[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one
can, at least within a single country.
I didn't see anyone else respond to this -- did I miss something?
Is this your reference? (from Version 2, June 1991)
quote
8. If the distribution
Ian Jackson scripsit:
Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use it?
Yes, it's impossible.
This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable'
only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I agree with the GPL's
authors, who consider this
John Cowan wrote:
Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition of
their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers.
Does that mean others are forbidden from *giving* them software,
or they violate their parole if they _receive_ software? In other
words,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (The regrettable use of all in Section 7 of the GPL):
Is distribution of R still impossible because Stallman can't use
it?
Yes, it's impossible.
This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do. So it's `regrettable'
only if you don't agree with the GPL's goals. I
Now this all seems extremely unfortunate to me. Suppose I file
for a patent P, the practice of which is required to run program R
released under the GPL. Normally, distribution of R would be impossible.
But suppose I issue the following public license: Everyone is allowed
to
John Cowan said on Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:23:01AM -0500,:
Now I point out that there are various persons who, as a condition
of their parole or probation, are not permitted to touch computers.
Distribution of GNU software to them is forbidden by law, and if
they do happen to have GNU
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
This is a logical fallcay. I fail to recall tht exact term. But the
rule is
Mahesh T. Pai scripsit:
That is a problem with the law, not with the GNU GPL. The GPL ccannot,
and does not seek to override the law.
But the GPL does say: if one person cannot receive and redistribute, no one
can, at least within a single country.
You need to clarify what you mean by
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
The probationer is not prevented from distributing the software
because of patent
Bjorn Reese wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 14:23, John Cowan wrote:
Therefore, the distribution of all GPLed software is, at least in
the U.S., forbidden by the terms of the GPL, and should come to a
screeching halt. I have spoken.
The probationer is not prevented from distributing the
A private mail drew to my attention the following sentence in Section 7
of the GPLv2:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
redistribution of the Program by *all* those who receive copies
directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
Yes, its distribution is still impossible. The GPL preserves its
generality through the generality of the provenance of copyright.
Various licenses may assert all manner of things, but the principled
position of the GPL inherently applies in this case.
(Or so I would say by way of taking a
12 matches
Mail list logo
