or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Some of these can be registered as trademarks, and hence also be
subject to violation.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
modifies machine code. I'll leave resolving
whether that has any implications to copyright/license issues to
someone else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that says on the first page: take chapters 3 and 6 from book Foo
and insert after chapter 4 in this book, then read the result.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
not call it a free license. Would such a
restriction even be valid under copyright law (or whatever law
applies)?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) schrieb:
Wouldn't such a book be allowed? I can't see anything that would stop
it.
You're probably right. I wasn't looking for something that wouldn't be
allowed, but for something that is as close as possible
the license actually says, and nobody seems to know that for
sure. I personally feel uncomfortable with applying a license that
1) nobody knows what it means, and 2) the FSF can change the terms of
at any time.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
? Would
there be another possible interpretation otherwise? If that's the
case, why not mention programs that allow only one specified version?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
work might be, just to take an example. Maybe it was
because the author himself actually could figure out the bit about the
license version, but didn't more of a clue than anyone else about the
parts that really matter. Then again, maybe there was some other
reason.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
are
the ones that apply to me), and I couldn't find the slightest hint of
a definition for anything.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
I suppose
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
what a derived work might be, just to take an example.
It's
, because it is
often difficult, if not impossible, to explain some things
non-technically and still be accurate.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
work. The GPL lets
you do anything can think of privately. Copyright law allows private
modifications necessary to use a program as intended. Linking a
plugin into the host program would typically be required to use it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but they have no external dependencies, so it
doesn't matter.
Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the
one with the more expensive lawyer wins.
True.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
BTW, what's up with gnu.org?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a software patent.
Hmm, which one? Is there some patent that covers software in general
now? Not that I'd be surprised.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
of some questionable legalities.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
than the latter.
I'm doing the first two of those.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
not.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
perhaps isn't as free as it's advocates want it
to look like.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program? in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other interpretations of that section, please
enlighten me.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Especially when it's the subject of many controversies and FUD.
Now your argument about what constitutes a derived work is worthy of
consideration.
Does anyone have any pointers to previous discussions on that matter?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
those plugins compiled?
Well, if you believe the GPL FAQ, just use the Magic Copyright Barrier:
fork+exec.
I prefer not to do it that way for technical reasons. Besides, that
FAQ is silly.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that might be the case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
cash to ensure the outcome is what I want, though.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
software is allowed. Where is the
fundamental difference if the format of the wrapper is changed from
iso9660 to tar, and the internal files are shared objects instead of
tar files?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
interface as opposed to the
implementation of that interface.
That is the case.
What about source distributions? Is it allowed to distribute source
code licensed under the X11 license that uses a GPL'd library?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
what choices of license for my program would allow
distribution of binaries, and also what would be DFSG-free. I'd
appreciate some comments about these matters.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
my opinion, placing two shared objects in the same tar file doesn't
make one a derived work of the other. Would it make a difference if
the offending (to rms) plugins were distributed separately?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to the usual BSD License. Since there
appears to be no such connection, it is misleading to BSD in the
name. Why did you choose that name?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to make it clear which of these versions you actually
mean, or the judge/jury/lawyers may well choose the other, if there is
ever a court case.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
? Or is the protocol patented or copyrighted in some
way? If such a server is legal, then a non-authorized client would
also have a possible legal use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, what does everyone think? Is there any branch of law which could give
the person or company that thought up how to play a game a claim against a
separate, not-otherwise-infringing implementation of such a game?
Yes, a fat wallet.
--
Måns
or Xiphophorus. Does
anyone know who they are?
IMHO, it's just silly to not use your real name. What is there to
fear?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
201 - 236 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
