17-Dec-03 07:26 Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Emphasis added, of course. So, when I write a plugin I can't claim to
have created a compilation of the plugin and the host, because the
plugin is not preexisting.
Following the readme file's statement that A is a plugin for HOST
certainly does not
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 17:29, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If an artist paints a picture with a hole in it -- a window frame,
say, in an odd shape, and a second artist paints a picture to fit in
that hole and stylistically match the whole picture,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 11:28, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
If I understand him, he's saying that the author of the plugin is
doing the work of pairing his code with the host (even if, in fact,
it will be paired many times and by many people) and that that's
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of *PREEXISTING* materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the
resulting work as a whole constitutes an
On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
Yes, but if there is no copyright generated by the pairing, then it
must be a 'mere aggregation.'
So,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:18, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
For someone to later pair it with Emacs has no creativity, so that
packager hasn't earned a copyright, but the pairing is under copyright
Yes, but if there is no copyright generated by the
On Dec 16, 2003, at 10:20, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I didn't say there's no copyright generated by the pairing -- just
that the pairing can't be separated from the writing of the plugin.
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his plugin,
must have assembled the combination of
[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
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 10:20, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I didn't say there's no copyright generated by the pairing -- just
that the pairing can't be separated from the writing of the plugin.
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his
On Dec 16, 2003, at 11:28, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
You may well be right, I can't really claim to know. But you don't
seem
to be answering Brian's point.
I'm probably not :-( I've been quite short on time for the last few
days, so reading -legal has been put on the back-burner. I've
On Dec 11, 2003, at 16:31, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However, what is the
reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
of authorship? The definition seems to suggest that the
_compilation_ must be original, not its parts.
Yep, that's right. In the US (other countries vary, I'm
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 10:20, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I didn't say there's no copyright generated by the pairing -- just
that the pairing can't be separated from the writing of the plugin.
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 14:39, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be little creativity involved.
If there is no creativity, then there is nothing copyrightable.
signature.asc
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be little creativity involved.
Sure there is --
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 15:16, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
be
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 15:34, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Right, but since the plugin author clearly intended it to fit with and
accompany the host, there's no creativity on the part of the combiner.
And we're well back into argue it in court
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The package is the result of collection and
assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
of authorship? The definition seems to suggest that
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:34:28PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
The problem is that all such definitions are based on the notion that
a work is either something tangible, or a performance act. They
simply don't apply well to computer programs.
You're living in the
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
as subject to copyright in the EU, they do not fit the definition
of derivative work or adaptation very well. There just is no
guidance in this area. If you translate something, turn a
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The package is the result of collection and
assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
of
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 17:22, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually, it's closer than you think. Any product [arbitrary
definition] that requires all three components is a derivative work of
all of them; that will almost certainly violate one or more of the
licenses.
It may be; it may not be. Not
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The original issue, as far as I understood is, was whether it
is allowed to bundle a GPL-licensed plugin with a host program
under a GPL-incompatible license. Or actually, a host that
also uses a second plugin which is under
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exactly my point. What would the equivalent of dynamic linking be? A
book 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.
Wasn't there a case with a book containing questions and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
as subject to copyright in the EU, they do not fit the definition
of derivative work or adaptation very well. There just is no
guidance in
[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 as linking. It
seems that what I invented,
[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 as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
[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
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
No, that's because the GPL is designed to work well in a variety of
legal climates, and each different jurisdiction spells out the
definition of Derived Work in its own legal code.
I did a quick look in Swedish and
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FSF recommends the very construct version 2, or at your option
any later version precisely because the default is just GPLv2.
The GPL FAQ says it is so any new versions will automatically apply to
all software, without
On Dec 9, 2003, at 13:38, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However, what I'm saying is that if you bundle the existing
host and the existing plugin into a composite work, you may
have created a derivative work. Just like if I put an existing
photograph next to an existing text to produce an illustrated
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 13:38, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However, what I'm saying is that if you bundle the existing
host and the existing plugin into a composite work, you may
have created a derivative work. Just like if I put an existing
photograph next to an existing
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 13:38, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
However, what I'm saying is that if you bundle the existing
host and the existing plugin into a composite work, you may
have created a derivative work. Just like if I put
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:34:28PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
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
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated, or
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the
resulting
How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with the FSF and
their grand scheme.
D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How then, can someone who tacks on the GPL, because he's seen it
before, and it's supposed to be a good choice, know exactly what he
really wants? I'm not talking about GNU Readline here, I'm talking
about numerous small projects having nothing to do with
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
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.
They can't. What most people do is say This program is free
software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
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.
They can't. What most people do is say This program is free
software; you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
I have seen claims that attempts to restrict the choice to one
particular version are invalid. I can't remember the details right
now.
Pure FUD.
GPL section 9 contains this confusing paragraph:
Each version is given a distinguishing version
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror doesn't
link against OpenSSL. It runs a separate process (kcm_crypto, it
looks like), which links against openssl... but does
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
In law, anything which is
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:31:40PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
All that seems rather obvious to me, so why write it down? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
can use any software with the above text under that new version.
But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2, there is no
way I can use it under GPLv3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
No, that's because the GPL is designed to work well in a variety of
legal climates, and each different jurisdiction spells out the
definition of Derived Work in its own legal code.
I did a quick look in Swedish and Norwegian copyright law (those
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 on purpose: The GPL wants as much as possible to be
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 the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as
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 the
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 on
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This way the FSF can introduce a new version of the GPL and I
can use any software with the above text under that new version.
But if the software is only licensed under GPLv2,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
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,
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:28:57PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
FSF advocates that wording, and there are rumors that you *must* do it
that way. Be the rumors true or not, almost everyone uses that
clause.
I believe that's the main reason for not
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Due to the GFDL debacle, I no longer trust the FSF's conception of
free (eg. similar in spirit) to my own software, so I'm not
comfortable with the upgrade clause, and not using the upgrade clause
will cause big problems down the road, so I'm starting to avoid
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:46:29PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
So what do you use instead?
If you think your licence solves both the problems you mention, then
presumably you believe that your licence has a good chance of being
compatible with GPLv3 if GPLv3 turns out to be a good
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
work of the 'barnitz' plugin.
No package containing both was created in the above!
Even
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is the host that loads the plugin into its memory, not vice
versa. So it is the host that does the linking.
Yes, and before that linking, there is no derived work. The GPL lets
you do anything can
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are perl plugins for OpenSSL. There are perl plugins for all
kinds of GPL stuff. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes. But there's a spectrum there, between something like perl where
the plugins/libraries are most reasonably considered
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
work of the 'barnitz' plugin.
No package
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin
API.
I release my program under the
On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
It is the host that loads the plugin into its memory,
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
No package containing both was created in the above!
Even if one were, it'd be a compilation --- not a derivative work ---
as
On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:08, Måns Rullgård wrote:
The only problem is when you start loading both GPL plugins and
GPL-incompatible plugins. Here, your license is irrelevant; it's the
plugin licenses that are in conflict. A permissive license shouldn't
add any new problems, at least.
There
On Dec 9, 2003, at 09:49, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
There is a more than plausible argument that just about everything in
Debian violates a software patent. Debian's lawyers (us?),
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
It is
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
INVERT and STENOG, and then
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 01:36:46PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The KDE folks have, from what I've seen,
been quite careful with licensing issues.
That sentence made me snarf. Do people not remember the history of KDE
and Debian?
Of course. The
On Dec 8, 2003, at 10:00, Måns Rullgård wrote:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
GPL-incompatible).
As long as its really a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 09:49, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
There is a more than plausible argument that just about everything in
Debian violates
On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a
derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the
plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host.
It is the host that loads the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have thus, even with STENOG included, satisfied the terms of the
INVERT license.
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:00, Måns Rullgård wrote:
There is a more than plausible argument that just about everything in
Debian violates a software patent.
Hmm, which one?
Plop a few random but recent patent numbers into the uspto web site.
See what comes up. Weep.
Is there some patent that
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They had to receive it under the terms of the GPL. They also received
AIE under the terms of the MIT X11 license. The work is sort-of
dual-licensed, in the sense that the X11 license is compatible with
the GPL.
Yes, but they can't distribute
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:00, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I will
point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
though it is under the MIT/X11
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that script, there might be a
problem. But that's
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:28:18AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Dec 9, 2003, at 09:49, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
There is a more than plausible argument that just about
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Now, there is a potential problem. Remember that scripting language
mentioned before? If someone were to write a script that used both
INVERT and STENOG, and then distribute that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The only problem is when you start loading both GPL plugins and
GPL-incompatible plugins. Here, your license is irrelevant; it's the
plugin licenses that are in conflict. A permissive license shouldn't
add any new problems, at least.
There is a
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
In my particular case, a plugin must implement one or more predefined
interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
Yes,
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In my particular case, a plugin must implement one or more predefined
interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
Yes, assuming one of those implementation's
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
libraries, save ones with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Then read the section 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.
When we see a plugin
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible work,
we have two choices:
- Assume the author of the plugin was confused, and that the plugin
isn't even distributable, or
- Assume that the author intends that the plugin have an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want a simply answer, the answer is: No (insert disclaimers
here) as others have pointed out.
As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's distribution that's
restricted.
True as far as the GPL is
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
Then read the section 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
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package
containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative
work of the 'barnitz' plugin. Afe by itself of course isn't
a derivative, but someone who bundles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found it --
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror doesn't
link against OpenSSL. It runs a separate process (kcm_crypto, it
looks like), which links against openssl... but does so in a way that
*doesn't* invoke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
I don't know the details of who writes the SSL support for Konq or how
it's done, nor do I have any machines with Konqueror on them in front
of me right now, so I can't comment on that.
Ah, found it -- Debian KDE list, late July 2002: Konqueror
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:20:16AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:44:13AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
libraries, save ones with well defined interfaces, like POSIX or the
STD C. But I could be
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And people wonder why they call it the Gnu Public Virus...
I mean, I can understand not wanting people to use GNU Readline as part of
a GPL-incompatible app unless it in no way actually depends on it being
GNU Readline, rather than something else with the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I mean, I can understand not wanting people to use GNU Readline as part of
a GPL-incompatible app unless it in no way actually depends on it being
GNU Readline, rather than something else with the same API. But claiming
that a GPLed *plugin* created
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:46:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
the issue is less clear. I'd
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a suspicion that most people that publish their programs
under the GPL use the GPL only because it's the license they've
heard of the most, without really considering all the implications.
I'd like to see a bit more of a discussion on these matters,
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
