Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
*get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license.
Do all download sites force you to read the licence
Hello,
What is the list's opinion of this entry in the FSF's GPL FAQ?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all binary
executables are just
Hello, ...
Some time ago i asked a question about a driver containing proprietary
closed source code.
I now got a licence proposal from Bewan :
Program code and documentation are
(C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
All rights reserved.
This package is free
Scripsit Oliver M. Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Both softwares are GPL, the fact that Pornview uses a lot of
GImageView's code verbatim or with modifications per se is not a
problem, but Pornview has stripped the original copyright notices
and also doing things like s/GImageView//g from variable
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 20:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Courts care not about the technical details of *how* you copy, but the
fact that you copy. You cannot copy qmail *at all* if you are making a
modified binary with it. This means you cannot
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Microsoft takes a bunch away, with the case of qmail, you *didn't*
purchase anything, and you have no rights to copy *anything*--to even
*get* the first copy--except under the terms of the license.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all binary
executables are just data to a kernel; yet the vendors of proprietary
Unices have always gone out of their way to
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
compiling it and running it.
If that's
Oliver M. Bolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we all remember the controversy around pornview's introduction
into Debian because of it's name. It's currently in the archieves but
there are reasons to believe pornview is infringing the copyright
(and open source ethics) of another image
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all binary
executables are just data to a kernel;
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:58:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Program code and documentation are
(C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
All rights reserved.
This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 10:05:09AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does the argument that a script is just data really hold water legally?
I would think they are just data in the same sense that all
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
with a
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be worrying about distributing GPL'd applications under
section 3 of the GPL. But that is only for object code or executable
form. Debian is distributing it under section 2. Furthermore, the
thing that Debian distributes doesn't have any
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, if it's the same I who do all four steps, some argument could
probably be made that I am in fact infringing on the original
software's copyrigt, under the it's the intended end result that
matters doctrine. However, if the steps are done by
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:49:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that distributing a GPL script together
with a
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arguing from common sense here, consider the case of someone who knows
C but doesn't know English. It would seem very unfair for them to be
punished merely for downloading the tar ball, editing the code,
compiling it and running it.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 01:20:36PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:58:33PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Program code and documentation are
(C) Copyright 2002 BeWAN systems
All rights reserved.
This package is free software;
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:48:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
What? How?
Because ftp.gnu.org doesn't require you to read the license either,
but does hold you to its restrictions.
Are you talking about the GPL here? The one that says, You are not
required to accept this License,
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:35:57AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
My concern is not with bindings (most PHP *bindings* seem to be
GPL-compatible), but with the interpreter itself; I don't see anything in
the GPL that states unequivocally that
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, if the steps are done by different parties, it will be
difficult to point to an individual party who is actually in
violation.
What establishes cahoots? Well, basically, anyone who did
For example, the one who ports the program to the
proprietary language may do it out of honest desire to make some good
free software available in what he sees as an exciting new
environment.
How does this differ from, say, Emacs on Windows? I'm sure that Emacs
has been extended to do some
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 02:00:27PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Section 3 gives you rights in addition to section 2. Section 3 lets
you distribute a particular kind of modification that is not allowed
in Section 2 (a modification that incorporates things that can not be
licensed under the
The QPL - its OSI approved i beleive
is it suitable for debian main programs (i beleive so)
The Q Public License Version 1.0
Copyright (C) 1999 Trolltech AS, Norway.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute this license document.
The intent of this license is to establish freedom to share
27 matches
Mail list logo
