Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm more concerned with pushing the ocaml.el discussion to a
conclusion.
One step on the way to a conclusion is to figure out whether the .el
files are derived from Emacs solely by virtue of using Emacs's APIs.
I've thought about this some more and
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
It concerned E-Lisp APIs. If you call cons or even unwind-protect,
that's clearly not copyrightable. But if you call
gnus-agent-cat-downloadable-faces, that's an internal function
call
An internal
Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An internal function call is not an API, and it is reasonable to
expect the law (as applied by courts with a clue, assuming that such
courts exist, yada yada) to treat them differently.
OK. Are you still talking
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinion at least - has very little to do with an
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinion at
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
It concerned E-Lisp APIs. If you call cons or even unwind-protect,
that's clearly not copyrightable. But if you call
gnus-agent-cat-downloadable-faces, that's an internal function
call
An internal function call is not an API, and it is
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/
PosSoftwareVNewCentury(DBstructures)(NDTex2003).htm
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:59, Jakob Bohm wrote:
TINLA, IANAL
Nor am I.
How does this relate to (override, narrow, whatever) the
precedent set by Lotus vs. Borland (the famous case about
Quattro Pro reproducing the Look and Feel of Lotus-1-2-3,
partially because it was also the Lotus-1-2-3
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:21:49PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 15, 2004, at 08:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it
copyrightable APIs,
Since when is an API protected
On Jan 15, 2004, at 08:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it
copyrightable APIs,
Since when is an API protected by copyright? And where?
Finally found it again!
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 15, 2004, at 08:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it
copyrightable APIs,
Since when is an API protected by copyright? And where?
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
Yep, upstream has already agreed to modify licence, probably to
either LGPL or to GPL/LGPL+QPL dual licence. I asked them what do
they care about dual licence, since the files are no use without
emacs, and i was told about an hypothetic non-GPLed emacs
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:54:16PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the .el source files use copyrightable material from emacs, be it
copyrightable APIs,
Since when is an API protected by copyright? And where?
--
Henning Makholm*Jeg* tænker *strax* på kirkemødet i
On Jan 12, 2004, at 13:34, Sven Luther wrote:
The DFSG issue might be a different story, but even there, i am not
sure
it is correct though, since the GPL cause problem at link time, not at
binary distribution time.
That is the same-old dynamic linking thing. Look at the archives of
-legal
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
And, were is the problem ? The GPL is especifically against
distributing the result of the linking of GPLed code with
uncompatible code.
No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking is
considered by the FSF to be a case of derivation,
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sven Luther wrote:
And, were is the problem ? The GPL is especifically against
distributing the result of the linking of GPLed code with
uncompatible code.
No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking is
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:10:00PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
DFSG #2:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
Package:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:18:40PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård)
No. The GPL restricts the creation of derivative works. Linking is
considered by the FSF to be a case of derivation, but it is certainly
not the only way that a derived work can be generated.
And since when does the FSF have the final word in
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There were proposals to use the LGPL (already the licence of the ocaml
runtime, except a small modification like the one gcc uses), or a dual
LGPL + QPL licencing. Would the LGPL be ok in the case of emacs .el
files,
Yes; since it is more permissive
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily
find any number of people that disagree with RMS about this, so
who's
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily
find any number of people that
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
Package:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 11:10:00PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation of
.elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is the
problem.
If Debian sets up everything so that the user
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
Yes, and I say linking isn't a
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, but as i see it, there is no need for such a licence change, and
the upstream author being an intelligent person, will probably
immediately see it, and respond to me : but there is no need for such
a change. And then, were do i stand ? I was
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:21:31AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, but as i see it, there is no need for such a licence change, and
the upstream author being an intelligent person, will probably
immediately see it, and respond to me : but there is
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:49:20PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There were proposals to use the LGPL (already the licence of the ocaml
runtime, except a small modification like the one gcc uses), or a dual
LGPL + QPL licencing. Would the LGPL be ok
Scripsit Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hoop jumping to evade the intent of licenses doesn't work unless you
have expensive lawyers. Which we don't.
And even if we had, we'd want *others* without expensive lawyers to
have the freedoms we promise them nevertheless.
--
Henning Makholm
Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
Package: ocaml
Version: 3.07.2a-2
Severity: serious
While looking for the invalid `if' form in caml-types.el, I
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is
the problem.
If the situation is perfectly clear and uncontroversial to you, either
you don't know
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is
the problem.
If
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is
the problem.
If the situation
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
Package: ocaml
Version: 3.07.2a-2
Severity: serious
While looking
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
Package:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 02:12:13PM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation
of .elc files.
Why ? We
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
DFSG #2:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form.
But we don't do distribute compiled forms, and it doesn't really
41 matches
Mail list logo
