On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 07:00:10PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell) writes:
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
I don't see any way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) writes:
The creation of non-GPL headers for the purpose of linking in a GPL library
is a device created explicitly for the circumvention of the library's
copyright, and would not protect you from being liable for infringement.
It could be done without even
On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:29:38 -0800 (PST), Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zygo Blaxell)
Does this mean that as long as a developer writes their own headers, they
can link anything they want to against a GPLed .so file without infringing
on the GPL?
The
On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 01:05:53PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
What Raul seems to be getting at is that dpkg is presently the only
existing implementation og the command-line interface in question.
His arguments apparently lead to a general principle: if, for some
protocol (a command line
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 08:29:00AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
allows,...
The GPL places no restrictions on reverse engineering.
--
Raul
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would take some reverse engineering, wich I don't think the GPL
allows,
I.e. looking at the source code? That seems to be quite much allowed
by the GPL.
--
Henning Makholm Monsieur, vous êtes fou.
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
sentence would be too complicated
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
(It counts as copying if you get one person
to read it, and someone else writes it down, you don't have to be using
cp or anything. And personally, I can't see any way you could `reinvent'
a header file that wouldn't amount to doing exactly that
Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the header
file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not going to go into this any deeper. I've posted that definition of
a computer program something like a dozen times and most of the responses
I've gotten don't even acknowledge the key issues. I worry that a second
sentence would be too
A legal argument can be made that the relevant portions of header content
are not protectable by copyright since they are essentially a 'compilation
of facts'
They document the API of the library, so you get into the API copyright issue,
too.
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at
Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regardless of whether or not the dynamic linkage is a violation, the
header file used has (almost) nothing to do with it.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of
The argument given here by RMS' law instructor at Columbia is that run-time
linking is a device to circumvent the copyright of the library, which
otherwise would be static-linked and explicitly copied. Given the universality
of run-time linking, I think there's a good counter-argument that
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable speaker
on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also an attorney.
They are on our side, and they are not as sanguine on this issue as you
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 10:56:20AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
No. Pamela Samuelson, Cyberlaw instructor at Berkeley and notable
speaker on free software law. Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla and also
an attorney.
They
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll still take the stance that because this hasn't gone to court
that we don't know what the courts will decide.
I will amplify this for you. We are writing the rules as we go along.
There is a body of case law that must be accumulated before those
rules can
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously Ben Pfaff wrote:
No, file formats are not copyrightable, only actual files.
Otherwise clones of proprietary packages with proprietary file
formats would be in violation of copyright.
We're starting to digress here though.. lets stop
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
For the case of U.S. copyright law dynamic linking not explicitly provided
for in the license is a fair use issue, not a this isn't covered by
copyright law issue.
I know nothing of US copyright law except that it and Finnish
Raul Miller wrote:
I discussed this issue with two attorneys, one of whom appears to be the
acknowledged authority on free software law. They are not nearly as sanguine
as you. There is thus some possibility that _you_might_be_wrong_.
These are Corel's attorneys, right?
Do you really
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 01:41:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:01:00PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Nevertheless the inclusion of header files *is* the key point of an
often-heard argument that the dynamic linkage is a violation.
Which probably reflects a lack of
20 matches
Mail list logo
