Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given the vast number of Linux contributors, this means that Linux
won't be able to migrate to the GPLv3 when it comes out, correct?
That would be the case. Is this a problem?
For a large colaborative project, possibly
Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And probably it will also deal with running the code on a publicly
accessible server.
The question is if a license based on copyright can legally place such
restrictions on use of the program.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you
intended. You can still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent
releases GPLv2 only.
Only if all the copyright holders agree. Suppose A has accepted
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:50:39 +0100 Måns Rullgård wrote:
If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those
of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the or any later version
option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible
discussed at length here not long ago, so there
is no need to do it over again.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
far-reaching interpretations of it. Seeing as v3 will attempt to
extend its reach even further, I see it as inevitable that a fair
amount of people will have a word or two to say about it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 13 mars 2005 à 14:09 +0100, Måns Rullgård a écrit :
Personally, I'd be very sceptical about releasing code under a license
containing a blanket permission to use it under another yet to be
written license. What if I don't at all agree
, you have to hand out
copies of the sheet music. At least that was my analogy.
The music sheets would correspond to the web pages, not the web server
software.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:12 pm, Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's also rather interesting how people, apparently without much
reflection, release code under terms, the interpretation of which is as
yet undefined. Given the grayness of these legal areas
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
We have to consider the possibility that GPLv3 will say something we
don not want. Then we do not want people distributing it under those
terms. Never give permission to do something you
code depicted, and 2) as a picture of the source code for something.
The photograph can quite obviously never be reasonably considered to
be the source for the *program*, but a JPEG (or whatever format) can
be the source for a *picture of the source for the program*.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED
) provide the image in a
more advanced format (e.g. XCF) with the photograph and text in
different layers.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. If I create an image and only save it as a JPEG (say I've taken a
picture with a digital camera and then overlayed some text on top of
it), is that sufficient
-free compiler, whereas Debian requires everything
in main to be buildable using only free tools (present in main?).
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to be useful (e.g. Photoshop). How should
such cases be treated?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:16:44 +0100, Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
No, for a photograph the source is the actual physical object you've
made a picture of, so a photograph can never be free. Either this, or
a photograph should
only be compiled by itself.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, but (in general) not from ELF
files.
I'll save this for next time someone claims that linking against a
shared library (ELF file) creates a derived work.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
program being interpreted generally does
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The
program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the
interpreter at all.
If the interpreted program
() suddenly break the chain, while a
linker or classloader does not?
I don't see an obvious difference, but the GPL FAQ does mention this
distinction.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and something else. Thus, GPL 2b applies.
Here the something else is called FUD, no more, no less.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between Eclipse+Kaffe and
ghostscript + postscript document
That's a good example. A postscript document is in fact a program
written in the PostScript language. It is interpreted by ghostscript
(or another viewer). This still doesn't make the document a
derivative of the viewer.
--
Måns
and similar words as everybody else's dictionaries use.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
of said interface.
This whole discussion is something between ridiculous and hilarious,
definitely not useful.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to argue the point in court and
be unsure of the result, which is bad enough that we can't really go
there.
Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
They aren't with any degree of certainty.
It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API? Any other
interpretation invariably leads to contradictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:02 +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[large discussion of C snipped out]
In the case of Java, the binding is even looser. A class might
contain
. All Microsoft have done to them so far is send
them some nastygrams in the mail.
And for some reason you believe Microsoft would be content with that,
if they believed they had any real chance to stop them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
. AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API
as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation
of said interface.
This whole discussion is something between ridiculous and hilarious,
definitely not useful.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. However, building and using the
bomb is most likely illegal.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to argue the point in court and
be unsure of the result, which is bad enough that we can't really go
there.
Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal?
They aren't with any degree of certainty.
It's certain enough that Microsoft have failed to shut them down.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you at least went on and read next paragraph of the FAQ from which
you took the above.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
. All Microsoft have done to them so far is send
them some nastygrams in the mail.
And for some reason you believe Microsoft would be content with that,
if they believed they had any real chance to stop them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:15 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 19:55 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fail to see the relevance
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse is linked agains a libraries that ARE GPLed.
No, it is being interpreted by an interpreter that is covered
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Eclipse authors do not tell you which JVM to use.
But Debian does, when it says:
Depends: j2re1.4 | j2re1.3 | java2-runtime
So the eclipse-platform distributed by Debian *does* call on a
particular
here.
You're starting to make sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 21:56 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-13-01 at 20:58 +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Grzegorz B. Prokopski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, in our case, Eclipse
just doesn't sound good, does it?
It sounds like it would make for a lot of arguing with FSF, nothing
else.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the library. I don't see a problem with
distributing a collection of programs, where some of them can be
combined in ways that violate some license, as long as all of them
still have legitimate uses.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that
executable binary data is not software.
A firmware image is not software to the system on which Debian runs.
What it is to another system (e.g. some PCI card) is irrelevant.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
it with any editor you like. The chip can also be rewritten.
Where is the fundamental difference from a device where the firmware
is written with the chip in its socket?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to which it's connected.
Why is this different from the SCSI controller board, whose CPU (and
related components) is also an architecture not supported by Debian?
Does it matter whether it connects to the PC by the PCI bus directly,
or over USB?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
comments or tiny bits of code.
This seems to me to be no different from citing a paragraph from a
book, which is perfectly legal under normal copyright law.
If a code fragment is used in another program, matters might be
different, though.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is used in another program, matters might be
different, though.
Why?
Quoting from a book is often done to illustrate something, or
otherwise give an example. I can't see how a code fragment could be
considered an example of something, if it is actually executed as part
of a program.
--
Måns
clients depend on non-free ICQ servers...
And every program depends on a computer, most of which is probably
constructed using a design language like VHDL, which is not far from
software. NON-FREE
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
concepts as such.
Is that clear enough?
And this is probably the reason we have thousands of (probably
invalid) software patents instead.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
any books on that subject, so the gnucap
package depends on non-free data. Does this mean that gnucap must
be moved to contrib?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a physical object.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
shipping a combination if for
some reason you are given different rights to ship parts and ship
combinations. It's just that outside free licenses that never
happens.
It's perfectly legal to sell all the ingredients for making a bomb,
but selling ready-made bombs is not.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL
not.
What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
created without creative input?
An anthology, or a compilation, I think.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is the correct term for a work that combines two other works,
created without creative input?
An anthology, or a compilation, I think.
From Title 17, Sec 101
Jonathan ILIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It's all about causality. Consider two scenarios, both involving
three programs, A, B and C.
Scenario 1:
1. A is written.
2. B written, and makes use of A. You argue that B is a derivative
work of A.
3. C
happening?
Don't release your code at all.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is that it is not derived at all.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wesley W. Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:12:11PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
If Mr Wontshare's client doesn't work without your software, this is
what I call a derivative work. Whether it is linked to it using ELF or
not is irrelevant.
Mr. Wontshare's
can't do so -- just that you've
acknowledged that the software isn't licensed-by-the-DOE for that or
designed for that.
Who is DOE and why is he licensing Sun's software?
I thought the point was that DoE did *not* license the software.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-09-01 23:40:43 +0100 Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in cdrtools-2.01a38 I found the following weird GPL interpretation.
[...]
- You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c See
new statements also apply to older (GPL) versions of cdrtools should
just be ignored as the puffery that it is IMHO...
While legally you're right, I think from a point of view of politeness
you're wrong.
Go read some postings by JS and you won't feel any need for
politeness.
--
Måns
and as this
is my software, users should follow my interpretation of the GPL and not
use their own different interpretations.
-=-=-=-= cdrecord/cdrecord.c (sorry for linewrapping) =-=-=-=-
I take it someone on this list followed the recent flame war on lkml.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the derivedness of a some program from said library is beyond
my comprehension.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your understanding of the license exception requirements were
correct, it would be a very easy loophole for people to exploit, using
GPL
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:59:44PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I didn't say anything about derived works. Neither does the GPL when
talking about source code.
The GPL also doesn't define source code to include all modules it
uses, it defines
David Schleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:09:11AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
When using dynamic linking that is not necessarily the case. Most
dynamic linkers use lazy loading of libraries, such that the openssl
libraries would not actually be mapped
yourself. Nobody has ever tried to extend the
copyright of a program to include output produced when running the
program. Why would this be different when the program sends its
output over a network?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nobody has ever tried to extend the copyright of a program to
include output produced when running the program.
If no one has tried, it's because it's quite trivial to contruct a
case where a program's output
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 11:50:31AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
I know what please means. What I fail to understand is what it is
that is so terrible about asking for credit for your work.
Nothing at all is wrong with that, and anyone who
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2004-06-04 11:43:45 +0100 Matthieu Delahaye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...] I just want to know if there is a list of
common license for documentation that are definitively known
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Wordings like please don't seem to carry much legal value, so I
suppose it might even be GPL compatible, though I guess some would
frown upon the request for credit
the only restriction
in those licenses, the problem being that the GPL doesn't allow extra
restrictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
examination I agree. Why
then is XMMS still in main?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/09/msg00123.html
Threads on debian-user don't mean a damn thing.
Especially not when they link to slashdot.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wouter Verhelst writes:
This is good, but it's not true anywhere else; so if the reverse
engineering has been done outside the EU, there's a problem.
Reverse-engineering is legal in the USA.
And in Norway.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. For example, a work
created by the U.S. government is not copyrighted.
What about works by the CIA? Is copyright irrelevant to classified
material?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. Sometimes it is
correct to display all the parts concatenated, e.g. if the message was
split because more than one character set was required. If you
suspect there is MIME involved you can always use K b to add the
usual tags for each MIME part.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
expires between 2007 and 2014.
Random patents in their portfolio that aren't relevant to JPEG aren't
interesting. This one expires in October.
I asked a couple of days ago, but nobody replied. Does anyone know
anything about the patent status of JPEG-2000? Is it safe to use it?
--
Måns
/0,1367,63200,00.html?
tw=wn_bizhead_1
They've started suing. Is JPEG any different than GIF was, especially
if this whole mess is settled out of court or worse won by the
plaintiff?
What is the situation for JPEG2000?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
be downloaded
from the web.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2004 21:00:33 +:
If we keep saying the MIT/X11 license is okay then some fuckhead
will use the X-Oz license.
If this was not the statement in question, you are still welcome to
explain it.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
!= X11
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
during a trial.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
sue anyone in one of those
places for using the code.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
these be different actions from a licensing
standpoint?
Good point.
As always, let me know if I seem to be on crack.
You seem to be unusually sane for this list.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
include any
files.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We need this to be the case to This is the case -- check out
/usr/share/doc/clisp, for example. That was back when Stallman used
reason instead of dogma, though.
I never thought I'd see that written by one of the regulars on this
list.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. The important part is that no code from the library is
included in the compiled and linked program when distributed.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:38:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Quite right, but being conservative doesn't exclude discussion.
Without discussion, in our out of court, the matter will remain murky.
Debating whether GPL-compatibility can legitimately
this work.
...specifying mutually exclusive terms? What does it mean.
That's contradictory. It doesn't make sense.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that means.
What about the ones that say You must do one of these, giving a
bunch of possibly incompatible options?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
enforce its patent, you should upgrade
the severity to serious if the license available for general use is
not compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Who cares about free? Why not have some Legal Software Guidelines
instead?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
why don't you just blindly believe it when (possibly evil)
companies make claims beneficial to them?
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only derivation is.
Yes, and I say linking isn't a case of derivation. I can easily
find any number of people
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:33:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As you can see, linking is not the metric used. Only
which
damage the DVD manufacturarer could claim compensation for.
Very few people can see that logic. Unfortunately, it seems the MPAA
can. The worst part, their lawyers see it too.
--
Måns Rullgård
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
The plugin author, in the course of writing and testing his plugin,
must have assembled the combination of host+plugin in a persistent
form.
Yes, but he hasn't necessarily loaded the license incompatible plugin
while testing.
--
Måns Rullgård
101 - 200 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
