Good evening!
I'm developing an error-correcting code library which works on a lot of data
at once. Since the API is quite simple and the cost of process creation
relatively insignificant, I would like to provide a command-line API.
I feel this has several engineering advantages:
1) it's easier
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:59:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Sublicensing means that you are still bound by the original licence,
but you can offer any licence in the specified range to those you
distribute to.
Quite so, and I should have clarified that point. If Alice licenses
a work
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Good evening!
I'm developing an error-correcting code library which works on a lot of data
at once. Since the API is quite simple and the cost of process creation
relatively insignificant, I would like to provide a command-line API.
I feel this
* Wesley W. Terpstra
| What can I do to prevent the above scenario from happening?
I don't think you can, at least not while keeping the library DFSG
free. (I guess it would be fairly trivial to write up a similar
application which would not be affected by your license for the
application,
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't work at all.
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
What I am concerned about is the following scenario:
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's client can't
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:00:54PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 02 novembre 2004 à 21:53 +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra a écrit :
Mr. John Wontshare writes a streaming multicast client.
To deal with packet loss, he uses my error-correcting library.
Without my library, Mr. Wontshare's
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:30:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Given that Mr. Wontshare's client represents only a small investment of
effort, refuses to port doesn't sound like much of a problem.
I meant to say relatively small investment; sorry.
Even simple applications can be hard to rewrite
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
not is irrelevant.
Mr. Wontshare's program *uses* the GPL program, but isn't derived
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
not is irrelevant.
Mr. Wontshare's
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Or else, his is a derivative work of whichever one he makes use of.
If he ships with one of them, his intention seems to be clear.
I don't see how that is logically inconsistent.
It's all about causality. Consider two
You can post to d-legal even if you're not subscribed.
(reply separate)
--
Glenn Maynard
---BeginMessage---
(Please forward to debian-legal; I don't seem to be able to sign up for it
successfully.)
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
This also implies that, for example, Licensor hereby agrees to provide
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
This also implies that, for example, Licensor hereby agrees to provide
a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work ...
means if you distribute this, you're the licensor, so *you* agree to
provide This clause reads as if it says the original
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:30:42PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
but I can distribute it under the X11
license, so the person I send it to is no longer forced to include source
(or to grant patent licenses, and so on).
Just so. AFL original and derivative works may be redistributed under
any
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
Watch out: it only says if you sue me for patent infringement, you lose
your license, not you can't sue me for patent infringement.
Of course. I was oversimplifying.
General (but not unanimous) feeling on d-legal is that choice of venue is
not free. (This is
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:03:49PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
The AFL's restrictions are intended to protect the licensor and his
original licensees. Other persons (including said licensees if they
choose to become licensors as well) can undertake whatever obligations
they wish to.
It seems
Glenn Maynard scripsit:
It seems that this license is actually doing two fundamentally distinct
things: granting a license to people to do stuff, and making promises
from the distributor/licensor.
Correct.
I think this combination is what makes it
so confusing: it looks like it requires
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:24:29PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Could you give an example of something that would contradict the AFL,
that isn't allowed? (If I'm allowed to distribute the work under the X11
license, then it seems like anything is allowed, except for obvious things
like
19 matches
Mail list logo
