Paul Jakma writes:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Paul Jakma writes:
>>> b) They are not complying with Section 1.
>>
>> In GPLv2, section 1 allows the distribution of unmodified source code,
>> if the license information is distributed unmodified as well.
>
>> Which unmodified
* Bradley M. Kuhn:
> David Lamparter wrote:
>> The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes
>> for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to
>> try and honour the original author's requests.
>
> That's an odd request, since it
On 20/03/2019, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> This is an example of a common trend I see: social pressure to keep
> non-copylefted code under non-copyleft licenses, sometimes even escalating
> to aggression (as the OpenBSD project did with Linux over wireless drivers),
> while permitting and even
On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
> unmodified files along with the proper license information.
>
> Again: Could you please point to the section in the GPL that is
> violated?
The "with the proper license" part. ;-)
Giacomo
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
In GPLv2, section 1 allows the distribution of unmodified source code,
if the license information is distributed unmodified as well.
Which unmodified GPL source code do they distribute without the
licensing information?
They are distributing files
On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
>> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
>> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one
On 20/03/2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But I think that the GPL says that you have to distribute any derived
> work as GPL.
> It doesn't say that you have to distribute the derived work as GPL only.
Badly expressed sorry.
I mean, if the derived work contains GPL-only code, it must be
distributed
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
>> unmodified files along with the proper license information.
>
> What unmodified files are you referring to?
Section 1 handles the case of unmodified files, and
On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Giacomo Tesio writes:
>> While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
>> are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
>> be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
>> so automatically
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
No, you can't just take GPL of code mine, libify it and say it's OK
for it be used in proprietary code, without my agreement.
Oh, and even if I myself have already put that GPL code in a library,
it's still not OK for you to say "You can use this with
Hi Paul
I’ve watching this thread with interest, and I must admit I’m reluctant to get
too involved, but there are a couple of things I thought it might be helpful
(!) to point out.
> On 20 Mar 2019, at 13:53, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> My example
Hi,
Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
I don't understand what does this matter. Copyright apply to
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> #include
>> int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>>
>> is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
>> own.
>
> It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
> have the vague idea there
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
Paul Jakma writes:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
#include
int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
This work is completely based on my own, there is no intellectual
property of someone else in my source code.
Except for the big
Control: tag -1 = help
Re: Robie Basak 2019-03-20 <20190320142403.ge30...@mal.justgohome.co.uk>
> > > It is well understood that the OpenSSL license is not "compatible" with
> > > the GPL (either version 2 or 3); and furthermore, Debian has long taken
> > > the position that, unless a license
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> Paul Jakma writes:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
#include
int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
>
>> This work is completely based on my own, there is no intellectual
>> property of someone
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 05:28:05PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> David Lamparter wrote:
> > The respective original authors have expressed and reaffirmed their wishes
> > for the code to remain under a permissive license. . .. we have decided to
> > try and honour the original author's
On 20/03/2019, David Lamparter wrote:
> By relicensing their code to GPL, Quagga had essentially shunted itself
> down to the position of any random proprietary relicensor.
I guess you mean that Quagga renounced to further contribution from
these people.
But the point is that Quagga is clearly
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> On 20/03/2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
>> unmodified files along with the proper license information.
>>
>> Again: Could you please point to the section in the GPL that is
>> violated?
>
> The "with the
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by
replacing it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any
references) and legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL
license.
I advised the people, who are now FRR, that
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
Those files do not use GPL code; they just refer to it. No line of that
code was originated in GPL licensed code.
Ah, you're in the "copyright only protects literal copying" camp, and
you don't acknowledge the concept of derived works.
There's
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
OTOH the bits of Zebra he pointed out to me are all standalone
modules,
There are further inter-dependencies between those modules. E.g,, things
like the API that provides the route-filtering relies upon the
event-handling system (lib/thread), etc.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:17:32AM +0100, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The code distributed under a non-copyleft license depends heavily on
> copylefted one, so much that it's not possible to run (or even
> compile) it without the pre-existing copylefted one (that includes C
> headers that are not
On 20/03/2019, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>> It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
>> need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.
>
> After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to
> files
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> A downstream could remove the GPL dependencies (for example by
>> replacing it with a [dummy] re-implementation, or by removing any
>> references) and legally redistribute the result under a non-GPL
>> license.
>
> I advised the
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
It goes without saying that adding a GPL header to those files that
need it would be totally equivalent and more fool-proof.
If that had been done at the outset...
After X years of not doing so, denying the applicability of the GPL to
files which
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
This does not match section 1, which allows the distribution of
unmodified files along with the proper license information.
What unmodified files are you referring to?
I have explained several times now that this concerns files which were
created
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
They don't need to do that themself, but they may want to keep that
path open for downstream. And so their license allows that.
Their licence on their portion of the work, perhaps.
However, the work *also* requires a licence from the copyright
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> While they are distributing the whole as GPL (which is correct) they
> are actively stating that people can take a part of it that can only
> be used as GPL and use it under a different license, while whoever do
> so automatically terminates their own license on the whole
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 11:48 Ole Streicher wrote:
> Paul Jakma writes:
>
[...]
> > Those files are derived works of the GPL code and must be distributed
> > according to the conditions of the GPL licence, if they are to be
> > distributed lawfully.
>
> Those files do not use GPL code; they
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Here I suggest you all to find a friendly solution anyway for the same
reason.
I tried for years to find friendly solutions. Many of the things others
have suggested in this thread I already suggested/explored years and
years ago with the people who
On 20/03/2019, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto:
>> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
>> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
>> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
>
> I don't
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is
> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it
> cannot even compile without the GPL code.
For the license of source code, it is not required that it compiles.
And, taking out a
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
they're all standalone modules being used in a library context.
Derived works of GPL code must be licensed under the GPL too.
Whether that code has one kind of object file header or another
prepended to it is a low-level technical implementation
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote:
You cannot terminate GPL granted to someone without a violation. There
clearly is no violation in the case you’re describing. Your legal
advice is invalid.
I have legal advice, two independent sets, from qualified solicitors
that there is a
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> GPLv2, section 2 explicitly allows aggregation:
>>
>> | In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Progra
>
> How can this apply to a derived work, which is based on the GPL work?
The FRR code is not "derived
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
My example
#include
int main(void) { zlog_rotate(); return 0; }
is not an adaption of any GPL code. It is fully written by my
own.
It is written by you, and you have copyright in it (in some way, I
have the vague idea there can be complex legal
Here are a few snippets out of a private mail on this topic; I've
removed the original mail and paraphrased its contents since I firmly
believe in not publishing any content (incl. metadata) from private
e-mails that isn't my own :)
- Forwarded message from David Lamparter -
Someone
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 12:26 Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
>
[...]
> > and FRR would be entirely within their rights to have pulled
> > these out from the original app and turned them into a GPL library,
> > *with* public entry points, and then ship that along with
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
- I *can* take your GPL code and turn it into a GPL library. That's what
the GPL is for. I don't even need to ask you about it.
Agreed.
- I *can* use this library in BSD code, and distribute both together
as an aggregate under the terms of the GPL
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 14:00 Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, David Given wrote:
[...]
> > - I *can* use this library in BSD code, and distribute both together
> > as an aggregate under the terms of the GPL --- because the BSD
> > license conditions are met by the GPL, so by
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 13:10, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>
> > Apparently they’re not qualified in software licenses and copyrights.
> > Sorry I have to say that.
>
> You're a software engineer, with no legal qualifications or experience
> listed in your
Paul Jakma writes:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
>
>> Those files do not use GPL code; they just refer to it. No line of that
>> code was originated in GPL licensed code.
>
> Ah, you're in the "copyright only protects literal copying" camp, and
> you don't acknowledge the concept of
David Given writes:
> - I can't use this library in closed source code, and distribute the
> result as an aggregate --- because there is no license which can meet
> the terms of the GPL and my closed source license.
>
> - I can use this this library in closed source code, and distribute
> the
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Ole Streicher wrote:
GPLv2, section 2 explicitly allows aggregation:
| In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Progra
How can this apply to a derived work, which is based on the GPL work?
regards,
--
Paul Jakma | p...@jakma.org | @pjakma | Key ID:
45 matches
Mail list logo
