. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
of said interface.
This whole discussion is something between ridiculous and hilarious,
definitely not useful.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to argue the point in court and
be unsure of the result, which is bad enough that we can't really go
there.
Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
They aren't with any degree of certainty.
It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API? Any other
interpretation invariably leads to contradictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain
. All Microsoft have done to them so far is send
them some nastygrams in the mail.
And for some reason you believe Microsoft would be content with that,
if they believed they had any real chance to stop them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
between Eclipse+Kaffe and
ghostscript + postscript document
That's a good example. A postscript document is in fact a program
written in the PostScript language. It is interpreted by ghostscript
(or another viewer). This still doesn't make the document a
derivative of the viewer.
--
Måns
and something else. Thus, GPL 2b applies.
Here the something else is called FUD, no more, no less.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
() suddenly break the chain, while a
linker or classloader does not?
I don't see an obvious difference, but the GPL FAQ does mention this
distinction.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
interpreter at all.
If the interpreted program
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
program being interpreted generally does
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters
only be compiled by itself.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but (in general) not from ELF
files.
I'll save this for next time someone claims that linking against a
shared library (ELF file) creates a derived work.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
) provide the image in a
more advanced format (e.g. XCF) with the photograph and text in
different layers.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
it), is that sufficient
-free compiler, whereas Debian requires everything
in main to be buildable using only free tools (present in main?).
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to be useful (e.g. Photoshop). How should
such cases be treated?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or
a photograph should
code depicted, and 2) as a picture of the source code for something.
The photograph can quite obviously never be reasonably considered to
be the source for the *program*, but a JPEG (or whatever format) can
be the source for a *picture of the source for the program*.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED
sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree with GPLv3?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
That would be the case. Is this a problem?
For a large colaborative project, possibly
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use of the program.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
releases GPLv2 only.
Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the or any later version
option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible
discussed at length here not long ago, so there
is no need to do it over again.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
far-reaching interpretations of it. Seeing as v3 will attempt to
extend its reach even further, I see it as inevitable that a fair
amount of people will have a word or two to say about it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree
, you have to hand out
copies of the sheet music. At least that was my analogy.
The music sheets would correspond to the web pages, not the web server
software.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:12 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's also rather interesting how people, apparently without much
reflection, release code under terms, the interpretation of which is as
yet undefined. Given the grayness of these legal areas
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
We have to consider the possibility that GPLv3 will say something we
don not want. Then we do not want people distributing it under those
terms. Never give permission to do something you
. There are many different views out there, and some recent
moves from FSF have been in a direction away from a large enough
number of people, with loud enough voices, to make it noticeable.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
code is derivative from
one of the BSDs.
Some of the filesystems (XFS and JFS, at least) have external origins,
although they must have been somewhat adapted to the Linux VFS layer.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Kuno Woudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can
...
This is different from the requirement of some licenses that a notice
be displayed on the console, or in a dialog box, when the program is
run. I think this is what the OP was afraid of.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
,
Could you please elaborate on the PHP loophole?
I've never heard of it: what do you mean by that?
(feel free to change the subject or even to reply to me in private, if
you think it's better)
I'm also curious about this one.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
GPL breaks that promise, then the original licensor has a
very good case in law that the new GPL is *not* a later version, but
a different version to which the or later wording doesn't apply...
That would be a, maybe not desirable, but at least very interesting
case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
the reach of
copyright in such a way would be absurd, and this is what fair use
is about.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
), is to compile
programs using its header files, and link these programs against it.
What did you expect me to do with those headers? Frame them and hang
them on the wall?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
be
copyright infringement, because the way cp moves the bits around is
just an 'implementation detail'. So presumably you don't think
copyright infringement using a computer is possible.
You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting what I said.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED
it, with or without
modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
8888888--
It's free, but it's sloppy. I find it hard to believe that FSF legal
passed this.
Where's the warranty disclaimer? This can't be the full thing.
--
Måns
fee for such sale.
If the law places restrictions on distribution, there is nothing a
license can do about it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the
opposite order?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no obligation to
anyone else to grant a license to make the library's release useful.
(For a commercial SDK, this would seem to apply to header files.)
So now the degree of protection by copyright depends on how much you
charge for it? What if someone gets paid to develop open source?
--
Måns
to interface with the system.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:15:57AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Alternative to what? There can be no alternative to the full set of
interfaces to the system. Are you trying to argue, that several
interfaces exist, use of each one is protected due to the existence
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:17:51PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Thanks for mentioning command lines. Running a program from the
command line, usually involves passing it options. These options are
(obviously) copies of strings from the actual program
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you can find us a country whose laws make this illegal,
this issue would be worth discussing.
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:15:34PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
You are obviously convinced that using a command line interface can't
be protected
the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL symbols, for
compatibility with drivers that need them, for example.)
Someone could even take the Linux kernel, and replace all
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL with EXPORT_SYMBOL. I see nothing in the GPL
prohibiting this. Sure, it wouldn't be nice, but it's legal not to be
nice.
--
Måns Rullgård
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
symbols
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices,
But are they?
copyright
? It should be DFSG free
as far as I can understand, right?
It doesn't explicitly allow distributing modified versions. Maybe
any form was intended to include modifications, but it's not
obvious. Why not just use the BSD or MIT license?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I have certainly seen no signs that the view expressed in
the GPL FAQ does not have consensus on the debian-legal list.
Apparently, you have failed to see the numerous disagreeing posts that
appear from time to time.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
No, because the following statement is allowed by the GPL, and does not
reveal the identity of the dissident:
This file was changed on December 10, 2004.
Whether that's allowed by the GPL depends on the interpretation of the
phrase stating that you changed the files.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello all,
If I were to study GPL'ed source in order to understand a protocol
that it implements, would I need to and if so how would I cite this in
any program I create which uses any knowledge gained?
Stating where you obtained the information is always a
or Xiphophorus. Does
anyone know who they are?
IMHO, it's just silly to not use your real name. What is there to
fear?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, what does everyone think? Is there any branch of law which could give
the person or company that thought up how to play a game a claim against a
separate, not-otherwise-infringing implementation of such a game?
Yes, a fat wallet.
--
Måns
.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the usual BSD License. Since there
appears to be no such connection, it is misleading to BSD in the
name. Why did you choose that name?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to make it clear which of these versions you actually
mean, or the judge/jury/lawyers may well choose the other, if there is
ever a court case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
? Or is the protocol patented or copyrighted in some
way? If such a server is legal, then a non-authorized client would
also have a possible legal use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
what choices of license for my program would allow
distribution of binaries, and also what would be DFSG-free. I'd
appreciate some comments about these matters.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
my opinion, placing two shared objects in the same tar file doesn't
make one a derived work of the other. Would it make a difference if
the offending (to rms) plugins were distributed separately?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
software is allowed. Where is the
fundamental difference if the format of the wrapper is changed from
iso9660 to tar, and the internal files are shared objects instead of
tar files?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
interface as opposed to the
implementation of that interface.
That is the case.
What about source distributions? Is it allowed to distribute source
code licensed under the X11 license that uses a GPL'd library?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
perhaps isn't as free as it's advocates want it
to look like.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program? in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other interpretations of that section, please
enlighten me.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Especially when it's the subject of many controversies and FUD.
Now your argument about what constitutes a derived work is worthy of
consideration.
Does anyone have any pointers to previous discussions on that matter?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
those plugins compiled?
Well, if you believe the GPL FAQ, just use the Magic Copyright Barrier:
fork+exec.
I prefer not to do it that way for technical reasons. Besides, that
FAQ is silly.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that might be the case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
cash to ensure the outcome is what I want, though.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
of some questionable legalities.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
than the latter.
I'm doing the first two of those.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
not.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
work. The GPL lets
you do anything can think of privately. Copyright law allows private
modifications necessary to use a program as intended. Linking a
plugin into the host program would typically be required to use it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but they have no external dependencies, so it
doesn't matter.
Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
True.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
BTW, what's up with gnu.org?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a software patent.
Hmm, which one? Is there some patent that covers software in general
now? Not that I'd be surprised.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the license actually says, and nobody seems to know that for
sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
at any time.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
work might be, just to take an example. Maybe it was
because the author himself actually could figure out the bit about the
license version, but didn't more of a clue than anyone else about the
parts that really matter. Then again, maybe there was some other
reason.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
are
the ones that apply to me), and I couldn't find the slightest hint of
a definition for anything.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
I suppose
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
It's
, because it is
often difficult, if not impossible, to explain some things
non-technically and still be accurate.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that says on the first page: take chapters 3 and 6 from book Foo
and insert after chapter 4 in this book, then read the result.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
not call it a free license. Would such a
restriction even be valid under copyright law (or whatever law
applies)?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
it.
You're probably right. I wasn't looking for something that wouldn't be
allowed, but for something that is as close as possible
modifies machine code. I'll leave resolving
whether that has any implications to copyright/license issues to
someone else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
which
damage the DVD manufacturarer could claim compensation for.
Very few people can see that logic. Unfortunately, it seems the MPAA
can. The worst part, their lawyers see it too.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his plugin,
must have assembled the combination of host+plugin in a persistent
form.
Yes, but he hasn't necessarily loaded the license incompatible plugin
while testing.
--
Måns Rullgård
or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Some of these can be registered as trademarks, and hence also be
subject to violation.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
can't do so -- just that you've
acknowledged that the software isn't licensed-by-the-DOE for that or
designed for that.
Who is DOE and why is he licensing Sun's software?
I thought the point was that DoE did *not* license the software.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
why don't you just blindly believe it when (possibly evil)
companies make claims beneficial to them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily
find any number of people
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only
enforce its patent, you should upgrade
the severity to serious if the license available for general use is
not compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Who cares about free? Why not have some Legal Software Guidelines
instead?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
this work.
...specifying mutually exclusive terms? What does it mean.
That's contradictory. It doesn't make sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 - 100 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
