgnutls-extra. (It's possible that it has since been moved into the
LGPL portion, but I don't think so.)
The LGPL contains an explicit provision that allows relicensing
to GPL (section 3 LGPL).
[Cc:ing the original poster, who posted to -mentors -- there's no reason to
expect that he's subscribed to -legal]
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
On 6/4/05, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a package Alexandria, written in Ruby, which will depend
Hello!
This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place
to ask this question, and failed.
I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program
from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out
to be really difficult.
On 20020906T180308+0200, Fredrik Persson wrote:
This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place
to ask this question, and failed.
The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for
licensing questions but I forget what it was.
That is my question. Who
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:52:06PM +0300 wrote:
The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for
licensing questions but I forget what it was.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Spencer Hal Visick
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:03, Fredrik Persson wrote:
Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with
Jim, I think it is. If the answer is Jill, it most likely is not.
So...
What do you all say about this?
I say that the answer is Jim, but that this is not as serious a
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Fredrik Persson wrote:
I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program
from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out
to be really difficult. Currently, I'm preparing a reply to their lawyer (I
have no legal training
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
That makes it a
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
That makes it a
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that
NeXTStep distributed only the object files
It's in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by RMS,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
Consider GNU
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is
entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable
entity.
Nope, it's not. But since you don't listen, it's pointless to keep
talking to you.
--
To
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
However, his patches are patches *of
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or
That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a
court to
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL.
It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license
and/or
That's sort of like
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they
figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after
him. There's a substantial difference.
And what we're talking about is exactly that. Eben Moglen, who is
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases.
Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it;
lacking direct permission (rather painful for the
also sprach John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]:
However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes
the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source,
because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's
what the GPL requires.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces
of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel.
That makes it a derivative work of the kernel.
In theory, one could design a patch
[please cc me on responses]
hey wise people,
i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the
kernel here and there, and because he added userland
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:15, martin f krafft wrote:
[please cc me on responses]
hey wise people,
i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone
selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he
advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel
source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all
his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches
for the kernel, right?
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't
the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or
has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it.
A patch to a
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, if your printing server component is a library and is GPLed,
then every work linked to it has to be GPLed (or have an even less
restrictive license).
Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD?
This is
Hi everyone.
Just joined the list and I'd *really* appreciate your advice on the part of the
GPL that allows for exclusion of identifiable sections (i.e. section 2).
The situation is:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:13:30 +0100
From: Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, you wrote:
snipped my stuff
Um.. debian-legal doesn't engage in handing out legal advice.
We're focussed on whether
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000, Mike Cunningham wrote:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which
would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to
release the
Scripsit Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server
component which would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I
understand that we would need to release the
Hello,
My Debian developer application is in the works. I plan on being the
Debian maintainer for my own program, called pup (Printer Utility
Program).
The first version, which has been out since last August at:
http://pup.hypermart.net
is only an ink cartridge maintainance utility program for
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
78 matches
Mail list logo
