On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No. It has always been understood by the GNU Project that using
kernel syscalls does not make something one program; the fact that
Linus mentions that explicitly doesn't change the fact one whit.
How is the GNU Project's
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
No. It has always been understood by the GNU Project that using
kernel syscalls does not make something one program; the fact that
Linus mentions that explicitly doesn't change
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:29:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
No. Actually linking to the GPL'd library is not allowed
- Original Message -
From: Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:22:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 07:30:19AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
different. The kernel is not strictly GPL'd, but
GPL-compatible. That clause that says system calls are
a-ok, supports the moral/legal intention of the GPL by
requiring such a declariation to be explicit. Correct?
No. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Best on the quality information that I have gained
following these discussions -- thank you -- to say the
same thing that you have Marcus a little bit
different. The kernel is not strictly GPL'd, but
GPL-compatible. That clause that says system calls are
a-ok,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 04:28:55PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, I am worried for our free software community then.
You sound like the software companies that do not want
people to be able to publicly publish security bug reports.
How did the GPL get to its current state then? O
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:22:07PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For example, the kernel is GPLed but will load and run programs
with incompatible licenses. Those programs make syscalls to
the kernel to perform system work; how is this permitted?
It is so different from an incompatibly-licensed
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 06:45:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
challanges that support this.
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't dismiss this as completely obvious. It's not uncontroversial.
For example, the kernel is GPLed but will load and run programs
with incompatible licenses. Those programs make syscalls to
the kernel to perform system work; how is this permitted?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we were talking about is that of library
linking.
I should add here that it is relevant that the callouts to the kernel
are callouts to an
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we were talking about is that of library
linking.
I should add
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we were talking about is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Why is it so different to a published library function?
Apart from convenience of argument, that is.
Libraries are much more tightly integrated with their callers, for
example.
Oh, and you ignored my stressing the importance of
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 06:03:30PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:43:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Yes, it is different. One is a program making callouts to a different
entity, the kernel. The case we
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: Bram Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is something I am very interested in, but as of
now, I am not well versed in the subject. My
searching has found that this topic is well discussed,
but not necessarily well described. Is there any
legal precedence here?
It's a standard case of a derived
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How so? Example: I write a book and suggest that you get another
book, because I am going to identify some page numbers in that book
where the content supports my content. If you don't get that book,
I am going to suggest that my book means nothing.
The combined
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My readings suggest that this may be known issue that
is not well addressed. I am hoping that it is well
addressed or really is a non-issue as you suggest.
It's really very tedious, you know, to think that you help things by
dredging up well-settled discussions,
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sorry that I upset you. I am not saying that I am
totally confused, nor that I read the right stuff. It
is interesting that you claim that I think that you
know better than me, and even more interesting that you
claim that I think that you are ignorant. If
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How so?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
No. Actually linking to the GPL'd library is not allowed if you are
doing so from non-GPL-compatible code.
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: linking to GPL'd libraries WAS Re: One unclear point in the Vim
license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not really understand why, I guess accepting it
in the definition of derivative work is the basis, but
I cannot help, but wonder as I have not seen legal
challanges that support this.
It's a perfectly normal case of a derivative work. When you link
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your last suggestion seems contrary to your suggestion
to post your question somewhere less public. I guess
that is the nature of the beast.
It's the difference between real-world cases that people should
understand, and hypothetical rambling about possible things
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a library's interface is implemented to a standard or similar,
than someone linking to a GPL library version should be alright, no?
This and related questions have been the subject of long and tedious
flamewars on debian-legal, complete with
a) Discussions about
28 matches
Mail list logo
