...you're perfectly entitled to install and run GPL'd software without
accepting the GPL, because those rights are already conferred to you by
the fair use doctrine of copyright.
They are conferred[1], but not by fair use (in the US).
[1] More precisely, they are not reserved for the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
considered a derivative work. If I put instructions about where to
download a copy to be used against the intent of the license, am I not
party to the process?
You are a party to GNU utter moronity, dak. Hey ams heads up, dak is
new champion.
regards,
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:51:57 -0400
Stephen Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, however, the GPLed library in question is Qt, which is
readily available both under the GPL and a commercial license.
Presumably nothing in the example code insists that people use Qt
under the GPL, so
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
Stephen Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
a formality instead of an available technical option. However, if
there are practical uses
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
If its main purpose is to be compiled and run, things are different.
17 USC 117, retard.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
Linking == modification.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections
Uh moron dak. So in the GNU Republic the status of other people's
works changes instantaneously (somehow becoming less derivative) the
moment GNUtians decide to dual-license. Go to doctor.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:04:23 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:05:58 +0200
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But source code as such is never a derivative work of the stuff that
might or might not be called when the compiled program is executing.
Sure. But the question is whether the compiling and linking is done
at the choice of the end user, or whether
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
the resulting source code will contain the whole of
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
This is a weird example - distributing source code of a proprietary
product in order to compile and link it with GPLed libraries smacks
of putting the cart in front of the horse.
It smacks of license circumvention.
Only in your brain-damaged head. 17 USC
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in the transformed source code. If, for example,
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
in
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:10:45 +0200
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the distributor can prove that one typical use case for a
customer would be to let the code rot away without ever compiling or
linking it (indeed a typical use case for example code), then the
product does
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
You should read his later work as well.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
In plain language:
http://www.stromian.com/Corner/Feb2005.html
quote
Rosen is too polite to call for replacing the FSF licenses with his
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
clear that even a work which as a whole represents an original work of
authorship can be a derivative work.
Uh retard dak. The first rule of statutory construction is begin at
the beginning and the second rule is read on. Original simply means
creative
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
You should read his later work as well.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
In plain language:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed
library. I license my source code under a non-Free license to
Alex. He compiles my code, and links it with your
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:32:34 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I write an original program that happens to use your GPLed
library. I license my source code under a non-Free license to
Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
Guys, thanks for all the information. It was quite a read.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:08:47 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It should be noted to all that Davids opinion is exactly that, his
own; it is also a complete misrepresentation of the opinion of the
FSF. The FSF has been clear on this point, in that a GPL-incompatible
work that links to a
David Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:08:47 +0200 (CEST) Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It should be noted to all that Davids opinion is exactly that, his
own; it is also a complete misrepresentation of the opinion of the
FSF. The FSF has been clear on this point, in that a
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
Yeah right, bindings moronity.
URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
And special exception for major components (compiler, kernel, and
so on). (unless that component
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An original program in source code format, and contains function
and/or system calls does not consist of revisions, annotations,
elaborations or other modifications to the
On 17 Oct 2006 06:57:50 -0700
Louis B. (ldb) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
That was what I understood. IMHO, adding example source code that uses
Qt constructs is
David writes:
I would have thought that it's sufficient to publish *only* the example
program under the GPL.
It is more than sufficient.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An original program in source code format, and contains function
and/or system calls does not consist of revisions,
By linking to a GPLed library, which Qt is, you must abide by that
license.
Don't forget that the GPL only gives you extra rights. So you can still do
things without accepting the GPL. Typically you only need to accept the GPL
for a given product if you intend to distribute some derivative of
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:49:53 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:51:48 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An original program in source code format,
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
I have here a secondary literary work covering Ulysses, consisting
pretty much exclusively of annotations.
Uh moron dak.
http://www.viewerfreedom.org/legal/20030711Intel/20030711brief.pdf
---
... copyright law requires that a derivative work incorporate
David Kastrup writes:
I have here a secondary literary work covering Ulysses, consisting
pretty much exclusively of annotations. Where there are citations, they
are short enough not to count as copyrightable in itself. But it
certainly is a derivative work.
Under US law it may very well not
Stefan writes:
...you're perfectly entitled to install and run GPL'd software without
accepting the GPL, because those rights are already conferred to you by
the fair use doctrine of copyright.
They are conferred[1], but not by fair use (in the US).
[1] More precisely, they are not reserved
Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
You cannot annotate, revise, elaborate or otherwise modify without
anything of the original work.
I think that David is assuming annotations or elaborations that do not
include portions of the original works. I think that the copyright act is
assuming annotations or
Louis B. (ldb) wrote:
Just a minor point of clarification: I'm not including Qt code in my
SDK, just an example to show how it would be used, if desired.
Utterly moronic GNUtian copyleft derivative theory was sorta argued in the
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 13th [sic :-)] CIRCUIT.
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
I would go as far as to say that in the case of software, ...
---
No. 05-04001
__
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 13th CIRCUIT
__
OMEGA, INC.,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs,
or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever
license he fancies, without any recourse for the copyright holders
of the libraries and OSes
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Stefaan A Eeckels writes:
I firmly believe that the OP can distribute his example programs,
or even complete, useful programs in source format, under whatever
license he
Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:49:05 +0200
David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You define based on for source code as not runnable in compiled
format without the library and containing references to the
library's API. The way I would define based on
I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of this
sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code showing
how to use various elements of the sdk in various display enviornments.
We have on example based on X11, another for OpenGL. I want to include
a Qt example with
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
example program.
Does including this example source code in my distrubuted tarball
put the entire thing, including the sdk, under the GPL?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
example program.
How fascinating.
Hey ldb, ams' derivate means GNU-derived (incurable ueber GNUtian
retard ams'
You are not forced to anything, you agreed to follow the license; see
section 5 of the GNU GPL. But, it would be better if you respected the
rights of your users by making your library free software, would you
like to do that and help us in the fight against a society that
subjugates the
You are not forced to anything, you agreed to follow the license;
see section 5 of the GNU GPL. But, it would be better if you
respected the rights of your users by making your library free
software, would you like to do that and help us in the fight
against a society that
Hey ldb, your only GNU-ethical choice is to GPL your wife and kids (as
an extra to code) and sing the GNU song:
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
example program.
I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
SDK
Merijn de Weerd wrote:
[...]
I disagree. The example program is a derivative of both the
SDK library and the Qt library.
That must be the GNU Copyleft Act Section 666 or some such. Hey, do
you have a link, Merijn?
regards,
alexander.
___
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my sdk's
library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and the
example program.
Of course this is nonsense. Alfred confuses several different issues
that lead
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
While the SDK library is not derived from Qt, the complete example
program is derived from both SDK library and Qt.
^^^
Hey ldb, GNUtian dak means GNU-derived (see unwritten GNU Copyleft
Act). It has really nothing to do with software derivative
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
the example program.
I disagree.
And the FSF disagrees with you. From the GPL FAQ
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html):
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
the example program.
Of course this is nonsense. Alfred confuses several different
issues that lead to a particular result.
On 2006-10-16, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
the example program.
I disagree.
And the FSF disagrees with
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This example program would dynamically link to both Qt and my
sdk's library.
This would make this non-free SDK library a derivate of Qt and
the example program.
Of course this is nonsense. Alfred confuses several
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
If he cannot do that, then as a consequence [the OP] may not
distribute the Program at all. No infection, just a legal
Hey schizophrenic de Weerd, I think that you've been convinced at some
point that linking doesn't create software derivative works under
copyright except in the GNU Republic (i.e. under Stallman's copyleft***
not copyright, that is). Go take some medicine to end the crisis.
***) As GNU
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
a formality instead of an available technical option.
What are you smoking dak?
regards,
alexander.
On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
If he cannot do that, then as a consequence [the OP] may not
distribute
On 16 Oct 2006 07:37:56 -0700
Louis B. (ldb) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of this
sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code showing
how to use various elements of the sdk in various display
enviornments. We have on
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2006-10-16, David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Merijn de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The more correct terminology is that the OP can only distribute
the resulting (i.e. linked) work as a whole under the GPL.
If he cannot do that, then as a
I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of
this sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code
showing how to use various elements of the sdk in various display
enviornments. We have on example based on X11, another for
OpenGL. I want to
It should be noted to all that Davids opinion is exactly that, his
own; it is also a complete misrepresentation of the opinion of the
FSF. The FSF has been clear on this point, in that a GPL-incompatible
work that links to a GPL work is illegal. This is both answered in
the FAQ, and in other
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a proprietary sdk that is being distributed. As part of
this sdk, I have an /examples/ folder where I include source code
showing how to use various elements of the sdk in various display
enviornments. We have on example based
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:59:18 +0200 (CEST)
QuoteMaster Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
Of course not - you're not including Qt, are you? If it's source
code you wrote yourself, that happens to call Qt routines, then it
is not subject to the Qt license.
By linking
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It should be noted to all that Davids opinion is exactly that, his
own; it is also a complete misrepresentation of the opinion of the
FSF. The FSF has been clear on this point, in that a
GPL-incompatible work that links to a GPL work is illegal.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
Linking == modification.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unfortunately, Alfred's enthusiasm for free software often gets
the better of him and makes him claim theories that are not
supported by even the FSF. So when in doubt, rather consult the
relevant FAQs, license texts and the responsible
David Kastrup wrote:
The unlinked work may be affected, too, if its purpose can't be met
without linking, and thus the act of linking from the enduser becomes
a formality instead of an available technical option. However, if
there are practical uses without linking to the GPLed library (for
70 matches
Mail list logo
