"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under
>the GPL is within the scope of the original license.
>
> Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the
> work. I.e. change the license of the original copy
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You are not a licensee, as you are not the owner of the copy. So the
>GPL language does not apply to you when it says "you".
>
> Since I'm in the lawful posession of the copy, I'm am allowed to
> accept the GPL.
Non sequitur.
> Section 0,
Graham Murray wrote:
[...]
> Taking this in conjunction with clause 3b, even if the user is not
> allowed to copy the binary from the system on which it is being run
> then they are, under the terms of the GPL allowed to obtain the source
> code of the program (being as it has to be made available
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once again, I do NOT have to be the owner of the CD to accept the
> license.
I agree. Section 2, in the part about the notice to be displayed on
interactive programs, further reinforces this.
"c) If the modified program normally reads commands in
You are not a licensee, as you are not the owner of the copy. So the
GPL language does not apply to you when it says "you".
Since I'm in the lawful posession of the copy, I'm am allowed to
accept the GPL. Section 0, section 1 (since you are to lazy to read
the GPL) also applies.
It say
With the new one (without advertising clause), relicensing under
the GPL is within the scope of the original license.
Only the copyright holder has the legal right to _relicense_ the work.
I.e. change the license of the original copyright code.
> Only person who can re-license something
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> [... "derived work" (i.e. "derivative work" under GNU law) ...]
>
> I suppose that id "lrosen" belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm.
>
> Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense
> version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> >> employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma
> >> redistribution (into RAM) of an i
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
> >> BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
> >> licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
> >
> >[...] BSDL do
http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ams, fass. fass. ("GNU project doesn't concern it self with open
source" and such.)
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
>> BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
>> licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
>
>[...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL.
> Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
> BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
> licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
[...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
LGPL like clause that allows it.
This
How can I detect the compiler version used to generate a .a or .so
library ?
Depends on so many things, like if the compiler actually adds such
data to the output files. GCC dumps such data in the .comments
sections of ELF files, so you could use something like `objdump -j
.comment -s FILE'
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> by giving me a CD to install on the local server, the license
>> comes into play;
>
>Nope. The license is given to the licensee, and you are not the
>licensee, as you don't get to own the CD. You are only acting on
>behalf of
This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had
understood copyright law to participate in this discussion.
Which has what to do with the rights that are applied to a work which
does not have a copyright notice? None.
Do you know what default copyright is?
David, stop the name
Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me
permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the
license?
Nobody made such a claim, stop inventing things.
Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but
your right to refuse anyone to
I believe the OP must have had the following in mind "software
wants to be free"). A GPLed work was modified by an employer to
suit their business, but they don't intend to release it.
The license applies to anyone who is in posession of the software, no
matter who made the modifications.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Terekhov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
>> employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma
>> redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the
>> employe
OK, you are clueless.
The only person who is clueless is you. You have obviously not read
anything. You obviously have such a twisted understanding of
copyright law that even Terekhov seems intelligent beside you.
If a file has a GPL copyright notice then I am allowed to
redistribute the w
> by giving me a CD to install on the local server, the license
> comes into play;
Nope. The license is given to the licensee, and you are not the
licensee, as you don't get to own the CD. You are only acting on
behalf of the company.
I do not have to own the CD, I only have to b
There is no automatic "everything becomes public" mechanism
associated with the GPL.
Nobody has ever claimed that. Why do you imply that people have
claimed it?
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mail
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
[...]
> employee's own machine, I wonder if that might require a pro forma
> redistribution (into RAM) of an incidental copy, in which case the
> employee *would* be redistributing (to hirself) *as an agent* of hir
Hey GnuPGP junkie, "redistribution (into RAM)" is covered
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the BSDL
> and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on licenses that
> are compatible with the GPL.
Hey Commando, BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't
have LGPL like clau
How can I detect the compiler version used to generate a .a or .so library ?
Thanks,
GI
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I believe that in both cases, the person or entity wishing to accept the
GPL has to be in possession of a lawful copy.
As I read GPL section 5, you don't need to accept the license. It either
applies to you or
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:17:17 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:14:27 -0600
> Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:51:32 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I believe that in both cases, the person or enti
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that
>>would violate the license.
>
> The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that
>would violate the license.
The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require the
recipie
29 matches
Mail list logo
