On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:20:39PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not mere aggregation, for the same reason that a bug in a
library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a
critical, bug: one piece of software is not unrelated to another if
the
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 23:21 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
Not all: the terms of section 3 talk about covered source code in very
broad terms of all modules [the work] contains. Can you expand on
your understanding of this phrase?
Section 3 reads, in part:
You may copy and
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 03:19:45PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
...
In Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc.,[0] the
court held that a menu structure is method of
Steve Langasek wrote:
It is not mere aggregation, for the same reason that a bug in a
library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a
critical, bug: one piece of software is not unrelated to another if
the former depends on the latter.
Ah, I get what I was missing earlier... so
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 11:57:18AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Jakob Bohm said:
Anyway, I thought the common GPL linking claim was that the
runtime in-memory process image includes a copy of the GPL code
and is thus a derivative of that copy.
But this derivative (if you assume that it is
On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 20:00, Jakob Bohm wrote:
However the main point of my post was not that. My main point
was that in Borland vs. Lotus, the issue placed before the court
was the right to *re-implement* a compatible interface, not the
right to implement things that *use* the interface.
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
packages like it.
Not quite -- I'd prefer to
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:19 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
All of those --
TCP, HTTP, and DEB -- are generic formats.
.deb isn't. There is, AFAIK, only one implementation.
At the very least, alien and dpkg deal with it; I believe there are
others.
If I remember correctly,
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 14:25 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work.
Well, from carefully reading the GPL, this appears to be what it says.
A quote:
a work based on the
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 12:22 US/Eastern, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
First, any interface which could be used by humans is a method of
operation. This is essentially all interfaces.
That's a good question. I think the decision only covers interfaces
that humans need to use to use the
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 15:20 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, then I take it you're in favor filing seriouss bug against
ftp.debian.org asking for the removal of apache-ssl and *many* more
Anthony DeRobertis said:
I'm not sure if you're thinking of this when mentioning public
domain, but many header files (for example, ones giving simple structs
and numeric defines) probably have no copyrightable work in them, and
thus would be essentially in the public domain. So, using those
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 12:22:35PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis said:
I'm not sure if you're thinking of this when mentioning public
domain, but many header files (for example, ones giving simple structs
and numeric defines) probably have no copyrightable work in them,
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Wait. Isn't dpkg under the GPL? Now everything on the entire system
has to be under the GPL, because you can't even get it installed
without
the use of dpkg.
I don't see how a
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's take a concrete example: apache-ssl. In particular, it's
postint.
It uses adduser, which is under the GPL. It also uses update-rc.d,
also under the GPL. So, as above, we have to
Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work. While varies parties have
claimed this at one point or another, I have argued that the
dynamically linked work is under the purview of the GPL by virtue of
the
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 05:11:21PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
This assumes that the FSF's interpretation depends on the claim that
dynamic linking creates a derived work. While varies parties have
claimed this at one point or another, I have argued that the
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:30 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
but given
their authors licensed them in ways that forbid linking with
non-GPL-compatible software, such as OpenSSL, that sounds reasonable
Well, at least you're consistent ;-)
Wait. Isn't dpkg under the GPL? Now everything
On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 10:02 PM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is*
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not just an
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the normally part of your OS exception, or if
distributed with GNU grep be itself available under the GNU
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the normally part of your OS exception, or if
Stephen Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 01:45 PM, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 09:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
The other option, of course, is that the kernel exec() function *is* a
barrier, Debian *can* be used for real work and not just an exercise in
ivory-tower masturbation.
Well, I
On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:52 AM, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Let's take a concrete example: apache-ssl. In particular, it's
postint.
It uses adduser, which is under the GPL. It also uses update-rc.d,
also under the GPL. So, as above, we have to say the postinst is
available under the GPL.
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 11:59, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I don't. If it makes use of features specific to the GNU version, it
should either use the normally part of your OS exception, or if
distributed with GNU grep be itself available under the GNU GPL.
So every script that Debian distributes
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:01:06AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It seems wrong to me that we can take a free, but GPL-incompatible
application out of Debian main and hand it to two software distributors.
Each distributor grabs a different ABI-compatible implementation of a
shared library
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think it's an interesting case to consider because of the question of
whether an interface is copyrightable, but I think that discussion is
best left for another thread. In any case, I believe the generic
interface
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and language-bind
their way out of the copyleft commons.
At
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 05:15, Branden Robinson wrote:
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL by adopting and
interpretation of it that would let people wrapper and
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 01:04:08PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am specifically addressing the case where:
[...]
I'm afraid I cannot come up with very much to add to your analysis.
I am uncomfortable with some of the ramifications but I am also
uncomfortable with totally declawing the GNU GPL
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:15:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is it any help to cite the libreadline/libeditline case? Readline is a
GPLed library authored by the FSF. Editline is a BSD-licensed clone
(with a limited feature set) developed by people who weren't happy with
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 19:11, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
P is not a derived work of GPLLib, but P+GPLLib is likely to be a
derived work of GPLLib, in which case it is not allowed to distribute
them together.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], I posted the legal definition of a
derivative work in the
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
However, you could certainly distribute P on its own if
you could reasonably claim that P is useful without GPLLib.
I'll further argue that P is not based upon GPLLib in any meaningful
manner; it includes absolutely no part of GPLLib.
If P is
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 09:39:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:50:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:58:15PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
modules for interpreted
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:58:15PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
modules for interpreted languages demand GPL scripts? I believe Anthony
and I are at an
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in a GPLed library hasn't been cloned yet?
Given:
1) Library GPLLib is under the GPL
2) Perl module Iface provides an
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Given:
1) Library GPLLib is under the GPL
2) Perl module Iface provides an interface to various implementations
of similar features, and the user selects which implementation to
use
3) Perl modules PM uses GPLLib to
On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 01:12:09PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 01:50 AM, Branden Robinson wrote:
Or are you wanting to restrict the problem domain to cases where an
interface innovated in a GPLed library hasn't been cloned yet?
Given:
1) Library
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
Any chance you'd care to comment on the underlying question of whether
Debian should or should not accede to the FSF's claim that GPL
modules for interpreted languages demand GPL scripts?
I think he's too busy taking over the world to do
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:35:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A copyright holder has legal standing to sue anyone he damn well
pleases.
Not true; questions like this are frequently decided in the early phases
of civil trials, and not always in favor of the plaintiff. Standing
is a legal
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:07:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 02:35:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A copyright holder has legal standing to sue anyone he damn well
pleases.
Not true; questions like this are frequently decided in the early phases
of civil
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 08:02:45PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
My question is, how is a package that depends on DBD::mysql materially
different from a compiled program that links dynamically against
libmysqlclient?
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 01:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am not arguing that dynamic linking creates a derivative work, and I'm
not sure the FSF is, either. I *am* arguing that it is within the
purview of the GPL to impose restrictions on redistribution of dependent
works whether or not these
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you think that is a creation of a derivative work (and thus violates
the GPL), then I have a much bigger GPL violation for you to worry
about. It's with an interpreter known as bash.
Another example is the Linux kernel and GPL-incompatible programs
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 19:19, Steve Langasek wrote:
My question is, how is a package that depends on DBD::mysql materially
different from a compiled program that links dynamically against
libmysqlclient?
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as
Hi Raphael,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 10:08:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:29:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek écrivait:
The latest version of libdbd-mysql-perl build-depends on
libmysqclient-dev. I'm afraid that, although this fixed the FTBFS bug,
it potentially
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 12:02:31AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:15:19PM -0500, Steve Langasek écrivait:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such
Le Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 02:29:52PM -0500, Steve Langasek écrivait:
The latest version of libdbd-mysql-perl build-depends on
libmysqclient-dev. I'm afraid that, although this fixed the FTBFS bug,
it potentially renders some software in our archive non-distributable.
Because the new
50 matches
Mail list logo
