In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if
I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use
their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even
if I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you say: Big deal, I won't link it then. The customer has to do
it. Now if the only conceivable use of the software _is_ to link it
to a free version of the software, the linking
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make
any sense otherwise. In that case, it is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL only covers distribution.
And copyright law covers derivatives.
So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I
thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a
licence. If I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL only covers distribution.
And copyright law covers derivatives.
So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I
thought the FSF's view was that
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier
example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution
of a derivative work of
Richard Tobin writes:
But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has
some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't
distribute the derivative work, where does the GPL come into it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier
example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding my question. Aquamacs (as far as I
know) contains code to access Apple's graphical interface
libraries. As far as I know, there is no other implementation of
these. So according to your
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the GPL only covers distribution. Even if the original author has
some of the responsibility for the act of creating the derivative
in-memory image, the GPL does not apply to that act. If you don't
distribute the
10 matches
Mail list logo
