Re: Qt 2.2 under GPL
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Tobias Peters wrote: It's time to celebrate and get the KDE packages back into the dist: http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/gpl.html Special thanks to Joseph Carter who told them all the time where the problems were. Don't thank me. I had very little to do with this decision. I got an email asking me what I thought of the idea, but I confess I didn't really take it as seriously likely even then. This is their decision and I deserve very little credit for it. I consider my own efforts to resolve the KDE problem almost completely failures. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3 Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/) 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/) 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 Joy wow... simple maths show that Debian developers have closed more than *31* *thousand* bug reports since our BTS exists! Joy that is about 30999 more than Microsoft ;)
Re: Free Pine?
I don't either--but that is not the point. The point is that the U of W has actually threatened to sue the FSF for distributing a modified version of a program that was released under the same words. Personally, I'm still in the process of confirming this. I hope that the U of W gives you a clear answer about what they have done. But they may decide that it is not in their interest to clarify their conduct. If so, I hope Debian will still drop IMAPD.
Re: Free Pine?
Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they too ask permission (We do expect and appreciate...). Non-free. If she had written just We appreciate... I'd be comfortable putting it in free. There's no legal difference between Debian and people who recieve it from us. [Legally, there's no such entity as Debian.] Nor is there a difference from the viewpoint of our social contract. Then why do we have DSFG #8 `License Must Not Be Specific to Debian' if there is no Debian? Trying to divide us up, by drawing a line where there isn't one, is very much against what we're about. Peter
GPL question
Hi everyone. Just joined the list and I'd *really* appreciate your advice on the part of the GPL that allows for exclusion of identifiable sections (i.e. section 2). The situation is: I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to release the printing server under the GPL and we have no problem with doing that. My question is: would the rest of our product need to be re-licensed under the GPL too? I've read the license text carefully but I can't figure out whether the other parts of our application would be OK with their current license. I.e. making use of the separate sections clause in the GPL. Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD? I.e. if we added the new print server to the CD then have we just formed a distribution (as described in the license) and ...aaagh. I'm confused. We really aren't looking to earn a fast buck off Ghostscript - as I mentioned, we're happy to put the print server under the GPL - but we just can't open up the whole application. Philosophy aside, I'm just a programmer here and you can imagine the reaction I'd get from the bosses if I proposed going GPL all the way. Sorry if this is OT for a Debian list and / or an endlessly rehashed topic but if you could spare me a bit of your collective wisdom I'd be v. grateful. Thanks for your time Mike Cunningham AIT Ltd *** Attachments in this message have been swept by NAI's TVD (version 4.0.4093) for the presence of known computer viruses. * _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
Re: Free Pine?
There's no legal difference between Debian and people who recieve it from us. [Legally, there's no such entity as Debian.] Nor is there a difference from the viewpoint of our social contract. On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: Then why do we have DSFG #8 `License Must Not Be Specific to Debian' if there is no Debian? [1] I did not say that there's no Debian -- I said that there's no such legal entity. [2] There is a Debian, but (at least conceptually) it can include everybody. In other words, DFSG #8 is exactly what I'm talking about. -- Raul
Re: GPL question
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: GPL question Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 16:13:30 +0100 From: Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, you wrote: snipped my stuff Um.. debian-legal doesn't engage in handing out legal advice. We're focussed on whether something would cause legal problems for debian -- we have no real experience dealing with other legal issues. You might want to contact the author of Ghostscript. Sorry, -- Raul OK Raul, fair enough. I just thought you guys might have thrashed this one out already and have a view you might share if you were asked politely. Please accept my apologies. Mike *** Attachments in this message have been swept by NAI's TVD (version 4.0.4093) for the presence of known computer viruses. * _ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
Re: GPL question
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000, Mike Cunningham wrote:
I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre
application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which
would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to
release the printing server under the GPL and we have no problem with doing
that.
It depends on how ghostscript is called. If it is just called with
system(); or popen(); then you don't need to make it GPL.
My question is: would the rest of our product need to be re-licensed
under the GPL too?
Again, it depends on how the rest of your product communicates with
the printing server. If they are completely separate programs (ie. one
calling the other with system() or through a pipe), then both can have
their separate license.
However, if your printing server component is a library and is GPLed,
then every work linked to it has to be GPLed (or have an even less
restrictive license).
Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD?
This is considered mere aggregation of software by the GPL, and
thus the different parts of the work do not need to have the same
license, even if there is one GPLed app there.
I.e. if we added the new print server to the CD then have we just formed a
distribution (as described in the license) and ...aaagh.
Don't worry, as I said, just have a look at the very last sentence of
section 2 of the GPL.
Regards,
Sam.
--
Samuel Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.via.ecp.fr/~sam/
1024D/29499F61 1999-04-221155 4B19 A50F 1136 6E60 A499 7CF3 F5AF 2949 9F61
dig goret.org @zoy.org axfr \
| perl -e 'for(sort()){print pack(H32,$1) if(/^c..\.(\w+)/)}' | gzip -d
Re: Free Pine?
Scripsit Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Then why do we have DSFG #8 `License Must Not Be Specific to Debian' if there is no Debian? There *is* a Debian. But it's not a legal *person*, it's a *work*. It is possible to write up a license that says, for example, that copies of program X may be sold for monetary gain only as long as it is sold together with an entire official Debian diskset or an entire snapshot of the FTP archive. Such a license would fail #8 because it is specific to the work Debian. -- Henning Makholm Need facts -- *first*. Then the dialysis -- the *analysis*.
Re: GPL question
Scripsit Mike Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] I work for a company which sells a proprietary closed-source call centre application. We are looking to write a central printing server component which would [hopefully] make use of Ghostscript. I understand that we would need to release the printing server under the GPL and we have no problem with doing that. Not necessarily. If your printing saver simply generates postscript output, and Ghostscript is just one of several configurable options for what to do with the output, I do not think that the copyright for Ghostscript migrates to the postscript creator. After all, there do exists other quite legitimate options for handling a postscript file than Ghostscript - not least among which is transmitting it to a genuine PostScript(R) printer. Also, is it relevant that at the moment the whole app. comes on a single CD? Not if your application is clearly functional and useful without using Ghostscript (which would be the case if it offered to pipe its output directly to the printer). I.e. if we added the new print server to the CD then have we just formed a distribution (as described in the license) and ...aaagh. I think that would be mere aggregation as described at the end of GPL clause 2. -- Henning MakholmVi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag!
