Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale
In article 5065832f.12351...@web.de, Alexander Terekhov terek...@web.de wrote: Thus copies made under copyleft (and other public licenses) fall under exhaustion doctrine preventing copyright owners (licensors) using tort theory (copyright infringement claims) regarding control of terms and conditions for further distribution. Right, and I hear that in the US income tax is unconstitutional. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?
In article buoaai4a43h@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote: For instance, gcc actually uses unicode quotes if LANG (or whatever) suggests it's possible... Setting LANG=C will save you from this. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using proprietary graphics in a free program
In article mailman.1861.1235661754.31690.gnu-misc-disc...@gnu.org, Tord Romstad tord.roms...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that he plans to hire a professional graphics designer to draw the piece images and some other graphics, and to keep these graphical image files proprietary. He asks me whether the GPL allows this, and I honestly don't know myself. Does anyone here know more about this? I suppose the question is whether the image files count as part of the source code of the program. If they are loaded at run-time, I would guess that the answer is no, especially if you can configure the program to load different ones. But since you are the author, you can license it on any terms you like. Do you want him to be able to do this? If so, you can add a clause to your licence explicitly allowing it, regardless of whether the vanilla GPL does. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Matt Assay Tells the Truth
In article u4odnyawuuxu3djunz2dnuvz_odin...@giganews.com, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: I love revisionist history. We've noticed. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Matt Assay Tells the Truth
In article _vodnzumo53tcznunz2dnuvz_juwn...@giganews.com, Rjack u...@example.net wrote: I have some unfortunate news for those socialists and communists who still believe that open source is their movement. Who ever thought that? Open source was always a watering-down of free software to make it more business-friendly. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Now it's my compiler!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My third party compiler is none of their damn business. I can paint it red, pee on it or give to charity -- it's simply none of their damn business. Feel free to try shipping Microsoft's C++ compiler with your program. The statement was an observation about the restrictions you typically find in commercial software, not about the GPL. You just misunderstood the wording, and are trying to cover up your mistake with bluster. -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Open source licenses upheld
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drunken self-contradictory idiots. Just as predicted! -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
What, no denunciations?
Why aren't the trolls denouncing the judge in the model railroad case as insane, drunk, etc? -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Software Fictional Licensing Center (SFLC) Files Another Round of GPL Violation Lawsuits
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have have never found any *verifiable* detail of *any* settlement of these lawsuits other than the court records available on PACER. I have never found any *verifiable* evidence that you're a real person. But then I've never thought it worth bothering to look. -- Richard -- In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9, consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. In each case, the defendant gave in and did what was required by the GPL. In each case, the plaintiffs dismissed before the Court could even read the text of the GPL. Because the defendants gave in. In your world, if someone pleads guilty to murder they've won because they get out of court even before the evidence is presented. Let me know when a court rules that it's ok to violate the GPL. -- Richard -- In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9, consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Their track record in court, as plaintiffs, is absolutely impressive: 1. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 2. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 3. Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. 4. Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice. Yes. In each case, the defendant gave in and did what was required by the GPL. -- Richard -- In the selection of the two characters immediately succeeding the numeral 9, consideration shall be given to their replacement by the graphics 10 and 11 to facilitate the adoption of the code in the sterling monetary area. (X3.4-1963) ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: How do Free software developers get money?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is that Eben Moglen doesn't appear to be a sponsor of his own charity and that it is the other way around in his case. And (supposing it's true; I neither know nor care) just what does this have to do with how Free Software developers are paid? Or are you just casting round for some mud in the hope that it will stick? -- Richard -- :wq ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLed Software Expiration Date
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Koh Choon Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to find out how long would a software be under the GNU GPL before it expires and transfers to the public domain. Forever? The GPL gives you the right to copy something that copyright law would otherwise restrict you from. So the issue is how long copyright lasts in your country. Assuming the GPL is an enforceable contract -- it isn't -- the permissions would last for thirty five years, which is the maximum duration of an irrevocable copyright license. See 17 USC ยง 203(a)(3)). Supposing your interpretation of your country's law is correct, what is the relevance of that limit to the original question, which is not about when the permissions end, but about when the software becomes public domain? -- Richard -- :wq ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL Mere Aggregation question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was once a company called SCO [...] Remind me, who sued whom? This is reminiscent of David Irving, whose defenders talk about the Deborah Lipstadt libel action as if he were the victim of oppressive lawsuits, when in fact he sued her. -- Richard -- :wq ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLed Software Expiration Date
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Koh Choon Lin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to find out how long would a software be under the GNU GPL before it expires and transfers to the public domain. Forever? The GPL gives you the right to copy something that copyright law would otherwise restrict you from. So the issue is how long copyright lasts in your country. -- Richard -- :wq ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU/Linux Naming
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One does not call BSD using Mach for Mach, one calls it BSD. I'm not sure what you mean by for Mach, but if you mean one doesn't call it Mach then you're mistaken. I have often heard people refer to it that way, and I can't recall ever hearing them refer to it as BSD. -- Richard -- :wq ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- FSF: A Quick Guide to GPLv3
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], James White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nobody should be able to stop you from writing any code that want, ***and GPLv3 protects this right for you***. When were the GPL folks given the right to write and establish what IS the LAW? I don't see any mention of law in the statement you quote. Also you might want to check your caps lock key, it seems to be operating randomly. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Monsoon settles: complies with GPL, pays undisclosed sum
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL is D.O.A. under a F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss in a US federal court. Seems to work though, doesn't it? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Monsoon settles: complies with GPL, pays undisclosed sum
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL and Linux keeps Micro$oft out of hot water with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Empowering Micro$oft to maintain its hegemony in the U.S. software market without D.O.J. interference is certainly triumphant evidence that the GPL works. The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots. Wallace v. IBM et al. (No. 06-2454)(7th Cir. 2006) So what's your theory? That we shouldn't have alternative operating systems, so that we can better claim that Microsoft is a monopoly? In other news: rjack cuts his nose of to spite his face. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Monsoon settles: complies with GPL, pays undisclosed sum
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [rant deleted] Yawn. One minute it's GPL is going to be overturned by the courts, and when that doesn't happen you back off to you can't destroy Microsoft. None of your ravings have the slightest bearing on real life. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And to reiterate, Miles does not represent or speak for GNU. So he cannot state who does or does not represent the GNU project. Anyone can state facts. Who you find more reliable depends on lots of factors. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Did I finally figure out the rationale?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mike3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gnu.misc.discuss is a mailing-list gatewayed to a newsgroup. Really. I didn't know, I just thought it was a newsgroup. So then everything here is emails? Whoa... No, it's both. Some people read it and post to it through usenet, others through mail. The relaying evidently sometimes results in people seeing mangled addresses. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that pieces of GPLed programs _can't_ be used in programs licensed under a different license. Sure they can. You can use pieces of a GPLed program in a program that is licensed under the modified BSD license. Ofcourse, the resulting work has to be under the terms of the GPL, but the work is still under several different licenses. How is it under several different licences if it has to be under the GPL? Or do you just mean that the version that *didn't* use GPL code was under another licence? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In your email's headers one can read: He's not sending email. He's posting an article to the gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup. If you are seeing it as email, it's because you are using a usenet-to-email gateway, and that's what's adding your domain. No-one else sees that address. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyright licenses apply to work, idiot. Copyright arises from works, licenses (which require copyright) apply to copies. Stop being an utter idiot. Think human brain. And why I'm not surprised that in the GNU Republic copyleft licenses apply to human brains (copies). You're drivelling. If you have a point, please make it. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU License, Again
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that this provides a problem for dual-licensed code like that from Trolltech: they provide a GPLed version of their code, and they sell a version that can be linked into proprietary programs. Assuming that those are the same, you can create and distribute a non-GPLed program suppsed to link to the library, and you can, obviously, not be sued for contributory infringement/distribution if your customer links a copy of the library he obtained under the GPL into it. As long as the customer does not redistribute, he also does not violate the GPL. Presumably most of Trolltech's commercial licensees are selling products in an environment where telling the customer to obtain and use a library is not practical. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even if I don't distribute their libraries. What _is_ restricted is the distribution of a binary that links the different codes: that is no longer a mere aggregation or an independent work. It is derivative work. So you say: Big deal, I won't link it then. The customer has to do it. Now if the only conceivable use of the software _is_ to link it to a free version of the software, the linking is an integral part of the whole activity, and the customer does the linking _on_ _behalf_ of the software producer, in order to complete the deal. Since the customer is acting on behalf of the producer, it does not actually matter that the producer does not himself do the assembly: he is still responsible for it. The case I am thinking of did indeed involve readline. The program was (IIRC) distributed as source but not under the GPL (probably under a non-commercial or educational licence), and the author added an optional readline interface. It seems far from clear that what was distributed constituted a derivative work - has there been a test case? It seems quite plausible that it's the customer who creates the derivative work when he builds the system with readline. Otherwise, surely any program written to use a Windows-specific API would be a derivative work of Windows. Is Aquamacs a derivative work of MacOS X? As far as I know, there is no alternative implementation of Apple's user interface libraries. This theory would also mean that whether something is a derivative work can be changed by the actions of an independent third party. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which _only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make any sense otherwise. In that case, it is hard to claim that the whole kaboodle was not intended to be linked with readline. Oh, it was vertainly intended to be (optionally) linked with readline. No. It means that when the derivative is _created_ (and the binary in-memory image _is_ a derivative of the parts loaded into it) by a _dependent_ third party, some of the responsibility for that act might still lie with the distributor. But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't distribute the derivative work, where does the GPL come into it? To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two things: distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and contribute to the creation of a derivative of readline. Which of these requires a licence? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the GPL only covers distribution. And copyright law covers derivatives. So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a licence. If I create a modified version of Emacs and don't distribute it, what allows me to? To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two things: The whole hinges on the question whether he has done two things or one. Namely whether they can be legally considered completely independent. distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and contribute to the creation of a derivative of readline. Which of these requires a licence? Trick question already insinuating that the acts are independent. So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution of a derivative work of MacOS X? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution of a derivative work of MacOS X? In order not to have to rely on a particular interpretation of this question, the GPL states in section 3: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of these. So according to your theory, when a user runs Aquamacs they create a derivative work of MacOS X. If I required the FSF's permission to distribute a work that links with readline (ignoring that there is now an alternative implementation), surely I require Apple's permission to distribute a program that links with their libraries. This does not seem like a desirable situation. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of these. So according to your theory, when a user runs Aquamacs they create a derivative work of MacOS X. If I required the FSF's permission to distribute a work that links with readline (ignoring that there is now an alternative implementation), surely I require Apple's permission to distribute a program that links with their libraries. This does not seem like a desirable situation. I propose that you read the license coming with the development version of Apple's libraries. Of course you will have to heed Apple's conditions for distributing their code. I'm not suggesting that Apple does not allow you to do this. What I find surprising is that Apple *could* legally stop people distributing programs for their operating system. So just to get this straight, do you agree that your theory would allow Apple to do this? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't distribute the derivative work, where does the GPL come into it? The original author might be found liable for contributory infringement. On the face of it, no-one has distributed a derivative work, so that there is no infringement to contribute to. But David's theory that the two acts together constitute distribution might be correct. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't relicense the work of others under any license you like, period. Regardless how much or little you add to it. This begs a question, dear GNUtian dak. How come that Linux kernel as a whole (in GNU speak) isn't under the BSD (all other non-GPL'd works constituting Linux kernel project aside for a moment)? Because you *can* relicense the work of others under any licence that *they* like. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your project is a compilation (this legal term includes collective works) under copyright law. Terekhov is not a reliable source of information. Your project may well be a derivative work rather than a compilation. If in doubt, consult a legal expert. In any case, presumably you would not want to violate the wishes of the author whose work you are using, even if you could. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [presumably court opinions about derivative works - I have no intention of reading them] So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they wish to prevent their work from being used in this way? Or do you think authors should be required to allow it? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they wish to prevent their work from being used in this way? What do you mean? I have some software. Someone else wants to use my software in their project, and distribute the result. I don't want them to be able to do that unless they distribute their own source and allow others to redistribute it. You claim that the GPL doesn't have that effect, because the other project is merely a compilation. So how should I word my licence to achieve the effect I desire? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want to be able to restrict software of others, not only yours. If they use my code, then yes. Of course, no-one is required to use my code. It seems a reasonable offer: you use my code, you follow my rules. Is there some reason I shouldn't be able to do that? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Question about GPL theft
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tin Tin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the BSDs copies some GPL'ed code and releases it under the BSD license. What you stated has just happened. I think he knows about what happened. He's asking who would be liable if Microsoft then used the BSD code. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yada, yada, yada. As if first sale (copyright exhaustion in EU speak) were nonexistent not only in the GNU Republic but everywhere. That would only allow you to transfer your copy, not make more copies. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patents, copyrights, and to a lesser extent trademarks are all transferrable rights against the world and thus have enough of the characteristics of property to be treated as a form of property by the law. The law his given certain property-like attributes to things which would not otherwise have them. Lumping these together as intellectual property suggests that it is natural for them to have those and other attributes of physical property. Naturally, various interests would like this to be the case, and using the term intellectual property plays into their hands. The same goes for using terms like theft and stealing when referring to copyright infringement. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stefaan A Eeckels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it just means that they have not yet been universally accepted as property. We have no problems considering land (real estate) property, but traditionally Bantu societies do not consider that land can be owned by an individual. There are no natural characteristics of property, just accepted ones. There are natural characteristics of physical objects, which are related to the laws we have about them. It is a characteristic of physical objects that if one person owns them, another person doesn't. That some societies don't allow land to be owned doesn't change that fact. However so-called intellectual property does not have this characteristic, because a copy is readily made and as good as the original. The law gives abstract works that characteristic by granting monopolies such as copyright and patents. To reiterate: the distinction between physical property and intellectual property arises from facts about the world, not just conventions of society. Naturally, various interests would like this to be the case, and using the term intellectual property plays into their hands. The same goes for using terms like theft and stealing when referring to copyright infringement. Of course. People will try and protect what butters their bread. Some people will. People organised into companies are particularly liable to this. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh moron. Property is property, that is to say, it belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it without his or her consent. Intellectual property is property. And property is theft. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: gpl licensing
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Intellectual property is property. And property is theft. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon As usual, you miss the point. Just as the fact that's there's an often-quoted assertion property is theft doesn't prove that property IS theft, the fact that someone coined the phrase intellectual property does not mean that such a thing exists. Both are just slogans for a political viewpoint. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: software patents
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], rjack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. So any source code that implements the method or procedure of a software patent cannot be copyrighted. No. The quoted paragraph says that copyright protection does not extend to the idea, procedure, ... itself. It doesn't say that it does not extend to the source code that implements it. So (in the absence of patents) you can copy the method but not the code. Of course in many other countries there are no software patents. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [more deliberate misinformation deleted] Tell you what, why don't you get a copy of the GNU Emacs source, decline to accept the GPL, and start distributing modified copies of it with a licence fee. By your theory this would be completely legal, since it's agreeing to the GPL that takes away your right to do it. Of course, you'd probably get one of those brain-dead judges there seem to be so many of, so perhaps you'd better not risk it. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Without acceptance, an act of creating a derivative work (forget 17 USC 117 adaptations for a moment) is a copyright violation, distribution or no distribution. An author of a derivative work who accepts the GPL has copyright in a derivative work but is required to surrender a right to charge more than zero for derivative work. So without accepting the GPL, you have no right to create a derivative work, but you have the right to licence, for a charge, the work you can't create? Just how would you go about exercising this mythical right? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyleft requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative works. No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to certain conditions, which is a right that you wouldn't otherwise have at all. Try exercising your right to distribute derivative works of Microsoft Windows for a charge, and see how far you get. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Copyleft requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for derivative works. No, it *gives* you the right to distribute derivative works subject to certain conditions, which is a right that you wouldn't otherwise have at all. With one of those certain conditions being a requirement to surrender right to charge for derivative works. So your no is actually yes. No, it's a no. You don't have to surrender any rights, because you didn't have them in the first place. It just doesn't give you the right you seem to want. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it's a no. You don't have to surrender any rights, because you didn't have them in the first place. It just doesn't give you the right you seem to want. Copyright law gives it, stupid. Copyright law gives authors a right to charge more (attribution: EASTERBROOK). Copyright law does not give you a right to distribute derivative works, so it certainly doesn't give you a right to charge for them. -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An author of a derivative work who accepts the GPL has copyright in a derivative work but is required to surrender a right to charge more than zero for derivative work. To surrender something you must first have it. So when was it that they had the right to distribute the derivative work for a charge? Before or after they accepted the GPL? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: EASTERBROOK's quick look on the GPL and Wallace's claim
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Plonker Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To surrender something you must first have it. So when was it that they had the right to distribute the derivative work for a charge? Before or after they accepted the GPL? [...] One just can't charge *for* a derivative work before it is created (futures aside for a moment :-) ). A copyright arises as soon as (derivative) work is created (lawfully). 17 USC 117 allows creation of derivative works (adaptations) without a license. Typical Terekhov twisting. I ask when you have a right to distribute, and you reply that you have a right to create. The GPL acceptance is triggered by distribution of *already created* derivative works under the terms of the GPL. And until you accept the licence, you have no right to distribute. plonked Are you going to wait for someone else to follow up my article before you reply this time, Mr Plonker? -- Richard -- Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The web didn't really start with http, there were many other things, like newsgroups: There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the case of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the case of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet. Depends very much on what you define as the internet. I mean the large network running internet protocols. Of course, nowadays most newsgroup traffic goes over the internet, but that was not originally the case. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the case of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet. Depends very much on what you define as the internet. I mean the large network running internet protocols. And that depends on what you define as an internet protocol. In my book, NNTP is a internet protocol, and was so from day one. Yes, that's right, NNTP is an internet protocol. I'm not sure why you bring it up though. I think we agree on which network I am referring to by the internet. Of course, nowadays most newsgroup traffic goes over the internet, but that was not originally the case. Sure it was, but this ofcourse depends on how you define the internet. :-) If we define the internet as agreed above, newsgroup traffic did not originally go over it. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were many other things, but they weren't the web. In the case of newsgroups, they weren't even the internet. Erms... the Internet is now based on IP, as it may be very well based on something else in the future, and certainly didn't start as IP, although it wasn't called Internet then. Well, it seems a little strange to say it was the internet when it wasn't called the internet and was based on internet protocols, but even if you do, it wasn't what newsgroups used. Newsgroups were originally distributed by UUCP, and that certainly wasn't the internet. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote: Well, it seems a little strange to say it was the internet when it wasn't called the internet and was based on internet protocols, Obviously I meant wasn't based on internet protocols. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- raya's research on The Four Freedoms
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newsgroups were originally distributed by UUCP, and that certainly wasn't the internet. Newsgroups (and mail) where distributed using various means. UUCP was just one of them. Can we please stop this history revisionism? Oh look, you missed the word originally. Why am I not surprised? -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU/Linux Super Promotion on VISTA release day.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karen Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As we are all well aware, Vista is upon us soon. What's Vista? -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Open source - Free software
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freeware by definition is software which is distributed without fee, so it cannot by definition be distributed commercially. Can you explain the so in that sentence? Why does the fact that it is distributed without fee preclude it from being distributed commercially as well? -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Open source - Free software
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, freeware is a term of art that refers to a specific distribution methodology What distribution methodology is that? -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Open source - Free software
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can be distributed at no cost. Where did you get that definition? I don't think most people's use of the term excludes free programs. When there is a charge on them, it usually does. Few people will call Redhat Enterprise Linux freeware since you will be hard to put to get it outside of an expensive subscription arrangement, in spite of it being free software. So some free software is - in that view - not freeware. But I was denying Alfred's assertion that freeware is necessarily non-free. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Open source - Free software
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for the act of distributing it. Otherwise, it is not free software. What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from charging a fee for the act of distributing it? I didn't write about freeware, I wrote about free software. You claimed that free software can't be freeware. You said (of freeware): it does exclude free software, since free software by definition is commercial software too. You claim that free software can't be freeware because free software is commercial, and you explain your assertion that free software is commercial on the grounds that you can charge a fee for distributing it. Supposing we accept that free software is commercial in that sense, you argument only works if being commercial software in that sense means that it can't be freeware. Do you in fact claim that? If so, why? -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU Free Database License
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, a photo isn't a fact, while a dictionary is a list of facts (definitins). And you cannot copyright a fact (or has this been changed recently?), like the fact that hello is a common greeting used in the English language. What you can copyright is the presentation of said fact. [Saying you can copyright something doesn't make much sense nowadays; a work is automatically subject to copyright as soon as it is made.] The usual term is *expression*, not presentation. Expression includes the words you use, presentation might suggest that it's confined to layout or something like that. So a dictionary is copyrighted, but only in the sense of how it presents its facts. Such as the way it expresses the definitions. Now it might well be judged that there's not much scope for creativity in the definition of a single word - though that varies a lot; it's often quite difficult to construct a concise definition that captures the difference between one word and another - but the sum total of the definitions in a dictionary certainly amounts to a lot of creativity. If you had the same definition of hello as the OED: An exclamation to call attention; also expressing some degree of surprise, as on meeting any one unexpectedly. you might get away with it even though the chance of you choosing that exact definition is negligible, but having the same definition for *all* the words would be quite another matter. Much like you can copyright the presentation of phonebook, e.g. using some specialised layout. But you cannot copyright the name + number in that phone book, since that is considered a `fact'. The difference in creativity between giving a phone number and giving a definition seems so obvious that I can't really understand why you equate them. By the way, the phone directory *is* subject to copyright in some countries (such as the UK), absurd though that is. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU Free Database License
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing all those definitions in the dictionary requires creativity, so you get copyright on the dictionary. It is about as creative as listing phone numbers and names This is a very odd view. Have you ever tried producing good definitions for words? I don't have any references, but I seem to recall that only the presentation of a dictionary can be copyrighted I would not advise putting any faith in this claim. If it were true, you would easily be able to find the definitions from, say, the OED freely available online, which is not the case. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The no charge clause is for _licensing_, And licensing to do what? To distribute further copies of your copy, not to receive a copy in the first place. You don't need a licence to receive and use a copy. A can charge B for a copy of GNU Emacs, but he can't charge B for the right to give a copy to C. But of course Terekhov knows this, he is just trying to muddy the waters. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Question reguarding GNU FDL license
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [junk] Go away, we're talking about you, not to you. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be a substantial profit for the buyer here: they get a program for nothing. I was talking about a profit for seller You were pretending to answer David Kastrup's very reasonable comment: Well, that is what is called civilization and culture. Not having to reinvent the wheel, but profiting from the knowledge created by others. by pretending that he was using profit in your narrow sense. Fortunately the rest of us don't live in your fantasy world. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but I don't understand the rationale for MAKING THE LICENSE THAT WAY, why it demands the original code become GNU ***and be USELESS for non-GNU projects without making them GNU***. It's that last part in asterisks that I hate. The distribution of said combined work should have NO BEARING on ANY other works that have NO 3rd-party code in them but are based on ORIGINAL code from the combined work! The people who wrote the GNU licence wrote it to further their own goals, which are not the same as yours. I am at a loss as to why you think they should have written it in such as way as to help you achieve things they don't want to support. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the motivation for requiring people to make all their original work free if they use the free code. Could you explain? More detailed than it's needed or it works. You'd have to ask the author of the software in question. I like to share my code with others. But to me, it seems only fair that if I let other people use my code for free, then they should do the same with theirs. If they want to make money out of it, they should pay me some of it. So I release it under the GPL and under other licences for commercial use. Some people take the view that it's immoral to not let people examine and modify the source code of a program, so they want to ensure that their code can't be restricted in that way. The GPL is a fairly effective way to do that. But I'd still like an answer -- if one (anyone) uses a _library_ that's GNU in one's program, does that mean the _program_ has to be GNU? If you distribute the library and the library is licensed under the GPL, then yes. (I believe that the FSF asserts that even if you *don't* distribute the library, if there's no way to run the program without it then it's a derived work and must therefore be under the GPL, but that's a separate issue.) If the library is under the LGPL, you don't have to GPL your program. Another question: if you compile and link with the GNU GCC compiler does that mean you have to give that program you compile GNU license, or not? Ie. if I make a program with NO GNU code in it, THEN compile link w/GNU GCC and GNU runtime, etc. libraries do I have to GNU it? Compiling with gcc doesn't put anything under the GPL. I believe that the GNU C library, glibc, is licensed under the LGPL. But you should check this. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I don't know _WHY_ the license is made this way, WHAT is the motivation for requiring people to make all their original work free if they use the free code. Could you explain? More detailed than it's needed or it works. You'd have to ask the author of the software in question. I like to share my code with others. But to me, it seems only fair that if I let other people use my code for free, then they should do the same with theirs. If they want to make money out of it, they should pay me some of it. So I release it under the GPL and under other licences for commercial use. Some people take the view that it's immoral to not let people examine and modify the source code of a program, so they want to ensure that their code can't be restricted in that way. The GPL is a fairly effective way to do that. But I'd still like an answer -- if one (anyone) uses a _library_ that's GNU in one's program, does that mean the _program_ has to be GNU? If you distribute the library and the library is licensed under the GPL, then yes. (I believe that the FSF asserts that even if you *don't* distribute the library, if there's no way to run the program without it then it's a derived work and must therefore be under the GPL, but that's a separate issue.) If the library is under the LGPL, you don't have to GPL your program. Another question: if you compile and link with the GNU GCC compiler does that mean you have to give that program you compile GNU license, or not? Ie. if I make a program with NO GNU code in it, THEN compile link w/GNU GCC and GNU runtime, etc. libraries do I have to GNU it? Compiling with gcc doesn't put anything under the GPL. I believe that the GNU C library, glibc, is licensed under the LGPL. But you should check this. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Sorry, not interested in wasting my time on you. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to me, it seems only fair that if I let other people use my code for free, then they should do the same with theirs. If they want to make money out of it, they should pay me some of it. Then you'd better stop releasing your code under the GPL (or any other Free license) because they certainly can make money out of it and not pay you any. Very likely, but it's not so important that I'm going to go to great lengths about it. It seems to work in practice. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU licenses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why? If a program that was previously non-GPL was made GPL, doesn't that mean the amount of non-GPL code shrinks?! No, the old version of it is still non-GPL. -- Richard ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
