as documented) on a
NPTL-ed glibc without some nudging in form of LD_KERNEL_ASSUME etc.
See http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;:YfiG?bug_id=4885046
for a particular instance of the problem. If you search Sun's bug
database/the web, you should be able to see more instances.
cheers,
dalibor
(better).
See http://jroller.com/page/dgilbert?entry=sven_de_genius ,
http://kennke.org/blog/?p=5 and http://kennke.org/blog/?p=7 for a few
applications that are currently being liberated from dependencies on
proprietary Java implementations.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.gnu.org
is, given
how many bright people work over there on free software already. ;)
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 03:15:32PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
Hi all,
Commentary by Dalibor Topic: The license is, frankly, still pretty bad,
and contains various nasty clauses: from the overly broad
indemnification(i) part, which has nothing to do with Sun's JDK
software, to the subsettig
them
at hand. I recall that SCO made some expensive mistakes miscalculating
the laws there, though, and making claims from Germany they could not prove.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:46:20 +0100 Dalibor Topic wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
Should debian-legal@lists.debian.org be signed up directly (provided
this is possible *at all*!), in your opinion?
No, please.
Ciao Francesco,
Why do you think so?
Could you
it, since they are the ones who may take you to
court if you violate their license.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would not expect number of contributors to be a problem to
re-relicensing it under an ammended CDDL.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, since
litigation is uncertain -- is a thing of value under contract law.
Weird rhetorical question: What happens when the venue no longer exists?
Natural man-made desasters, political changes, wars, etc all can do
pretty mean things to chosen venues.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
My, what a lunacy. Regarding FSF's derivative works theory, I suspect
that the FSF objective is to establish basis for insanity defense -- the only
thing that might help when someone
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the point here is that a licence doesn't discriminate against such
groups, it only forbids anonymous changes from being distributed.
Yes. If something bad happens to the user (I will not call this
discrimination) in some improbable made
. Daniel Wallace, a famous
platiff [1] trying to make fascinating claims about the GPL in court.
cheers from the gnu.misc.discuss peanut gallery,
dalibor topic
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_%28plaintiff%29
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
has been arrested in
Thailand and extradited to US on similar charges in 2003/2004.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/news/4.html and the license change
did not seem to have been discussed on debian-legal. The discussions on
CDDL in 2005-01 seem to have petered out inconclusively.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
packages which comes with this clause :
9. MISCELLANEOUS.
[snip]
The application of the
United Nations
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Yorick Cool wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
The application of the
United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale
to kaffe.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Walter Landry wrote:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have made a very convincing argument that required to install is
too broad. My criteria is required to run.
I've showed that your interpretation of 'required to run' is too broad,
as you attempt to stretch it in the same direction
, and that's what the
GPL says, and the FSF does. [1]
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] Not everything distributed from ftp.gnu.org is under the GPL, even
though some works are, and they 'require' GPL'd works like GNU Bash or
gcc 'to' get so far as to 'run' in Debian, afaict from the buildd logs
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
[OK. One past-last message, as Dalibor does deserve an answer to his
nice message.]
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can you interpret shell scripts without GNU Bash? Can you interpret
makefiles without GNU Make?
As far as I can tell, from reading the law and the GPL, the bash
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'll use a verbatim copy of my post to take apart your and Gadek's
claim. Please do not take the heat of the debate as a personal affront.
It's not meant to hurt. I very much appreciate your civility in your
e-mail messages, which are a refreshing change from the pissing
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When they are entwined with dependencies, every component of the
collection must be distributed under the GPL.
The GPL doesn't talk about 'entwining with dependencies'. It makes no
such demands.
Can you get an explicit answer
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
You're right. Sorry. Can you get an explicit answer from them as to
whether you can distribute GPL-incompatible applications with Kaffe?
If you believe you need another answer, you'll have to ask them. You
have mine and the GPL's already.
cheers,
dalibor topic
.
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-java@lists.debian.org/msg03572.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-java@lists.debian.org/msg03575.html
Are we done now?
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, which are surprisingly short,
and quite clear, in my humble opinion.
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
cheers,
dalibor topic
the legal status of using
and distributing Kaffe.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thank you Etienne, but since you are not a copyright holder on either
Eclipse or any GPLd, copyrightable part of Kaffe, your opinions on how
GPL applies to Kaffe are ... well ... irrelevant.
So, according to such reasoning, you own opinion
data would go afoul of DFSG #6 and #9, I guess, beside claiming
rights that are not given to an interpreter by the copyright law.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
is whether works are actually copies, modifictions or
derived works. Or all my e-mail would have to be GPLd, as it's loaded
into the memory of a GPLd program :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
There is no contradition between the first part of FSF's statement about
a GPLd intepreter not being able to restrict its input and this part.
The part you quote is not about the interpreter, it is about *other*
facilities that are bound to interpreted data.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
, and is best left as an excercise
to the so inclined reader.
Now, can we please end this discussion?
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
use to
GPL-only data would go afoul of DFSG #6 and #9, I guess, beside claiming
rights that are not given to an interpreter by the copyright law.
cheers,
dalibor topic
time there is a
new release of SableVM to 'market'.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1]
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00026.html
using it to build
something with it.
c) GPL allows users to run GPLd programs for any purpose without letting
the GPL'd program impose restrictions on its data. So much for the claim
about running.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] No, just because there is a string 'java.lang.Object' in a class
file
of it that it wrong.
cheers,
dalibor topic
://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/11/msg00026.html
cheers,
dalibor topic
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is compiled against an interface, not an implementation. Which
particular implementation was used while compiling is irrelevant.
Can you support
relevant is whether works are actually copies, modifictions or
derived works. Or all my e-mail would have to be GPLd, as it's loaded
into the memory of a GPLd program :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
commands like 'invokevirtual',
'add', 'sub', 'dup' and so on. The fact that the bytecode is run on a
GPLd interpreter does not let the intepreter impose the GPL on its data,
just because the implementation of 'add' in that interpreter is GPLd.
cheers,
dalibor topic
mechanism.
There is no contradition between the first part of FSF's statement about
a GPLd intepreter not being able to restrict its input and this part.
The part you quote is not about the interpreter, it is about *other*
facilities that are bound to interpreted data.
cheers,
dalibor topic
head, and is best left as an excercise
to the so inclined reader.
Now, can we please end this discussion?
cheers,
dalibor topic
of intepreter's GPL and data's CPL does not
matter, as the data never becomes limited by the GPL and the license
conflict never happens.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
, the incompatibility of intepreter's GPL and data's CPL does not
matter, as the data never becomes limited by the GPL and the license
conflict never happens.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
, in my non-lawyerish opinion, because
Eclipse's source code or bytecode does not derive specifically from
Kaffe's interpreter or class library, afaik, but uses 'standard' Java
APIs all the way. Just as explained above in the links.
cheers,
dalibor topic
=15416tstart=0
The submitter is seriously misinfomed about what the license text
actually says.
In short: the JRL is a poison pill. Don't touch unless you have to.
cheers,
dalibor topic
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Dalibor Topic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's illegal in the context of copyrights to make copies for
use in nuclear power plants (which conflicts with the fields
of endeavor part of the DFSG
the same could be done for javacc and other Sun-owned software
that's licensed under 'BSD+'.
cheers,
dalibor topic
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? The BSD+ license
doesn't mention a DOE, afaik.
cheers,
dalibor topic
,
afaik.
cheers,
dalibor topic
[1] For example, the free toolchain might have a bug preventing the
compilation. We want to know about such things before they bite users.
Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Well, for the gif problem... I suppose we'll never be able to support
that?
I guess whenever that software patent expires worldwide debian can
happily support gifs.
cheers,
dalibor topic
constitutes a derivative work,
but instead go on about a hypothetical case to prove your point. That is
a very bad way to present your case, in my opinion.
Dalibor Topic wrote:
The language is defined by the Java Language Specification.
not very important comment
But the virtual machine
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Dalibor Topic wrote:
It would have been nice if you had made the arguments of each side
clear, before attacking my position. The discussion has not taken
place on debian-legal, but on debian-java. I appreciate the way Gadek
presented both sides of the previuos argument
not be extended to code outside of GNU
classpath. That stripping would make it GPL, which
would be allowed by the classpath license.
best regards,
dalibor topic
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
53 matches
Mail list logo
