I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run
it on a server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database
for my shopping website), you don't have to GPL your
modifications. Can anyone point me to an official statement on this
by the FSF or another
Rex writes:
Do you mean this?
Who is you? Are you replying to someone in particular? Hint: this is
Usenet, not a forum.
In other words, it wouldn't be OK to modify Emacs and allow people full
remote use of it on my server without giving out the source, but it would
be OK to modify MySQL so
Fung wrote:
You can make profit of the GPL licence, see for example redhat. But you
should be aware of one thing: using the commoncpp library will probably
mean you need to license your software under GPL, so the source code
must be provided.
Sez who?
regards,
alexander.
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question here. I
just want to know if it is legal to use the differently licensed
software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use eventhough the
licences exclude eachother
___
Gnu-misc-discuss
Dear folks,
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
derivative work combined from software licensed under the Apache
Software Licence 2.0 and software licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0 is not
possible,
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[...]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html
The funny thing is that the guy pretends to be a sort of anarchist.
In in interview with Spiegel Online Stallman said I tend toward the
left-wing anarchist idea, and to LinuxWorld Today he said I am a
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
lawfully made, dispose of, possession. It is clear that this
applies to physical copies acquired in an exchange of interest with
the copyright holder, not to things you duplicated
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
and
art 3 of the GPL licence: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a
work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 ...
art 4 of the GPL licence. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
distribute the Program except as expressly
For the sake of nailing stupid dak once again...
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
copies of the binaries to.
17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a
David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fung wrote:
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and
while reading the GPL licence the following question arose:
Distributing a derivative work combined from software licensed
under [whatever]
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
That must be why we have all those copyright violation lawsuits going
on.
We don't have any lawsuits. You (gnu.org folk), on the other hand,
have a nice lawsuit from Wallace. Kudos to him for calling the bluff
and achieving pretty good results already. For example,
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
No. You are only required to give copies of the source to those you give
copies of the binaries to.
17 USC 109 disagrees. The owner of a lawfully made copy is ENTITLED,
WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, to sell or otherwise
dispose of the possession of
You can make profit of the GPL licence, see for example redhat. But you
should be aware of one thing: using the commoncpp library will probably
mean you need to license your software under GPL, so the source code
must be provided.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss
Hey misc.int-property, enjoy GNUtian view on IP (it indeed is not
property and belongs to the state _under_ _current_ _laws_).
GNUtian David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fung wrote:
[... the GPL ...]
The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Fung wrote:
[... the GPL ...]
The GPL talks about legal regime in the GNU Republic in a nearby
alternative universe where First Sale is nonexistent, IP is not
property (it belongs to the state),
Intellectual property indeed is not property
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:52:32 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question
here. I just want to know if it is legal to use the differently
licensed software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use
eventhough
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:27:38 -0600, John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rex writes:
I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a
server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping
website), you don't have to GPL your modifications.
It's
Hi,
This isn't something related to the GPLv3, it is related to how patent
law works. So it is your task to check that you are not violating any
patents, and you cannot put the burden on someone else. This is one
of the major problem with software patents, it is impossible to check
that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fung wrote:
Dear folks,
I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
derivative work combined from software
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Claudio Nieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say I take GPLv3ed Program xyz and add to it some code. I don't
conduct any investigation about wether my code infringes on any patents,
as in Switzerland this is a non-issue. So I give modified xyz to a friend
here
22 matches
Mail list logo
