* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030313 06:15]:
People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
But we (at least I) also
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins said:
Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the
ASP nightmare.
How is this different (from a licensing perspective) from a
publicly-accessible shell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
possessor of a copy is is really a technical detail that can be
changed or
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:08:12PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look
at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or
http://www.fsf.org
with IE.
On
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Imagine a world with omnipresent connectivity, and a lot of copylefted
software. Someone decides that they could make the browser into a
platform (remember Netscape the MS antitrust trial). So they take
commonly available Free software packages and
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ah, but if you're shipping binaries of someone *else's* GPL code, the
requirement is that you must provide the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code, which includes all the source code for
all modules it contains
The client does not
Jeremy Hankins said:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins said:
Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the ASP
nightmare.
How is this different (from a licensing perspective) from a
Mark Rafn said:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
So the requirement here is that if the RPC service is part
of the source code, you MUST ship the server, or not ship anything at
all.
Huh? I'm missing that paragraph in my copy of GPLv2. You can't ship
the server and the client
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:19:32PM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
The paragraph above is the result of the logic:
1. linking - combined work
2. dynamic linking - linking
3. dynamic linking over network (RPC) - dynamic linking
4. network service - dynamic linking over network
Note that these steps
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 15:05, Joe Moore wrote:
Jeremy Hankins said:
Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins said:
Take this to the logical extreme where everybody starts doing this
and every Free program has several ASP versions, and you have the ASP
nightmare.
How is
Thank you for subscribing to the Body and Mind Online newsletter at
http://www.BodyAndMindOnline.com. A great stop for your fitness and
bodybuilding resources. Don't forget, if you know of a great fitness,
bodybuilding or health site please feel free to add to the links area. See you
soon!
[I screwed up and sent this to Glenn first, apologies]
I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
whether:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work
explicitly?
I'm not sure if the combined work is relevant, here. It's
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
take that code and make it proprietary. This is the fundamental, basic,
ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.
Such people are idiots. I develop
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
people want. And I'll write a CGI so that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Or how about this: If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
ability, otherwise, you can use the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
possessor of a copy is is
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that so long as the source for these programs are generally
available there's no real problem. The problem shows up when someone
uses this technique (which could be a web server or a shell server) to
make the programs available for use but
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing
whether:
1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined
work?
2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Right, so here's what I'll do. I'll create a non-free derivative of
[...]
I know you meant this as a code hijacking
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:55:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:56 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding (IANAL, etc) is that public performance could cover
this sort of thing (the problem would be scaling it back to cover only
what we want it to). Are you simply objecting
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:42:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC
call is made from a Free work is a Bad Thing on general principles.
That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web,
there's no law
The problem that is fundamental (for me, at least) about the ASP
loophole is where to draw the line. I'm currently of the opinion that
distribution is a good line and any other is fuzzy, but I'd kind of like
to be convinced otherwise.
Here's the continuum I see:
a) Joe opens a business Joe's
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:37:18AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:37:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Allow me to propose the What if Microsoft Did It test. Microsoft
creates a new program, and says you are prohibited from running this
program behind a web
25 matches
Mail list logo
