On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 04:08:51PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking the .o's of
the library directly with your program is
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing is that the kernel is indeed much like a library, but not
like a static one. The kernel is a lot like a shared library in
that it exists in memory, and has functions that can be called. It
is different mainly in that it stays in memory, and on
* Måns Rullgård:
The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a
library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
running a program that uses the library. This act being unrestricted
per
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:27:20AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Måns Rullgård:
The phrase running the Program is not directly applicable to a
library, so we have to assume that for libraries, this translates into
using the library, i.e. causing its code to be run, typically by
running
I'm the author of ike-scan, which is a GPL v2 licensed application that can
optionally use the crypto functions in the OpenSSL library. I am the author
and copyright holder of all the ike-scan source files which can use OpenSSL
functions.
The application uses the MD5 and SHA1 hash functions
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
These two do not appear to be
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
So, i wonder why it was accepted, if it was non-free. But maybe we just passed
it up silently and didn't notice ? Who was the ftp-master
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Sven Luther schrieb:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
Wrong.
Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a60-2), and looked at
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/star/star_1.4a17-3/star
.copyright
Took about
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations Convention on
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
Scripsit Roy Hills [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[program that links to OpenSSL wants to be GPL'ed]
The previous debian-legal advice mentioned above says to add the
following exception text to the GPL announcement in the source code:
1. Should this be added to every source file,
It should be added in
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Dalibor The application of the
Dalibor United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Dalibor of Goods is expressly excluded.
Dalibor
Dalibor [snip]
Dalibor
Dalibor That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly excluded.
That's my favourite bit of lawyerese in
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 05:04:00PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Lionel
Lionel The application of the
Lionel United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
Lionel of Goods is expressly excluded.
Lionel
Lionel Yes, but what does it *say*? What are the consequences
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of Goods is expressly
** Mark Rafn ::
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact
that linking the .o's of the library directly with your program
is equivelent to linking the library with the
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:20:13AM -0700, seven sins wrote:
i am looking for information on how the debian teams
views legal status of faac and xvid. work for a
company where we use debian, folks on the research
team want to do use these for some reason. before i
install these i wanted to
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, that
Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. Why? Because
if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library and install it
in my system just
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were
doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually be
upheld in the case of static libraries. The fact that linking
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
so i am not sure what facts i have to believe then.
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL.
Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library
and
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
file,
so i am not
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they
were doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may
actually be upheld in the case of static
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:22 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 06:50:00PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
While I would like to belive that the FSF knew exactly what they were
doing, I am not certain.
It is generally belived that the GPL 'derivative' clauses may actually
Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
linking against a
dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 08 September 2005 10:47 am, Humberto Mass Guimarães wrote:
Seems to me those signs all point to the idea the the mere
linking against a
dynamically linked library does not constitute a copyrighted work.
s/copyrighted/derivative/ ??
Good save The linked work is still
Here is the US definition of a derivative:
-
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such
as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization,
motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
abridgment,
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright
file, so i am not sure what
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
--cut--
Yeah, well, i did an apt-get
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
But what is clear is that a derivative work requires an act of copying the
original work of authorship. The caselaw in question is Lee v. A.R.T. Co.
(125 F.3d 580) where someone took a piece of art they purchased, fused it to
an
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:27:45PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
** Andrew Suffield ::
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es
wrote:
3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance,
that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of a
single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote:
The MPEG-LA claims to hold all the patents applicable to MPEG, and
that all these patents are valid, but since it's impossible for them
to know either of these things they are obviously lying.
They don't claim to do this at all.[1] All they say is
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The discussions on
CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
Let's do something about this.
At the same time, I'd like to experiment with an idea I've been toying
with for a slightly more (informally) directed
Remember: DERIVATIVE == TRANSFORMATION.
Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that Only the
verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications,
can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal.
The rest of your mail just ranted the same thing
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:32:26PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
I did _not_ just ranted the same. I did offer you an example of how you
are simply plain wrong -- as is the GPL FSF FAQ -- when you say that linking
to a library creates a derivative work.
Argument from authority and a
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:36:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's never been seriously tested in court.
What's to test? It's just method of licensing a slew of patents.
The legitimacy of their claimed patents.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' :
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments
surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
I can't argue with someone who
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal arguments
** Sean Kellogg ::
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think
that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal
arguments surrounding the GPL,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of
a
single person here on debian-legal.
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that:
On Sep 08, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, the choice of venue is a fee argument is just that: an
opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, therefore it
cannot make a license non-free.
Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we should
Le vendredi 09 septembre 2005 à 00:00 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
Yeah, but there is certainly more than a single person arguing that we
should
not distribute software with such licence.
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
of
On Sep 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is nothing wrong with this, and I'm not a fan of choice of venue
clauses either, but they should try to modify the DFSG then.
Could you explain why DFSG#5 couldn't be invoked in this case?
It does not work this way. If you believe
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:53:57AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that the
GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
Based on my readings of law review articles and the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:22:18PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es wrote:
If you're going to make an argument at odds with established
understanding and industry practice then you'll have to come up with
more than that.
There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think that
51 matches
Mail list logo
