On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
sizable donations to his preferred charity in return for his speaking
engagements, then perhaps conference
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/4/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If a public figure as remarkable as RMS does not choose to gather
sizable donations to his preferred
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, the code of conduct says that the canonical way to ask to be Cc:ed
on replies is setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To: field.
Asking the same in the message body (in natural language) is a useful
reminder for users of MUAs that do not
On 8/6/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:15:22AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
It's controversial to say that RMS is occasionally reported to behave
eccentrically? And that being a conference speaker doesn't
necessarily stop him?
No. But this is
I wrote:
They're a sidetrack to be sure; but kind of an interesting sidetrack.
His personal history and philosophy strike me as more reminiscent of
Dominic de Guzman or Benedict of Nursia than any modern figure. In
any case, I certainly intended no slur on RMS by that, nor on any
participant
I wrote:
RMS may sincerely
believe that the GPL is a successful hack around contract law and the
limits courts have imposed on other software copyright holders; but I
don't see how a court could possibly agree with him.
Not to be paranoid or anything, but a reminder-disclaimer: The GPL
* Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050804 04:24]:
And I judge your evidence poorly researched. This does not enhance your
credibility when you expound at length (and length and length) on legal
affairs.
That was a good one.
It's really interesting that people who show no evidence of
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can't even manage this issue in the context of a single
paragraph, what hope do we have of codifying protection
for newly thought up instances of this issue, in law?
That would be the reason that the integrity and competence of
On 8/4/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless, intellectual property is fundamentally different from
real property, and the differences, in the general case, make it
impossible to determine the boundaries of intellectual property.
It's a _little_ more abstract than real property
On 8/4/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a _little_ more abstract than real property ownership, which is a
lot more abstract than possession of a chattel; but it's rather less
abstract than, say, ownership of a 401(k) account -- a device where
you have limited control of
Apologies to all innocent bystanders for what has degenerated into an
offtopic flamefest. Unfortunately MKE has made some statements directed
at myself that I feel I cannot leave unanswered.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 07:24:33PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
So yes, inquiring minds want to know.
And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays
RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001.
(You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for four years
** Raul ::
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
cash flows
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and economics.
Misrepresentations and charlatanry draw
On 8/3/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded,
the FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian
should re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
Why?
Personally, I've quoted this
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
your references to all kinds of precedents and such are worth.
You've got a fair point, in that RMS
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:44 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
How many participants in the KDE/Qt brouhaha actually cited relevant
case law?
I recall that quite a bit of case law was discussed. Perhaps the
debian-legal archives could tell you more.
In any case, there's a perfectly good
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale. He has been
admitted to the bar in New York and before the Supreme Court. He has
clerked in district court and for Justice Thurgood Marshall. He has
held a professorship of law
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 03:55 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Let me try again. Eben Moglen has a J. D. from Yale.
It is. And, from my perspective, it completely destroys your
credibility.
What makes your opinion more credible than that
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mostly I care about the freedom to pursue what is for me
both an intellectual interest and a trade, on terms which more or less
reflect an accurate perspective on the surrounding law and
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 13:11 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/2/05, Patrick Herzig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS doesn't preach the economic superiority of free software. If you
fail to understand even such a well-explained position I wonder what
your references to all kinds of
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could be the case that everyone who disagrees with you whom you think
should know better has ulterior motives. However, I think you need to
consider the possibility that you simply do not understand the subject
matter as well as you think
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may not be much in the legal department, but you are now commenting on
a field I am trained in. Suffice it to say that you have not thought
seriously about the implications of your conflation of ethics and
economics--or that if you have, then
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've got a fair point, in that RMS doesn't see his arguments as
preaching economic superiority; and certainly many commentators have
contrasted RMS's ethical perspective with, say, ESR's economic
perspective. I don't entirely agree with
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, there's a perfectly good argument that for
Debian to piss off the FSF is not a good idea whether or not they have
a legal leg to stand on. I personally would be ashamed to lend my
good name to their conduct in recent years,
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 10:52 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
IMHO its relevance to d-l is that, if such suspicions are indeed founded, the
FSF GPL FAQ should not be taken by face value and that Debian should
re-evaluate its position about GPL and linking.
If you can prove that the FSF
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 15:21 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
No, I just explained where I was coming from in characterizing RMS's
public posture as preach[ing] the economic superiority of the free
software system. How you can call this an attempt to shut down the
debate is beyond me. If you
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
communication between people -- that it's impossible to codify
property rights protecting them. There will
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 01:40:42PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
free software when provided
On 8/3/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider it a grievous error to claim that RMS preach[es] the
economic superiority of the free software system. You were not calling
for an inquiry of any kind in that statement; you were simply snarking.
And you were called out for making an
On 8/3/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think his point is that because of the nature of ideas -- that they don't
exist in and of themselves, but are abstracts used to describe
communication between people -- that it's
On 8/3/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would again be news to me. I've just given two talks at LinuxTag
(the biggest Linux-related event in Europe) and all I got was two nights
in a hotel room. That's what all the speakers get, some do get part of
or all of their travel
On 8/3/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's probably a lesson in here somewhere.
information is also a term used to describe how people
communicate.
Indeed, among other things; and it is a term sufficiently broad and
vague as to have very little utility in law.
You try to draw
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:04:34PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Although I have no personal knowledge on the financial side, it
certainly looks to me like it has made them both rich men. Little
snippets in the public record -- Jim Blandy's comment at
http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html
On 8/2/05, Diego Biurrun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That RMS gets paid for all the speeches he gives would indeed be news.
I have first-hand knowledge that he follows invitations to speak about
free software when provided free travel and lodging.
Do you know the numbers? As I wrote, I don't.
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
cash flows involved are not
I wrote:
There's a lot of money to be made in this
area (although it's a pretty hard life if you have close friends and
like your home); and if RMS had a way of laundering the money (don't
give it to me; but donate to the FSF if you like) so as to appear
saintly, he wouldn't be the
On 8/2/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
is notoriously unforthcoming about their
I wrote:
So yes, inquiring minds want to know.
And this inquiring mind is now satisfied as to what probably pays
RMS's rent lately -- the ~$268K Takeda Award he received in 2001.
(You couldn't keep a family in Cambridge for four years on that, but
RMS doesn't have that problem.) Me, I'd be
I wrote:
The contributory / direct infringement difference is kind of
interesting from a tactical point of view ...
followed by some discussion about the Micro Star opinion that was more
inarticulate than usual.
The point I was trying to make, in sentences of 25 words or less: The
important
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's say Almost All Rights Reserved.
Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free document: that's
basically what I meant...
Oddly enough, there is some
On 7/30/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
of those issues.
I didn't say six issues. I said six reasons why it would be
inappropriate to grant a
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:11:15 +0200 Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's say Almost All Rights Reserved.
Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free document:
On 7/31/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe a license that fits Michael's needs, but definitely *not* a
DFSG-free one: unfortunately, at the moment, there are no CC licenses
that comply with the DFSG...
I do not, at present, need a license at all; I am perfectly content
with the
On 7/28/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strawman?
Fact: the creation of a derivative work is the application of some
transformation
on the original work.
The above snippet (which isn't even copyrightable, for its sheer size and the
necessity of expressing the
GPL violators appear to face several potential penalties:
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
why that assumption is valid. As I explained
On 7/28/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only good answer people in d-l gave me to the question:
why is the assumption that such linking is a violation of the
GPL valid? is because Eben Moglen said so in the GPL
FAQ, and he is a law teacher, so it must be true.
If
On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
violating the GPL.
Violating the GPL doesn't mean anything.
Yes it does -- it means actions in the context of a
On 7/28/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the stop
distribution penalty was not used in part because Progress
didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
by this
On 7/30/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I count four issues the judge considered, with a bit of detail on each
of those issues.
I didn't say six issues. I said six reasons why it would be
inappropriate to grant a preliminary injunction for breach of the GPL
terms, any one of which
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
If the GPL lets the user do it, it isn't infringement at all. You can't
have contributory infringement if there's no infringement.
The GPL is not a new copyright statute with the power to override the
meaning of infringement, nor do its
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:07:00 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
P.S.: please do not reply to me directly, while Cc:ing the list, as
I didn't ask you to do so... since I'm a debian-legal subscriber,
I'd rather not receive messages
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:07:00 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, All Rights Reserved... :-(
I did say that I would be happy to give you advance permission to
circulate a reasonable number of copies privately, which would
On 7/30/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's say Almost All Rights Reserved.
Anyway, it's still really far away from a DFSG-free document: that's
basically what I meant...
Oddly enough, there is some useful knowledge out there that is not
currently available in a DFSG-free
On 7/30/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By this reasoning, if linking is normally a breach of rights, I could give you
some BSD licensed software and do exactly the same thing. I am estopped from
suing you for linking with my BSD software, but I can still prevent other
people from
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:19:15AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anyway, the person who recombines the film and track, in the
case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the
program, and copyrights protection do not apply at
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:04:40AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But that doesn't apply in the case of automatic systems for users to do the
link. The GPL allows users to do what they want privately, so the users
aren't performing infringing acts themselves.
While Andrew's parallel to Grokster is IMHO
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:06:58 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/28/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean freely available?
Should I request a copy, which license would you send it under?
None whatsoever. :-) Just like sending you a paper copy in the mail,
with
On 7/29/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While that's true, the right of users to link the software in private isn't
a personal-use safe harbor--it's explicitly allowed by the GPL.
If the GPL lets the user do it, it isn't infringement at all. You can't
have contributory
On 7/29/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, All Rights Reserved... :-(
I did say that I would be happy to give you advance permission to
circulate a reasonable number of copies privately, which would leave
me with no recourse against you unless you set out to
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf(Hello\n);
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:42:35PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Anyway, the person who recombines the film and track, in the
case of dynamic linking, is the *USER*, in the process of using the
program, and copyrights protection do not apply at that moment, as
per 17USC.
You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
any way the user sees appropriate; section 2
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf(Hello\n);
return 0;
}
On 7/27/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether or not that agreement purports to bind a developer in ways
that copyright law does not, there are limits to what terms a court
will permit in a contract of adhesion.
Agreed.
Then again, the penalties I'd expect the court to
** Raul Miller ::
On 7/27/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Static linking can *not* create a derived work, because it is an
automatic process. Poster case: is hello, generated from hello.c:
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Raul Miller writes:
On 7/28/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What statute or case law supports this position? Comparison to
Grokster et al doesn't hold, for reasons that should have been
obvious: The GPL explicitly allows a user to use and modify code in
any way the user sees
** Michael Poole ::
Potential penalties are irrelevant to my question. You assume a
priori that such linking is a violation of the GPL. My question was
why that assumption is valid. As I explained above, his citation of
case law does not fit the facts.
The only good answer people in d-l
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that the point is that people would be going to jail for
violating the GPL.
Violating the GPL doesn't mean anything. The GPL is not a statute.
It's just an offer of contract. The only way to enforce it is for a
party with
On 7/28/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
You Are Wrong. Under US law, this is Contributory Infringement, which
carries a full array of jail terms. SCOTUS just upheld it against
Grokster a few weeks ago. Providing an automated system for
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the stop
distribution penalty was not used in part because Progress
didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
by this penalty. And, Progress had agreed in court to release
their
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:04:34 -0700 Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely
available? Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting
from it, and having a succint, linkable statement of
On 7/28/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean freely available?
Should I request a copy, which license would you send it under?
None whatsoever. :-) Just like sending you a paper copy in the mail,
with no obligation of confidentiality as such; the copy is yours, feel
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a
work that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the
things are
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose this is part and parcel of the
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
has a definition in the statute (in the US case, 17USC).
Hmm. I suppose this
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work has a
definition in the statute (in the US case,
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 14:42 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
** Jeff Licquia ::
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 10:05 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
First of all, Debian GNU/Linux is *NOT* a derivative work of
OpenSSL, GStreamer, nor any of its plugins. A derivative work
has a
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:00 -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
The message to which I pointed you has a link back into the main fray
(threads with titles like Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev
replacement, GPL and linking, and What makes software
copyrightable anyway?). I've put
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does such compilation in itself give Debian any rights on its own, or is
the compilation seen as non-copyrightable?
The collective work (special case of compilation) that is a Debian CD
is copyrightable. The copyright covers the creative
On 7/27/05, Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse me for asking, but why is this monograph not freely available?
Surely, as a non-lawyer, you have no hope of profiting from it, and
having a succint, linkable statement of your arguments would do wonders
for preventing such go-arounds as
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 09:17:25AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various
plugins, these are then dlopened when requested.
I would personnally think that installing only
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted...
So the particular details of how things are
** Loïc Minier ::
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
From the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and
modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted...
So the particular
Jeff Licquia writes:
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a work
that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the things are
On 7/26/05, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
A compilation or collective work under US law is not necessarily a
derivative work of any of its components. The GPL's use of
derivative and derived is fuzzy in this sense, which is one reason
the terms from copyright law are used more
I wrote:
... only those few d-l participants with actual legal credentials seem to
agree with me ...
Er, that overreaches a bit in both directions; sorry. I'm more
strident on the topic than the people with credentials are, and there
are certainly other d-l regulars who question the FSF FAQ's
Hi,
I agree with most of what you said, except I'd like clarification on
this part:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The copyright of the rest of GStreamer depends on how it's distributed.
In Debian, it's clear that GStreamer is distributed with MAD support,
which makes its
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
GStreamer's build process builds separate binaries for the various
plugins, these are then dlopened when requested.
I would personnally think that installing only Debian's GStreamer
packages that are linked to LGPL libraries doesn't
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 20:50 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
The GStreamer suite ships a lot of plugins which are dlopened() when
needed. Some of them link with GPL libraries.
I received a bug report (#317129) to change the copyright files of
libgstreamer0.8-0 and gstreamer0.8-mad to GPL.
92 matches
Mail list logo
