On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:15:17 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Looking at the explanation: neutralising EUCD/DMCA-type laws is
good, but using GPLv3 comes with the cost of endorsing things like
the Affero GPL.
... and despite its length, it does not even implement
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work
or create a derivative work to read and understand his countries
copyright laws?
The FSF has recently published A Quick Guide to GPLv3
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:55:13 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed
work or create a derivative work to read and understand his
countries copyright laws?
The FSF has recently published A
Francesco Poli wrote:
Looking at the explanation: neutralising EUCD/DMCA-type laws is good,
but using GPLv3 comes with the cost of endorsing things like the
Affero GPL.
... and despite its length, it does not even implement an actually
working copyleft mechanism. :-(
Francesco, that's very
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 06:15 +0530, Shriramana Sharma a écrit :
Francesco Poli wrote:
... and despite its length, it does not even implement an actually
working copyleft mechanism. :-(
Francesco, that's very surprising. Can you please elaborate, or have you
posted your opinion on
The one thing that's going to trip a lot of people up is that
does linking create a derivative work is no longer a relevant question.
That's because linking is now an act that makes things part of
the SOURCE CODE:
Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with
source
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:18PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work or
create a derivative work to read and understand his countries copyright
laws?
Ignorance of law is usually no defense in a
Olive wrote:
Following this text it is rather clear that you cannot link GPL software
with a non GPL-compatible library. But what the other way around? Why
would it be forbidden to link non GPL sofwares with GPL-only libraries?
It's not forbidden. A derivative work of GPL and non-GPL
Olive wrote:
Another problem with the GPL is that it is mentioned that only the
English language version is valid while some law s(France ?) might
requires a contract to be written in the local language.
Where does the GPL say only the English-language version is
legally binding?
Neither
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:37:33AM +0100, Olive wrote:
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:18PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work or
create a derivative work to read and understand his countries
On 07/11/2007, Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First time I've seen TINLA used with IAAL instead of IANAL.
Well, really it's the IAALs who need to worry about making that clear
more than the IANALs.
:) Hello John, nice to meet you.
Thanks for the welcome. :-)
Incidentally, are
John Halton wrote:
(IAAL but TINLA)
First time I've seen TINLA used with IAAL instead of IANAL.
:) Hello John, nice to meet you.
Shriramana Sharma.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sean Kellogg wrote:
and apply the more vague clauses of the DFSG.
What vague clauses of the DFSG?
Shriramana.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 03:30:37 pm Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Sean Kellogg wrote:
and apply the more vague clauses of the DFSG.
What vague clauses of the DFSG?
Oh... no you don't :)
I'm not getting drawn into the fight without at least some sort of
grounded facts. Debates about
Thanks to all those that replied. Apparently as has been pointed out the
FSF is trying to catch the derivatives under the term of modification.
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work
or create a derivative work to read and understand his countries
copyright
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:01:18PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed work or
create a derivative work to read and understand his countries copyright
laws?
Ignorance of law is usually no defense in a court of law.
--
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:14AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Seriously, does the FSF expect everyone who would modify a GPL-ed
work or create a derivative work to read and understand his
countries copyright laws?
The FSF doesn't expect it. The
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The FSF isn't mysteriously imposing on people the obligation to
comply with their own local copyright laws. That obligation exists
already.
This leads logically to discussions about legal systems that expect
everyone to act within the law, yet are both
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 05:45:17PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Welcome, John (I've not seen you post here before this week). It's
great to see a qualified legal expert here among all we amateurs.
Questions of interest to me and perhaps others on this list, that you
can nevertheless choose not
O wise ones,
Please point out to me where in the forest of the GPL 3 liveth that
animal called the requirement of derivative works to be distributed
under the same license?
GPL v3 does not at all have the word derivative. Apparently this is an
attempt at making the GPL less dependent on the
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
GPL v3 does not at all have the word derivative. Apparently this is an
attempt at making the GPL less dependent on the US legal system, which
is a good thing ok but I can hardly read this text.
You have to put several pieces together.
First, definition:
To modify a
, under this license to
anyone who comes into possession of a copy
Hope this helps!
- Original Message
From: Shriramana Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Monday, November 5, 2007 1:51:20 PM
Subject: GPL 3 and derivatives
O wise ones,
Please point out to me
On Monday 05 November 2007 05:51:20 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
Please point out to me where in the forest of the GPL 3 liveth that
animal called the requirement of derivative works to be distributed
under the same license?
Is there some specific thing you think the GPLv3 allows that most people
23 matches
Mail list logo
