David Kastrup wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher
prices
Ben wrote:
I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
Can I still distribute the software under the GPL
Sure you can. Beware of eventual copyright impotence (penalty for
copyright misuse)
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
IP is not a legal term.
Yeah.
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html
quote
For one thing, intellectual property is not a legal term that exists,
as such, anywhere in the world.
Hey Ben, feel free to mere aggregate and distribute your non-
derivative (under copyright law, not GNU copyleft FAQ silliness) GPL'd
code with whatever you want. But once again: beware of eventual
copyright impotence (penalty for copyright misuse) though. Your GPL'd
code may well end up in
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
[...]
Ben, as suggested, do not even bother reading what Alexander has to
say. The GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers, where as
Lawyers? Yeah, the GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers
(like Moglen and his underlings) with an agenda contrary to public
Benjamin writes:
I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
Can I still distribute the software under the GPL or should I choose
another licence?
If the program is entirely of your authorship you can
On Sun, 21 May 2006 17:55:07 +0100
Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number
of jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
You mean that it uses/derives from classes in those libraries (like
e.g. Lucene?)
Can I
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
able to redistribute it.
Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they can redistribute it. 17 USC 109, to
begin with.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
able to redistribute it.
Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they can
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it
uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a
derivative work of these libraries.
Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
When
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
able to redistribute it.
Sez GNUtian
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:59:17 +0200
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it
uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a
derivative work of these libraries.
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim.
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That concerns the transfer of particular acquired copies, not
distribution involving the creation of additional copies.
Legally speaking, distribution doesn't involve creation of additional
copies at all. And 17 USC 109 is about particular copies lawfully
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of
the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in the
system running the program.
As it is extremely difficult to distribute a
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
complaint, he found
Hi,
Much as I'd like to argue the specifics of the GPL the original problem
still stands.
The third party jars are used via method calls, not by inheritance. Even
so the GPL is too vague. I suspect as a small development if it went to
court I could argue that there was no intent to
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
optionally
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:06:59 +0100
Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The third party jars are used via method calls, not by inheritance.
Even so the GPL is too vague. I suspect as a small development if it
went to court I could argue that there was no intent to deliberately
violate the licence, I
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Linking is not aggregation.
Static linking certainly is.
Only in Terekhov-Lala-land.
I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention static
linking doesn't aggregate in the GNU Republic. I want the patent
rights, dak!
regards,
alexander.
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:55 +0100, Ben escreveu:
The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses
- that are under different licences.
This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume
those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be)
Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code
uses - that are under different licences.
This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume
those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be)
This is nonsense.
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
The license is a conditional grant from you to others. If they fail to
comply with the conditions you can sue them for copyright infringement, but
Yet the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a
contract was alleged, in both of the first two U.S.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
Linking is not aggregation.
Static linking certainly is.
Only in Terekhov-Lala-land.
I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention static
linking doesn't aggregate in the GNU Republic. I want the
So you're saying that the copyright owners of the third party jars the
software uses cannot sue me for changing their licencing terms if I
distribute the binary version of my software with their jars? (Again
this assumes the GPL licence affects all libraries that are linked to my
code).
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
whilst with CPL
you will not be able to license your program at all with the ASL 2.0,
Nonsense.
but _ALSO_ you will exclude your program from sharing code with +-80% of
Free Software.
The GNU President's assertion regarding GPL incompatibility fiction
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 22:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
IP licenses are not akin to state permits.
What, Internet Protocol is licensed? Please specify what you mean by IP.
Internet Protocol? Patents? Copyright? Trademarks? Something else?
They are contracts. The
licensor can also be
Benjamin writes:
So you're saying that the copyright owners of the third party jars the
software uses cannot sue me for changing their licencing terms if I
distribute the binary version of my software with their jars?
You are _not_ changing their licensing terms. You _cannot_ change their
Benjamin writes:
The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses
This is impossible.
This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume those
associated libraries are GPL
Nothing in the GPL implies any such thing.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... snip GNUtian drivel ...]
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=viewartMonth=SeptemberartYear=2004EntryNo=1578
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
Hello.
I have been thinking about all the problems the GPL causes. My
solution is a new license called the Freedom License. Here it is:
THE FREEDOM LICENSE
Preamble:
What are the problems with the GPL and how does this new license solve
them? Many experienced software developers know about
Does this additional exception clause violate the GPL in any way? How
can it be compatible with the GPL if the clause states that they can
link some non-GPL jars, yet the GPL states all the linked in libraries
(distributed as a whole) must be GPL?
Its getting confusing... and I think some of
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Karen Hill wrote:
Hello.
... And goodbye (Karen is a kown troll).
___
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Karen Hill wrote:
Hello.
... And goodbye (Karen is a kown troll).
___
/| /| | |
||__||
The jars have open source licences and allow for distribution under
those licences.
The software will be being distributed as a web archive (a Java war
file, a kind of zip file with meta data for direct deployment in a Java
servlet container). As such the jars will need to be included for
Ben writes:
Does this additional exception clause violate the GPL in any way?
The GPL is not a law. It a model license. When you distribute software
under it you are stating terms which just happen to be identical to those
used by Richard Stallman for Emacs. The terms are yours, and you can
38 matches
Mail list logo
