On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
the issue is less clear. I'd guess that it is probably a no for most
libraries, save ones with well defined interfaces, like POSIX or the
STD C. But I could be
Joel Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And people wonder why they call it the Gnu Public Virus...
I mean, I can understand not wanting people to use GNU Readline as part of
a GPL-incompatible app unless it in no way actually depends on it being
GNU Readline, rather than something else with the
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I mean, I can understand not wanting people to use GNU Readline as part of
a GPL-incompatible app unless it in no way actually depends on it being
GNU Readline, rather than something else with the same API. But claiming
that a GPLed *plugin* created
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 12:46:12PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:35:15AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 03:25:01PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
If the code was licensed under something that was not GPL compliant,
the issue is less clear. I'd
Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a suspicion that most people that publish their programs
under the GPL use the GPL only because it's the license they've
heard of the most, without really considering all the implications.
I'd like to see a bit more of a discussion on these matters,
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 14:33, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Then read the section Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free
program? in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
If there are any other interpretations of that section, please
enlighten me.
The program is
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 15:26, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries?
Sure. You can link code under a GPL-compatible license, like MIT X11.
Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
Well, if
On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 13:02, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Well, first off, creation of derived works -- even if you never
distribute them -- is restricted by copyright as well.
That's not Debian's problem, and the GPL gives you permission to, so
long as you don't distribute.
If I hand you those
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries?
Sure. You can link code under a GPL-compatible license, like MIT X11.
Good. That's really my main concern.
Is it in any way allowed to distribute
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the MIT license. Is it allowed to use the MIT license for source code
of plugins depending on GPL'd libraries? Is it in any way allowed to
distribute those plugins compiled?
Yes, but you'll have all of the restrictions of the GPL. That is,
you'll
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
2. Weston Manning (a new
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the
following, in chronological order:
1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin API.
I release my program under the MIT X11 license.
2. Weston
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 06:59:46PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This now gets into the hazy realm where it's best not to go - a court
could decide either way.
The argument is, approximately, that by shipping the whole lot
together you are
7-Dec-03 13:50 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Alexander Cherepanov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If Section 2 allows someone (not copyright holder) to distribute a
binary, there are only two alternatives IMHO: either
1. Section 2 doesn't require source form of anything distributable;
That is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
The thing is that, in my case, some very good functionality is
provided by plugins using GPL'd libraries. I want to make sure I can
distribute those plugins, at least as source. For reasons that should
be obvious, I'd rather not touch the GPL.
The
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 03:46:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
| And exec as the Magic Copyright Barrier(tm) is silly.
Well, sort of. I can see the perverted logic behind it: on most
operating systems, a program and its libraries share a common address
space. Once you fork/exec something,
17 matches
Mail list logo
