[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you want a simply answer, the answer is: "No (insert disclaimers
>> here)" as others have pointed out.
>
> As someone said, writing is always allowed, it's distribution that's
> restricted.
True as far as
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
>> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
>> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
>> GPL-incompatible).
>
> If you want a simply an
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:44:13AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> >> When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible
> >> work, we have two choices:
> >> - Assume the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
> GPL-incompatible).
Write it? Sure. Distribute th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> What I'm trying to find out is, whether or not it's allowed to write a
> plugin, using GPL,d libraries, for a program with MIT license, for
> which there also exists plugins using OpenSSL (or anything
> GPL-incompatible).
If you want a simply answer, th
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible
>> work, we have two choices:
>
>> - Assume the author of the plugin was confused, and that the plugin
>> isn't even d
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> When we see a plugin written under the GPL for a GPL-incompatible work,
>> we have two choices:
>
>> - Assume the author of the plugin was confused, and that the plugin
>> isn't even distributable, or
>> - Assume that the author intends that the plug
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then read the section "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.
>
> When we
On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:27:30AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> > Then read the section "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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Then read the section "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.
When we see a pl
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:39:39PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 22:45, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > > OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> > > source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> > > installed some GPL plu
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >
> > If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
> > the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
> > libraries, save one
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> In my particular case, a plugin must implement one or more predefined
>>> interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
>>> exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
>>
>> Yes, assuming one of those implement
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> In my particular case, a plugin must implement one or more predefined
>> interfaces. Several implementations of an interface can (and do)
>> exist independently. Does this affect the situation in any way?
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
>>> The only problem is when you start loading both GPL plugins and
>>> GPL-incompatible plugins. Here, your license is irrelevant; it's the
>>> plugin licenses that are in conflict. A permissive license shouldn't
>>> add any new problems, at least.
>
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:46:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
| And exec as the Magic Copyright Barrier(tm) is silly.
Well, sort of. I can see the perverted logic behind it: on most
operating systems, a program and its libraries share a common address
space. Once you fork/exec something,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> The thing is that, in my case, some very good functionality is
> provided by plugins using GPL'd libraries. I want to make sure I can
> distribute those plugins, at least as source. For reasons that should
> be obvious, I'd rather not touch the GPL.
>
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
> >> > could decide either way.
> >> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
> >> > tog
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
>> following, in chronological order:
>>
>> 1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
>> I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
>>
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
>> of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
>> distribute those plugins compiled?
>
> Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the GPL. That is,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
> following, in chronological order:
>
> 1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
> I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
> 2. Weston Manning (a new
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
> of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
> distribute those plugins compiled?
Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the G
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
>> of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries?
>
> Sure. You can link code under a GPL-compatible license, like MIT X11.
Good. That's really my main concern.
>> Is it in any way allowed to dist
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 13:02, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Well, first off, creation of derived works -- even if you never
> distribute them -- is restricted by copyright as well.
That's not Debian's problem, and the GPL gives you permission to, so
long as you don't distribute.
> If I hand you those
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 15:26, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
> of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries?
Sure. You can link code under a GPL-compatible license, like MIT X11.
> Is it in any way allowed to
> distribute those plugins compiled?
Well, if
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 14:33, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Then read the section "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.
The prog
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 22:45, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> > source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> > installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
> > right? When the user runs
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Of course, from a Debian perspective, I would imagine that as
>> > long as you don't use Recommends to pull in a GPL plugin, you'd
>> > probably be safe; Suggests simply says 'these work together', and
>> > a user must make an active choice at some stage
Roland Mas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have a suspicion that most people that publish their programs
>> under the GPL use the GPL only because it's the license they've
>> heard of the most, without really considering all the implications.
>> I'd like to see a bit more of a discussion on these
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:46:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > > If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
> > > the issue is less clea
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I mean, I can understand not wanting people to use GNU Readline as part of
>> a GPL-incompatible app unless it in no way actually depends on it being
>> GNU Readline, rather than something else with the same API. But claiming
>> that a GPLed *plugin* c
Måns Rullgård, 2003-12-07 18:10:06 +0100 :
[...]
> I'm considering splitting the package into program-free and
> program-gpl, just to annoy those who'd be annoyed by such a naming.
On the one hand, I find that childish. On the other, Debian does
exactly that for GFDL documents. So, :-/
[...
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
> > the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
> > libraries, save ones wi
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And people wonder why they call it the Gnu Public Virus...
>
> I mean, I can understand not wanting people to use GNU Readline as part of
> a GPL-incompatible app unless it in no way actually depends on it being
> GNU Readline, rather than something else wi
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
> the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
> libraries, save ones with well defined interfaces, like POSIX or the
> STD C. But I could
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, the program itself doesn't, but the work plugin+program does.
>
> The derived work will never be distributed, and is thus permitted by
> the above paragraph.
We're obviously talking about distribution, a
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If I write a program and release it under some non-GPL licencse, and
>> *later* someone writes a plugin and releases it under the GPL, how
>> can the program possibly become a derived work of that plugin?
>
> No, the program itself doesn't, but the work
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> If I write a program and release it under some non-GPL licencse, and
> *later* someone writes a plugin and releases it under the GPL, how
> can the program possibly become a derived work of that plugin?
No, the program itself doesn't, but the work plugi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
>>> > could decide either way.
>>
>>> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
>>> > together you are creatin
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
>> > could decide either way.
>
>> > The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
>> > together you are creating a derived work that violates at least once
>> > o
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:49:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works,
> >> as long as the non-GPL things are not derived from anything GPL'd. In
> >> my opinion, placing two shared ob
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How's that? The GPL allows distribution together with non-GPL works,
>> as long as the non-GPL things 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 ot
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 05:02:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugi
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
>> >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
>> >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
>> >> right? When the user ru
M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
> >> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
> >> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
> >> right?
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> OK, say I use the X11 license. Now suppose someone installs a closed
>> source plugin. Suppose it also happens that this same user has
>> installed some GPL plugin. Both plugins would be allowed separately,
>> right? When the user runs the program
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:50:50AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I am working on a piece of free software that makes extensive use of
> >> plugins, i.e. shared objects dynamically loaded at runtime. Many of
> >> these plugins are linked with third-
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I am working on a piece of free software that makes extensive use of
>> plugins, i.e. shared objects dynamically loaded at runtime. Many of
>> these plugins are linked with third-party libraries. The licenses of
>> those libraries vary, including at l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
>
> I am working on a piece of free software that makes extensive use of
> plugins, i.e. shared objects dynamically loaded at runtime. Many of
> these plugins are linked with third-party libraries. The licenses of
> those libraries vary, including at leas
I am working on a piece of free software that makes extensive use of
plugins, i.e. shared objects dynamically loaded at runtime. Many of
these plugins are linked with third-party libraries. The licenses of
those libraries vary, including at least GPL, LGPL and X11. Now I'm
trying to work out wh
101 - 150 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
