I think there is something that is being forgotten here. Corel are
shipping several things, but presumably they are only dynamically
linked. So the reason why they need a licence exemption isn't that
their frontend is derivative of lib-apt, but rather that the copyright
on lib-apt would require
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 01:58:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
However, of course, lib-apt isn't the only thing that is bound
together at run-time with Qt in this program. dpkg is too - the fact
that the interface is program call rather than dynamic linking is an
irrelevant technical detail.
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, of course, lib-apt isn't the only thing that is bound
together at run-time with Qt in this program. dpkg is too - the fact
that the interface is program call rather than dynamic linking is an
irrelevant technical detail. (This case seems
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So the reason why they need a licence exemption isn't that
their frontend is derivative of lib-apt, but rather that the copyright
on lib-apt would require the `whole work' - ie, all the things which
are bound together at runtime - to be licensed under the
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(This case seems similar to the one
where Next wanted to ship GCC with their own Objective-C frontend, but
not to release the frontend under the GPL. RMS had his laweyrs write
to them and Next changed their mind.)
But the frontend actually has to
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 07:45:43PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(This case seems similar to the one
where Next wanted to ship GCC with their own Objective-C frontend, but
not to release the frontend under the GPL. RMS had his laweyrs write
Henning Makholm writes (Re: Corel's apt frontend):
The only way the copyright on lib-apt could become an issue at all
is if there is something that is derivate of lib-abt.
No, that's not true in this case. Read on.
derivitate is the magic word that makes the copyright holder have
anything
Brian Ristuccia writes:
Also, as best I know, the only time RSA permits its tecnology to be used is
in not-for-profit programs compiled with the RSAREF library. Not all the
programs in non-free do this.
But the programs that use RSA without RSAREF are in non-us, and using the
RSA algorithm
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 07:45:43PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
I always wondered - if NeXT really had been serious about going
what would have stopped them from creating
- a proprietary, binary-only Objective-C plug-in?
RMS argues that that is
(Quick summary - Ian Jackson believes that Corel's new Apt frontend which
links to Qt and calls dpkg as an independent program is violating dpkg's
GPL license. (The violation of Apt's GPL license was solved by the authors
of Apt giving special extension.))
On Fri, Oct 29, 1999 at 07:55:01PM
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning Makholm writes (Re: Corel's apt frontend):
I have given permission for Corel (and others) to make copies of dpkg
according to the GPL, which makes the following restriction amongst
others:
2...
b) You must cause any work that you
From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll switch from talking about lib-apt to talking about dpkg, because
that's the case at hand from my POV. Corel are distributing dpkg -
ie, they are making copies. Making copies is something that copyright
law says only the copyright holder may give
12 matches
Mail list logo
