Hello all,
Let's paste dissension lie in the paste, i promise to be reasonable in any
further dealying with the people on this list, and apologize for the rudeness
i may have shown in the past, be it justified or not.
I am in the process of writing a new firmware flasher for the pegasos powerpc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a derived
work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived work of the
firmware. The fact that they are individually packaged in the same elf binary
does not constitute a linking act, nor a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the user, this doesn't appear as two separate works. He/she/it will
So what? This still does not make them derived.
see one program with pre-loaded data. If you are using already
existing, copyrighted data (the firmware), this means you are building
your work on top
Michael Below wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a
derived
work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived work of
the
firmware. The fact that they are individually packaged in the same elf
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:28:32PM +0100, Michael Below wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a derived
work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived work of the
firmware. The fact that they are
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:24:29AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, linking, generally
construed as stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an
executable file does NOT
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a
derived work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived
work of the firmware. The fact that they are individually packaged in
the same elf binary does
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, linking, generally
construed as stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an
executable file does NOT make a derivative work.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, no, the at arm length is about executable code, since you recognize it
is data, the whole thing is moot and it is not a derived work.
I think this is too quick. See the first sentence of the GPL, it
doesn't apply to programs only: This License
Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:24:29AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, linking, generally
construed as stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to
source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an executable
Michael Below writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, linking, generally
construed as stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an
executable file does
Michael Below wrote:
Hm. So the LGPL is completely useless in practice?
Don't tell RMS, but in my analysis I believe it's safe to link a
non-derivative work with a GPL'd library. Especially if you are
dynamic-linking. But even otherwise.
The problem is that only after Abstraction, Filtration
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:03:36PM +0100, Michael Below wrote:
Do you believe then also believe that a linux kernel with embedded initrd
in a
.initrd section of the elf kernel file constitute a derived work of said
kernel ?
Don't understand... I'm not a developer, just a Debian user,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:00:59AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a
derived work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived
work of the firmware. The
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 12:05:58PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
The combined work is also distributable in the non-free section of our
archive.
I'm sure you mean it, but to clarify: IIF the flash is distributable.
Yep, obviously,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:32:12PM +0100, Michael Below wrote:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, linking, generally
construed as stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to source) files and resolving fixups so
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you are right, we are talking about a collective work. But I
still believe that the GPL demands the distribution of the flash image
under GPL terms, when both image and flasher are distributed together.
Nope, since it clearly exludes it in the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not necessarily so clear. The FSF argues that a program's use
of an API, at least when there is only one implementation, makes it a
derived work of the program that implements the API. This is broadly
No, the FSF position is more complex than this, and is
Marco d'Itri writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not necessarily so clear. The FSF argues that a program's use
of an API, at least when there is only one implementation, makes it a
derived work of the program that implements the API. This is broadly
No, the FSF position is more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not necessarily so clear. The FSF argues that a program's use
of an API, at least when there is only one implementation, makes it a
derived work of the program that implements the API. This is broadly
No, the FSF position is more complex than this, and is
Michael Poole wrote:
Which FAQ question besides this one (with anchor #IfLibraryIsGPL) deals
with programs that use a GPLed library?
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that
mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes,
because the program as it is
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:05:35PM +0100, Michael Below wrote:
A teacher of mine used to repeat that sentence all the time: as a
lawyer, always choose the most secure way. So that's what I would
advise you, even if I'm not yet a lawyer.
Notice that the more secure way is total immobilism, so
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:19:00PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
If you consider that the first one is correct (*), then the LGPL is just
a marketing ploy. :-) If you consider the second one as being the
correct, then the flash-flasher program is banned unless you clarify in
flasher's license
23 matches
Mail list logo
