-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Karen Hill wrote:
[Snip - trolling]
> PART 4. THE SOLUTION.
>
> The Freedom License is the BSD License with 3 additional Clauses.
>
> Clause Number One:
>
> When software licensed under the Freedom License is modified and then
> relicensed under the
On Tue, 23 May 2006 00:04:16 +, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 May 2006, Karen Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>
>>... And goodbye ("Karen" is a kown troll).
>>
>> ___
>>
Ben writes:
> Does this additional exception clause violate the GPL in any way?
The GPL is not a law. It a model license. When you distribute software
under it you are stating terms which just happen to be identical to those
used by Richard Stallman for Emacs. The terms are yours, and you can
a
The jars have open source licences and allow for distribution under
those licences.
The software will be being distributed as a web archive (a Java war
file, a kind of zip file with meta data for direct deployment in a Java
servlet container). As such the jars will need to be included for the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 May 2006, Karen Hill wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>
>... And goodbye ("Karen" is a kown troll).
>
> ___
> /| /| | |
>
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Karen Hill wrote:
> Hello.
... And goodbye ("Karen" is a kown troll).
___
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__
Does this additional exception clause violate the GPL in any way? How
can it be compatible with the GPL if the clause states that they can
link some non-GPL jars, yet the GPL states all the linked in libraries
(distributed as a whole) must be GPL?
Its getting confusing... and I think some of t
Hello.
I have been thinking about all the problems the GPL causes. My
solution is a new license called the "Freedom License". Here it is:
THE FREEDOM LICENSE
Preamble:
What are the problems with the GPL and how does this new license solve
them? Many experienced software developers know about
On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:53:50 +0100
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you're saying that the copyright owners of the third party jars
> the software uses cannot sue me for changing their licencing terms if
> I distribute the binary version of my software with their jars?
Do the licenses to these
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[... snip GNUtian drivel ...]
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=September&artYear=2004&EntryNo=1578
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
htt
Benjamin writes:
> The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses
This is impossible.
> This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume those
> associated libraries are GPL
Nothing in the GPL implies any such thing.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Benjamin writes:
> So you're saying that the copyright owners of the third party jars the
> software uses cannot sue me for changing their licencing terms if I
> distribute the binary version of my software with their jars?
You are _not_ changing their licensing terms. You _cannot_ change their
l
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 22:41 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> IP licenses are not akin to state permits.
What, Internet Protocol is licensed? Please specify what you mean by IP.
Internet Protocol? Patents? Copyright? Trademarks? Something else?
> They are contracts. The
> licensor can also be
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> whilst with CPL
> you will not be able to license your program at all with the ASL 2.0,
Nonsense.
> but _ALSO_ you will exclude your program from sharing code with +-80% of
> Free Software.
The GNU President's assertion regarding "GPL incompatibility" fict
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >> Linking is not aggregation.
> >> >
> >> > Static linking certainly is.
> >>
> >> Only in Terekhov-Lala-land.
> >
> > I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention stati
So you're saying that the copyright owners of the third party jars the
software uses cannot sue me for changing their licencing terms if I
distribute the binary version of my software with their jars? (Again
this assumes the GPL licence affects all libraries that are linked to my
code).
Thank
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> >> Linking is not aggregation.
>> >
>> > Static linking certainly is.
>>
>> Only in Terekhov-Lala-land.
>
> I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention static
> linking doesn't aggregate in the GNU Repu
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> The license is a conditional grant from you to others. If they fail to
> comply with the conditions you can sue them for copyright infringement, but
Yet the GPL has been cited as a contract, and breach of the GPL as a
contract was alleged, in both of the first two U.S
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code
> uses - that are under different licences.
> This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume
> those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be)
This is nonse
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:55 +0100, Ben escreveu:
> The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses
> - that are under different licences.
> This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume
> those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be)
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:55:28 +0100
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code
> uses - that are under different licences.
> This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume
> those associated libraries are GPL (when clea
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> Linking is not aggregation.
> >
> > Static linking certainly is.
>
> Only in Terekhov-Lala-land.
I gather that by virtue of some truly exciting invention static
linking doesn't aggregate in the GNU Republic. I want the patent
rights, dak!
regards,
alexander.
__
Ben writes:
> The third party jars are used via method calls, not by inheritance. Even
> so the GPL is too vague. I suspect as a small development if it went to
> court I could argue that there was no intent to deliberately violate the
> licence, I intended to benefit society, and due to the vaguen
The risk lies in that the GPL may be make GPL the libraries my code uses
- that are under different licences.
This would mean that any recipient of my GPL code could also assume
those associated libraries are GPL (when clearly they may not be)
This is what concerns me, unless you can prove othe
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:06:59 +0100
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The third party jars are used via method calls, not by inheritance.
> Even so the GPL is too vague. I suspect as a small development if it
> went to court I could argue that there was no intent to deliberately
> violate the licenc
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
>> > believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
>> > to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
>
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
> > believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
> > to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
> > optionally incorporate--is part of the source code
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:21:28 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of
> > the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in
> > the system running the program.
Hi,
Much as I'd like to argue the specifics of the GPL the original problem
still stands.
The third party jars are used via method calls, not by inheritance. Even
so the GPL is too vague. I suspect as a small development if it went to
court I could argue that there was no intent to deliberatel
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>>
>> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
>>
>> The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
>> District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
>> compla
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
>> The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of
>> the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in the
>> system running the program.
>>
>> As it is extremely difficult to d
Seg, 2006-05-22 às 20:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
>
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >
> > http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
> >
> > The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
> > District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> >> That concerns the transfer of particular acquired copies, not
> >> distribution involving the creation of additional copies.
> >
> > Legally speaking, "distribution" doesn't involve creation of additional
> > copies at all. And 17 USC 109 is about particular copies
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
>
> The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
> District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
> complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a cla
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> The source code is not linked with the libraries. The combination of
> the (compiled) source code and whatever library it uses occurs in the
> system running the program.
>
> As it is extremely difficult to distribute a running program, this
> clause would pertain
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > John Hasler wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
>> >> any terms you wish. However, if you don't add ex
On Mon, 22 May 2006 17:59:17 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it
> > uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a
> > derivative work of these librarie
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
> >> any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
> >> able to redistribute it.
>
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Your source code is yours to license as you please. The fact that it
> uses the Java mechanisms to call library code does not make it a
> derivative work of these libraries.
Unless you happen to live in the GNU Republic.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
"Wh
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Hasler wrote:
> [...]
>> If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
>> any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
>> able to redistribute it.
>
> Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they c
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/224798.htm
The second decision came from a different judge in the Southern
District of Indiana and, like the first judge and the FSF
complaint, he found that Wallace didn't properly state a claim.
He said he accepted the allegation
John Hasler wrote:
[...]
> If the program is entirely of your authorship you can distribute it under
> any terms you wish. However, if you don't add exceptions no one will be
> able to redistribute it.
Sez GNUtian Hasler. Of course they can redistribute it. 17 USC 109, to
begin with.
>
On Sun, 21 May 2006 17:55:07 +0100
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number
> of jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
You mean that it uses/derives from classes in those libraries (like
e.g. Lucene?)
> Can I
Benjamin writes:
> I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
> jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
> Can I still distribute the software under the GPL or should I choose
> another licence?
If the program is entirely of your authorship you
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
>But once again: beware of eventual copyright impotence (penalty for
>copyright misuse) though. Your GPL'd code may well end up in quasi
>public domain. Apart from antitrust, see
>http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004248.html
>
> As
"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Ben, as suggested, do not even bother reading what Alexander has to
> say. The GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers, where as
Lawyers? Yeah, the GPL FAQ was written with the help by "lawyers"
(like Moglen and his underlings) with an agenda contrary to p
Hey Ben, feel free to "mere aggregate" and distribute your non-
derivative (under copyright law, not GNU copyleft FAQ silliness)
GPL'd code with whatever you want.
Ben, as suggested, do not even bother reading what Alexander has to
say. The GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers, w
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Why don't you google "No. 100-506, 102 Stat. 2538", for example?
>
> Why should I? It won't explain what "IP" you think is being sold at
> cost zero.
How do you know? Try it, dak.
regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discus
Hey Ben, feel free to "mere aggregate" and distribute your non-
derivative (under copyright law, not GNU copyleft FAQ silliness) GPL'd
code with whatever you want. But once again: beware of eventual
copyright impotence (penalty for copyright misuse) though. Your GPL'd
code may well end up in qua
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> "IP" is not a legal term.
>> >
>> > Yeah.
>> >
>> > http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html
>> >
>>
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> "IP" is not a legal term.
> >
> > Yeah.
> >
> > http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html
> >
> >
> >
> > For one thing, "intellectual property" is not a l
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I advise you to avoid following any advice Alexander Terekhov gives
> you, Ben, since his views do not seem to be supported by reality,
> but instead by self-quoting (up to three levels deep!)
I don't think he really has a hard limit there.
>
Ben wrote:
>
> I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
> jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
>
> Can I still distribute the software under the GPL
The GNU GPL up to the current version is incompatible with the Apache
Software License
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> "IP" is not a legal term.
>
> Yeah.
>
> http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html
>
>
>
> For one thing, "intellectual property" is not a legal term that exists,
> as such, anywhere in th
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Novell has quite different prices from RedHat. So the price fixing
>> does not seem to be very effective.
>
> The price of GPL'd IP (apart from outright transfers of copyrights)
> pooled and cross licensed by Red
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> "IP" is not a legal term.
Yeah.
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ms-vs-eu/article-20060421.en.html
For one thing, "intellectual property" is not a legal term that exists,
as such, anywhere in the world.
How come that
http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tron/open
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Novell has quite different prices from RedHat. So the price fixing
> does not seem to be very effective.
The price of GPL'd IP (apart from outright transfers of copyrights)
pooled and cross licensed by Red Hat and Novell is fixed at zero
(pursuant to the GPL)...
Ben wrote:
>
> I've a program I want to release under the GPL, it relies on a number of
> jar libraries covered under other licences such as Apache 2.0.
>
> Can I still distribute the software under the GPL
Sure you can. Beware of eventual copyright impotence (penalty for
copyright misuse) th
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
> >>in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition)
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Tobin wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other
>> >co-conspirators in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill
>> >competi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
>>in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher
>>prices of their subscript
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Red Hat recoups losses from GPL conspiracy (with other co-conspirators
> >in predatory priced IP that is meant to kill competition) by higher
> >prices of their subscription service con
62 matches
Mail list logo
